imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: While crossing Spruce Street, Pesko was hit by a car that she did not see. Pesko sued Dorry for her injuries. At trial, Pesko calls Williams, a police officer, to testify that, 10 minutes after the accident, a driver stopped him and said, "Officer, a few minutes ago I saw a hit-and-run accident on Spruce Street involving a blue convertible, which I followed to the drive-in restaurant at Oak and Third," and that a few seconds later Williams saw Dorry sitting alone in a blue convertible in the drive-in restaurant's parking lot. Williams's testimony about the driver's statement should be:

Options:
A. Admitted as a statement of recent perception.
B. Admitted as a present sense impression.
C. Excluded, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
D. Excluded, because it is more prejudicial than probative.
Answer: C
Question: Miller applied to the state liquor board for transfer of the license of Miller's Bar and Grill to a new site. The board held a hearing on the application. At that hearing, Hammond appeared without being subpoenaed and stated that Miller had underworld connections. Although Hammond did not know this information to be true, he had heard rumors about Miller's character and had noticed several underworld figures going in and out of Miller's Bar and Grill. In fact, Miller had no underworld connections. In a claim against Hammond based on defamation, Miller will:

Options:
A. Not recover if Hammond reasonably believed his statement to be true.
B. Not recover if the board granted Miller's application.
C. Recover, because Hammond's statement was false.
D. Recover, because Hammond appeared before the board voluntarily.
Answer: A
Question: In litigation over the estate of Baggs, who died intestate, Payton, who is 18 years old, claimed to be Baggs's niece and entitled, therefore, to a share of his large estate. In support of her claim, Payton offered in evidence a Bible, properly identified as having belonged to Baggs's family, in the front of which was a list of family births, marriages, and deaths. The list recorded Payton's birth to Baggs's oldest sister. To prove that Payton is Baggs's niece, the Bible listing is:

Options:
A. Admissible as an ancient document.
B. Admissible as a family record.
C. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
D. Inadmissible, because there was no showing of firsthand knowledge by the one who wrote it.
Answer: B
Question: Professor Peterson, an expert on American Colonial and Revolutionary History, conducted full-day tours through the historic sites of Philadelphia every Wednesday and Thursday through the summer months. Peterson's fee for his services was $ 105$, which did not include the entrance fees for several of the historical sites. Other persons and organizations conducted various American history tours through the city for somewhat less than Peterson, but Peterson's tour was generally rated the best by the leading tourist guidebooks because Peterson personally conducted the tours and shared his encyclopedic knowledge of American history and the city of Philadelphia. David had recently moved to Philadelphia, and all of his co-workers praised Professor Peterson's tour, but David was not inclined to pay $ 105$ for a tour of the historical sites of his new city. Therefore, David took a day off one Thursday and "hung around" the Liberty Bell monument, where Peterson's tour started. That day Peterson was conducting 27 persons on the tour. Most of the participants had paid in advance, but Peterson was holding up a sign with information about the tour and handing out brochures, one of which David took. Peterson accepted a few additional participants who signed up on the spot, but David was not among them. All day long, David hung around at the fringe of this group, paying the entrance fees separately but following the group through the different historical sites. However, he always positioned himself close enough to Peterson's group so that he could hear virtually every word of Peterson's lecture, although David did not ask Peterson any questions. David signed his name and address on the register at Independence Hall. Peterson noted this and took down the information. Two days after the tour concluded, David received a bill from Peterson in the amount of $ 105$. David will most likely be required to pay Peterson: 

Options:
A. $ 105$, because that is the contract price for the tour.
B. $ 105$, because the amount of the contract was less than $ 500$, making the Statute of Frauds inapplicable.
C. $ 105$, if that is a reasonable fee for the lectures based on Peterson's expertise.
D. Nothing, because the historical sites were open to the public and David paid his own way.
Answer: A
Question: While on walking patrol in a commercial district in the early evening, Officer Murdoch noticed that a light was on in Walker's Machine Shop. Curious about what was going on inside, the officer tried to look through the window of the shop, but it had been painted on the inside so that only a strip about three inches at the top, eight feet above street level, was still transparent. Officer Murdoch quietly brought two trash cans from a neighboring business over to the window, stood on them and saw, through the strip of unpainted window, that the shop owner's son Tommy was inside with a friend, sucking white powder into his nose through a rolled up tube of paper from off a small mirror. Recognizing from his experience and training that Tommy was snorting cocaine, Officer Murdoch knocked at the front door to the shop, and Tommy let him in. Murdoch immediately arrested Tommy and his friend. In the back room of the shop through whose window he had peered, Murdoch found and seized several grams of cocaine, a razor blade, and a mirror. In Tommy's subsequent prosecution for possession of cocaine, Tommy seeks to bar introduction of the cocaine, mirror, and razor blade into evidence. His motion will probably be:

Options:
A. Granted, because Officer Murdoch could not have known that Tommy was snorting cocaine absent a chemical test of the substance being snorted.
B. Granted, because Officer Murdoch violated Tommy's reasonable expectation of privacy.
C. Denied, because the search was incident to a valid arrest.
D. Denied, because Tommy consented to Officer Murdoch's entry into the shop. 
Answer: B
Question: Downs was indicted in state court for bribing a public official. During the course of the investigation, police had demanded and received from Downs's bank the records of Downs's checking account for the preceding two years. The records contained incriminating evidence. On the basis of a claim of violation of his constitutional rights, Downs moves to prevent the introduction of the records in evidence. His motion should be:

Options:
A. Granted, because a search warrant should have been secured for seizure of the records.
B. Granted, because the records covered such an extensive period of time that their seizure unreasonably invaded Downs's right of privacy.
C. Denied, because the potential destructibility of the records, coupled with the public interest in proper enforcement of the criminal laws, created an exigent situation justifying the seizure.
D. Denied, because the records were business records of the bank in which Downs had no legitimate expectation of privacy.
Answer: D
Question: Nolan was negligently driving down the road, not paying attention to where he was going. Because of this, he hit and seriously injured Sue, who was lawfully crossing the street. The accident was witnessed by Martha, who suffered extreme emotional distress that physically affected her nervous system. Martha brings suit against Nolan for negligent infliction of emotional distress in a jurisdiction that has not adopted the "foreseeability" test for this tort. The most likely result of the suit will be that:

Options:
A. Martha will win, because she witnessed Sue being seriously injured by Nolan.
B. Martha will win, because severe shock to the nervous system constitutes a physical injury.
C. Martha will lose, unless she was crossing the street with Sue.
D. Martha will lose, unless she was a close relative of Sue. 
Answer: C
Question: At a time when Ogawa held Lot 1 in the Fairoaks subdivision in fee simple, Vine executed a warranty deed that recited that Vine conveyed Lot 1, Fairoaks, to Purvis. The deed was promptly and duly recorded. After the recording of the deed from Vine to Purvis, Ogawa conveyed Lot 1 to Vine by a warranty deed that was promptly and duly recorded. Later, Vine conveyed the property to Rand by warranty deed and the deed was promptly and duly recorded. Rand paid the fair market value of Lot 1 and had no knowledge of any claim of Purvis. In an appropriate action, Rand and Purvis contest title to Lot 1 . In this action, judgment should be for:

Options:
A. Purvis, because Purvis's deed is senior to Rand's.
B. Rand, because Rand paid value without notice of Purvis's claim.
C. Purvis or Rand, depending on whether a subsequent grantee is bound, at common law, by the doctrine of estoppel by deed.
D. Purvis or Rand, depending on whether Purvis's deed is deemed recorded in Rand's chain of title.
Answer: D
Question: In 1980 Omar, the owner in fee simple absolute, conveyed Stoneacre, a five-acre tract of land. The relevant, operative words of the deed conveyed to "Church [a duly organized religious body having power to hold property] for the life of my son, Carl, and from and after the death of my said son, Carl, to all of my grandchildren and their heirs and assigns in equal shares; provided that Church shall use the premises for church purposes only." In an existing building on Stoneacre, Church immediately began to conduct religious services and other activities normally associated with a church. In 1995, Church granted to Darin a right to remove sand and gravel from a one-half acre portion of Stoneacre upon the payment of royalty. Darin has regularly removed sand and gravel since 1995 and paid a royalty to Church. Church has continued to conduct religious services and other church activities on Stoneacre. All four of the living grandchildren of Omar, joined by a guardian ad litem to represent unborn grandchildren, instituted suit against Church and Darin seeking damages for the removal of sand and gravel and an injunction preventing further acts of removal. There is no applicable statute. Which of the following best describes the likely disposition of this lawsuit?

