imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: Responding to an open bid solicitation from the procurement office of the Defense Department, Midwest Technologies submitted a bid for the development of a new flame-resistant fabric. Upon review of the bids, Midwest was notified that it was the low bidder; however, its bid for the contract was denied because of its failure to meet guidelines on minority representation that the procurement office imposed on firms contracting with the Defense Department. Several months later, the project was rebid. Although Midwest did not participate, company officials later learned that the contract had been awarded to another regional company, Great Plains Technologies, after the procurement office waived its minority representation guidelines for that project. Midwest filed an action in federal district court seeking only to enjoin performance of the contract. The court should:

Options:
A. Dismiss the action, because Midwest cannot show a relationship between the procurement office's award of the contract and any injury that it may be claiming.
B. Dismiss the action, because the federal government may enter into contracts under whatever conditions it chooses.
C. Decide the case on the merits, because the procurement office must show that its waiver of the minority representation guidelines was necessary to further a compelling government interest.
D. Decide the case on the merits, because Midwest can claim that the unequal treatment of the two bidders violated its rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Answer: A
Question: On March 15, Venus Viniferous entered into a written agreement with Tipple Winery that provided that Venus would sell 1,600 tons of tokay grapes to Tipple for $ 750$ per ton, delivery to be no later than November 1 of the same year. By November 1, Venus had delivered only 700 tons of grapes, and had informed Tipple by telegram that she had used the remainder of her crop in the production of her own boutique winery's latest release, Tokay With Me wine cooler. Tipple purchased an additional 900 tons of tokay grapes from other growers at the thenprevailing market price of $ 800$ per ton. Venus has submitted an invoice to the marketing department of Tipple for $ 525,000$. The head of marketing has come to you, Tipple's legal officer, for advice on how to respond to this billing. Ignoring incidental costs of cover, you should advise her to:

Options:
A. Pay the $ 525,000$, since by accepting delivery of the 700 tons of grapes Tipple waived an objection to Venus's breach.
B. Pay Venus the market value of her 700 tons of grapes as of November 1, less the cost of cover for the remaining 900 tons.
C. Pay Venus $ 480,000$, representing the contract price for the grapes she delivered less the cost of cover for the remaining 900 tons.
D. Pay Venus nothing, since she will be unable to enforce any claim for payment in court. 
Answer: C
Question: When the latest generation of interactive video games reached the video arcades in State Russet, community groups and civic leaders were alarmed to discover that the most popular games among young teenagers had graphic displays of violence and sexual themes. The state legislature quickly responded to the public outcry. With the stated aim of protecting minors from the perceived evils of offensive but not necessarily obscene materials, the legislature enacted a statute banning the commercial licensing of video arcade games with a specifically defined degree of graphic violent or sexual content. Delmar, the owner of a chain of video arcades in State Russet shopping malls, was denied licenses for a number of video games that he wanted to install at his arcades. He challenges the state's action in federal district court. The court will probably find the State Russet statute:

Options:
A. Constitutional, because for materials accessible to minors, the state may adopt a different standard for determining whether the material is offensive or obscene than the standard it applies for adults.
B. Constitutional, because the statute precisely defines the type of content that is prohibited in the video games.
C. Unconstitutional, because narrower means are available to deny minors access to the objectionable material without affecting rights of adults.
D. Unconstitutional, because some of the banned video games may have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, as determined by contemporary community standards, and thus do not fall within the definition of obscenity. 
Answer: C
Question: Davison was driving through an apartment building area plagued with an unusually high incidence of burglaries and assaults. Acting pursuant to a police department plan to combat crime by the random stopping of automobiles in the area between midnight and 6 a.m., a police officer stopped Davison and asked him for identification. As Davison handed the officer his license, the officer directed a flashlight into the automobile and saw what appeared to be the barrel of a shotgun protruding from under the front seat on the passenger side of the car. The officer ordered Davison from the car, searched him, and discovered marijuana cigarettes and a shotgun. At Davison's trial for unlawful possession of narcotics, his motion to suppress the use of the marijuana as evidence should be:

Options:
A. Sustained, because the marijuana was discovered as a result of the unlawful stopping of Davison's automobile. 
B. Sustained, because the use of the flashlight constituted a search of the interior of Davison's automobile without probable cause.
C. Denied, because the officer's conduct was consistent with the established police plan.
D. Denied, because the discovery of the gun in plain view created the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the arrest and search of Davison.
Answer: A
Question: Dean, charged with murder, was present with her attorney at a preliminary examination when White, who was the defendant in a separate prosecution for concealing the body of the murder victim, testified for the prosecution against Dean. When called to testify at Dean's trial, White refused to testify, although ordered to do so. The prosecution offers evidence of White's testimony at the preliminary examination. The evidence is:

Options:
A. Admissible as former testimony.
B. Admissible as past recollection recorded.
C. Inadmissible, because it would violate White's privilege against self-incrimination.
D. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception. 
Answer: A
Question: Santos agreed to sell and Perrine agreed to buy a described lot on which a single-family residence had been built. Under the contract, Santos agreed to convey marketable title subject only to conditions, covenants, and restrictions of record and all applicable zoning laws and ordinances. The lot was subject to a 10 -foot side line setback originally set forth in the developer's duly recorded subdivision plot. The applicable zoning ordinance zones the property for single-family units and requires an 8.5-foot side line setback. Prior to closing, a survey of the property was made. It revealed that a portion of Santos's house was $8.4$ feet from the side line. Perrine refused to consummate the transaction on the ground that Santos's title is not marketable. In an appropriate action, Santos seeks specific performance. Who will prevail in such an action?

Options:
A. Santos, because any suit against Perrine concerning the setback would be frivolous.
B. Santos, because the setback violation falls within the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex.
C. Perrine, because any variation, however small, amounts to a breach of contract.
D. Perrine, because the fact that Perrine may be exposed to litigation is sufficient to make the title unmarketable.
Answer: D
Question: Alford was a suspect in a homicide committed during a robbery of a liquor store. Barber was a friend of Alford. Police telephoned Barber and asked if he would help locate Alford. Barber agreed and met the police officers at headquarters later that night. After a discussion during which police asked questions about Alford and the homicide, Barber said that he wanted to get something "off his chest" and advised the officers that he was in on the robbery but that Alford had shot the owner of the store without his permission or prior knowledge. The officers then for the first time gave Barber his Miranda warnings. Barber was indicted for felony murder. He moved to prevent the introduction of his statement into evidence. His motion should be:

Options:
A. Granted, because Barber was effectively in custody and entitled to receive Miranda warnings at the beginning of the discussion.
B. Granted, because Barber's right to counsel and due process were violated by the interrogation at police headquarters.
C. Denied, because his statement was freely and voluntarily given and he was not entitled to Miranda warnings.
D. Denied, because by visiting headquarters voluntarily, Barber waived his right to have Miranda warnings at the beginning of the discussion.
Answer: C
Question: In a trial between Jones and Smith, an issue arose about Smith's ownership of a horse, which had caused damage to Jones's crops. Jones seeks to introduce in evidence a photograph of his cornfield to depict the nature and extent of the damage done. The judge should rule the photograph:

Options:
A. Admissible if Jones testifies that it fairly and accurately portrays the condition of the cornfield after the damage was done.
B. Admissible if Jones testifies that the photograph was taken within a week after the alleged occurrence. 
C. Inadmissible if Jones fails to call the photographer to testify concerning the circumstances under which the photograph was taken.
D. Inadmissible if it is possible to describe the damage to the cornfield through direct oral testimony.
Answer: A
Question: The state of Yuma provides by statute, "No person may be awarded any state construction contract without agreeing to employ only citizens of the state and of the United States in performance of the contract." In evaluating the constitutionality of this state statute under the Supremacy Clause, which of the following would be most directly relevant?

Options:
A. The general unemployment rate in the nation.
B. The treaties and immigration laws of the United States.
C. The need of the state for this particular statute.
D. The number of aliens currently residing in Yuma.
Answer: B
Question: Duffer and Slicker, who lived in different suburbs 20 miles apart, were golfing acquaintances at the Interurban Country Club. Both were traveling salesmen-Duffer for a pharmaceutical house and Slicker for a widget manufacturer. Duffer wrote Slicker by United States mail on Friday, October 8: I need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club, and will buy your Sujocki for $ 1,200$ upon your bringing it to my home address above [stated in the letterhead] on or before noon, November 12 next. This offer is not subject to countermand. Sincerely, [signed] Duffer Slicker replied by mail the following day: I accept your offer and promise to deliver the bike as you specified. Sincerely, [signed] Slicker This letter, although properly addressed, was misdirected by the postal service and not received by Duffer until November 10 . Duffer had bought another Sujocki bike from Koolcat for $ 1,050$ a few hours before. Koolcat saw Slicker at the Interurban Country Club on November 11 and said: "I sold my Sujocki to Duffer yesterday for $ 1,050$. Would you consider selling me yours for $ 950$ ?" Slicker replied, "I'll let you know in a few days." On November 12, Slicker took his Sujocki to Duffer's residence; he arrived at 11:55 a.m. Duffer was asleep and did not answer Slicker's doorbell rings until $12: 15 \mathrm{p}$.m. Duffer then rejected Slicker's bike on the ground that he had already bought Koolcat's. In a lawsuit by Slicker against Duffer for breach of contract, what would the court probably decide regarding Slicker's letter of October 9?

Options:
A. The letter bound both parties to a unilateral contract as soon as Slicker mailed it.
B. Mailing of the letter by Slicker did not, of itself, prevent a subsequent effective revocation by Duffer of his offer.
C. The letter bound both parties to a bilateral contract, but only when received by Duffer on November 10.
D. Regardless of whether Duffer's offer had proposed a unilateral or a bilateral contract, the letter was an effective acceptance upon receipt, if not upon dispatch.
Answer: B
Question: Taylor and Scott, an unmarried couple, purchased a condominium as tenants in common and lived in the condominium for three years. Subsequently, they made an oral agreement that, on the death of either of them, the survivor would own the entire condominium, and, as a result, they decided they did not need wills. Two years later, Taylor and Scott were involved in the same automobile accident. Taylor was killed immediately. Scott died one week later. Both died intestate. Taylor's sole heir is his brother, Mark. Scott's sole heir is her mother, Martha. Mark claimed one-half of the condominium, and Martha claimed all of it. The jurisdiction has no applicable statute except for the Statute of Frauds; nor does it recognize common law marriages. In an appropriate action by Martha claiming the entire ownership of the condominium, the court will find that:

Options:
A. Martha owns the entire interest because Taylor and Scott did not make wills in reliance upon their oral agreement.
B. Martha owns the entire interest because she is entitled to reformation of the deed to reflect the oral agreement.
C. Mark and Martha each own an undivided one-half interest because Taylor and Scott each died as the result of the same accident.
D. Mark and Martha each own an undivided one-half interest because the Statute of Frauds applies. 
Answer: D
Question: A statute in the state of Peridot permits the state to seize and dispose of real property that was used to commit or facilitate the commission of a felony drug offense. After Keith's arrest for selling cocaine out of his home, a felony, the state instituted an action of forfeiture against Keith's house and property. After notice to Keith and a hearing, a judge granted the order and the state seized the property. Six months later, after the time for any appeals had expired, the property was sold at a public auction to a third party. It was only when the third party brought an action to quiet title that Northwest Bank, the holder of a properly recorded mortgage on Keith's property, learned of the forfeiture. Because the bank's mortgage payments were automatically deducted from an account Keith had under a different name, no one at the bank was aware that the property had been seized. The only notice provided to parties other than Keith was a public notice published for three weeks in a general circulation newspaper. The bank defends the quiet title action on the ground that it did not receive the notice required under the United States Constitution to protect its interest in the property. If the court rules that Northwest Bank's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by the state's seizure of the property, it will be because:

Options:
A. In any judicial proceeding affecting rights to real property, a claimant is required to provide notice and an evidentiary hearing to all parties with a legal interest in the property before taking actions affecting their rights.
B. The government itself was the party that seized the property, rather than a private party using governmental processes.
C. The notice was not adequate under the circumstances to apprise a party with a properly recorded legal interest in the property.
D. The jurisdiction treats the mortgagee as having title to the property rather than merely a lien. 
Answer: C
Question: In 1956, Silo Cement Company constructed a plant for manufacturing ready-mix concrete in Lakeville. At that time Silo was using bagged cement, which caused little or no dust. In 1970, Petrone bought a home approximately 1,800 feet from the Silo plant. One year ago, Silo stopped using bagged cement and began to receive cement in bulk shipments. Since then at least five truckloads of cement have passed Petrone's house daily. Cement blows off the trucks and into Petrone's house. When the cement arrives at the Silo plant, it is blown by forced air from the trucks into the storage bin. As a consequence, cement dust fills the air surrounding the plant to a distance of 2,000 feet. Petrone's house is the only residence within 2,000 feet of the plant. If Petrone asserts a claim against Silo based on nuisance, will Petrone prevail?

Options:
A. Yes, unless using bagged cement would substantially increase Silo's costs.
B. Yes, if the cement dust interfered unreasonably with the use and enjoyment of Petrone's property.
C. No, because Silo is not required to change its industrial methods to accommodate the needs of one individual.
D. No, if Silo's methods are in conformity with those in general use in the industry.
Answer: B
Question: Deanna was moving to Russia to work in a foreign policy institute, and was in the process of moving out of the apartment that she had shared with Vanessa, who was not in at the time. Just before leaving, Deanna collected numerous items of hers from Vanessa's room that Vanessa had borrowed, usually without permission. As she was leaving the apartment, she grabbed what she believed to be her laptop computer, which Vanessa had often borrowed to do reports for work. Because it was an older, slower machine, she planned to trade it in for a different model at a computer resale store during a stopover in London. When she arrived at the computer store she discovered that she had taken a brand new, state-of-the-art laptop that Vanessa had apparently just purchased. Is Deanna guilty of larceny of the computer?

Options:
A. No, because she mistakenly believed that the computer she had picked up was hers.
B. No, if her mistake as to whose computer she had picked up was reasonable.
C. Yes, because she intended to permanently deprive Vanessa of the computer when she took it.
D. Yes, if she decides to keep the computer or trade it in for a different one.
Answer: A
Question: Congress enacts a law providing that all disagreements between the United States and a state over federal grant-in-aid funds shall be settled by the filing of suit in the federal district court in the affected state. "The judgment of that federal court shall be transmitted to the head of the federal agency dispensing such funds, who, if satisfied that the judgment is fair and lawful, shall execute the judgment according to its terms." This law is:

Options:
A. Constitutional, because disagreements over federal grant-in-aid funds necessarily involve federal questions within the judicial power of the United States.
B. Constitutional, because the spending of federal monies necessarily includes the authority to provide for the effective settlement of disputes involving them.
C. Unconstitutional, because it vests authority in the federal court to determine a matter prohibited to it by the Eleventh Amendment.
D. Unconstitutional, because it vests authority in a federal court to render an advisory opinion. 
Answer: D
Question: Torgeson, a prosperous widower, owned Fruitacre, a large tract of land located near Sunbelt City. Fruitacre was primarily used for extensive citrus orchards, but Torgeson was sure that rapidly growing Sunbelt City would expand toward Fruitacre, and that Fruitacre would be a prime tract for a residential subdivision within 20 years. Torgeson wanted to see his three grandchildren, Hubert (age 22), Dubert (age 17), and Luberta (age 15), benefit from the large price that he was sure Fruitacre would bring, but he was also concerned that the grandchildren be of sufficient maturity. Torgeson suggested to his only child, Diana, that he give her a life interest in Fruitacre, and that Diana's children take Fruitacre upon her death. Diana told Torgeson that she did not need the income from Fruitacre and would prefer that Torgeson give the land directly to Hubert, Dubert, and Luberta. Torgeson arrived at what he felt was a reasonable compromise, using his good friend, Fran (age 55), as the person to whom he conveyed the land. Torgeson's conveyance read, in pertinent part, as follows: "I convey Fruitacre to Fran for life, remainder to all of my grandchildren who ever attain the age of 25 , and if none of them attains such age, to the Sisters of Charity." 44. The grandchildren's interest can best be described as: (A) A contingent remainder. (B) A vested remainder. (C) An executory interest. (D) Nothing. The Sisters of Charity's interest can best be described as:

Options:
A. A contingent remainder.
B. A vested remainder subject to total divestment.
C. An executory interest.
D. Nothing.
Answer: D
Question: Poe ordered some merchandise from Store. When the merchandise was delivered, Poe decided that it was not what he had ordered, and he returned it for credit. Store refused to credit Poe's account, continued to bill him, and, after 90 days, turned the account over to Kane, a bill collector, for collection. Kane called at Poe's house at 7 p.m. on a summer evening while many of Poe's neighbors were seated on their porches. When Poe opened the door, Kane, who was standing just outside the door, raised an electrically amplified bullhorn to his mouth. In a voice that could be heard a block away, Kane called Poe a "deadbeat" and asked him when he intended to pay his bill to Store. Poe, greatly angered, slammed the door shut. The door struck the bullhorn and jammed it forcibly against Kane's face. As a consequence, Kane lost some of his front teeth. If Kane asserts a claim based on battery against Poe, will Kane prevail?

Options:
A. Yes, because Poe had not first asked Kane to leave the property.
B. Yes, if Poe knew that the door was substantially certain to strike the bullhorn.
C. No, if Kane's conduct triggered Poe's response.
D. No, because Kane was an intruder on Poe's property.
Answer: B
Question: A recently enacted state law forbids nonresident aliens from owning more than 100 acres of land within the state and directs the state attorney general to bring an action of ejectment whenever a nonresident alien owns such land. Zane, a nonresident alien, has obtained title to 200 acres of land in the state, and he brings an action in federal court to enjoin the state attorney general from enforcing the statute. The defendant moves to dismiss the complaint. The best argument for Zane is that:

Options:
A. States are forbidden by the Commerce Clause from interfering with the rights of nonresidents to own land.
B. The state's power to restrict alien rights is limited by the federal power to control foreign relations.
C. The state statute adversely affects Zane's right to travel.
D. The 100-acre restriction means that aliens cannot engage in farming operations requiring larger amounts of land.
Answer: B
Question: Carver is a chemical engineer. She has no interest in or connection with Chemco. Carver noticed that Chemco's most recent publicly issued financial statement listed, as part of Chemco's assets, a large inventory of a certain special chemical compound. This asset was listed at a cost of $ 100,000$, but Carver knew that the ingredients of the compound were in short supply and that the current market value of the inventory was in excess of $ 1$ million. There was no current public quotation of the price of Chemco stock. The book value of Chemco stock, according to the statement, was $ 5$ per share; its actual value was $ 30$ per share. Knowing these facts, Carver offered to purchase from Page at $ 6$ per share the 1,000 shares of Chemco stock owned by Page. Page and Carver had not previously met. Page sold the stock to Carver for $ 6$ per share. If Page asserts a claim based on misrepresentation against Carver, will Page prevail? 

Options:
A. Yes, because Carver knew that the value of the stock was greater than the price she offered.
B. Yes, if Carver did not inform Page of the true value of the inventory.
C. No, unless Carver told Page that the stock was not worth more than $ 6$ per share.
D. No, if Chemco's financial statement was available to Page.
Answer: C