Options:
A. The plaintiffs should succeed, because the interest of Church terminated with the first removal of sand and gravel.
B. Church and Darin should be enjoined, and damages should be recovered but impounded for future distribution.
C. The injunction should be granted, but damages should be denied, because Omar and Carl are not parties to the action.
D. Damages should be awarded, but the injunction should be denied.
Answer: B
Question: According to a statute of the state of Kiowa, a candidate for state office may have his name placed on the official election ballot only if he files with the appropriate state official a petition containing a specified number of voter signatures. Roderick failed to get his name placed on the state ballot as an independent candidate for governor because he failed to file a petition with the number of voter signatures required by state statute. In a suit against the appropriate state officials in federal district court, Roderick sought an injunction against the petition signature requirement on the ground that it was unconstitutional. Which of the following, if established, constitutes the strongest argument for Roderick?

Options:
A. Compliance with the petition signature requirement is burdensome.
B. The objectives of the statute could be satisfactorily achieved by less burdensome means.
C. Because of the petition signature requirement, very few independent candidates have ever succeeded in getting on the ballot.
D. The motivation for the statute was a desire to keep candidates off the ballot if they did not have strong support among voters. 
Answer: B
Question: Congress passes an act requiring that all owners of bicycles in the United States register them with a federal bicycle registry. The purpose of the law is to provide reliable evidence of ownership to reduce bicycle theft. No fee is charged for the registration. Although most stolen bicycles are kept or resold by the thieves in the same cities in which the bicycles were stolen, an increasing number of bicycles are being taken to cities in other states for resale. Is this act of Congress constitutional?

Options:
A. Yes, because Congress has the power to regulate property for the general welfare.
B. Yes, because Congress could determine that, in inseverable aggregates, bicycle thefts affect interstate commerce.
C. No, because most stolen bicycles remain within the state in which they were stolen.
D. No, because the registration of vehicles is a matter reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
Answer: B
Question: Talbot and Rogers, as lessees, signed a valid lease for a house. Lane, the landlord, duly executed the lease and delivered possession of the premises to the lessees. During the term of the lease, Rogers verbally invited Andrews to share the house with the lessees. Andrews agreed to pay part of the rent to Lane, who did not object to this arrangement, despite a provision in the lease that provided that "any assignment, subletting or transfer of any rights under this lease without the express written consent of the landlord is strictly prohibited, null and void." Talbot objected to Andrews's moving in, even if Andrews were to pay a part of the rent. When Andrews moved in, Talbot brought an appropriate action against Lane, Rogers, and Andrews for a declaratory judgment that Rogers had no right to assign. Rogers's defense was that he and Talbot were tenants in common of a term for years, and that he, Rogers, had a right to assign a fractional interest in his undivided onehalf interest. In this action, Talbot will:

Options:
A. Prevail, because a co-tenant has no right to assign all or any part of a leasehold without the consent of all interested parties.
B. Prevail, because the lease provision prohibits assignment.
C. Not prevail, because he is not the beneficiary of the nonassignment provision in the lease.
D. Not prevail, because his claim amounts to a void restraint on alienation.
Answer: C
Question: John Smith has denied his purported signature on a letter that has become critical in a breach of contract suit between Smith and Miller. At trial, Miller's counsel calls Alice, a teacher, who testifies that she taught John Smith mathematics in school 10 years earlier, knows his signature, and proposes to testify that the signature to the letter is that of John Smith. Smith's counsel objects. The trial judge should:

Options:
A. Sustain the objection on the ground that identification of handwriting requires expert testimony and the teacher does not, per se, qualify as an expert.
B. Sustain the objection on the ground that the best evidence of Smith's handwriting would be testimony by a person who had examined his writing more recently than 10 years ago.
C. Overrule the objection on the ground that a schoolteacher qualifies as an expert witness for the purpose of identifying handwriting.
D. Overrule the objection on the ground that a layman may identify handwriting if he has seen the person in question write, and has an opinion concerning the writing in question. 
Answer: D
Question: A statute in a jurisdiction makes it a crime to sell ammunition to a minor (defined as a person under the age of 18). The courts have interpreted this statute as creating a strict liability offense that does not require knowledge of the age of the purchaser and as creating vicarious liability. Duncan, who was 16 years old, but looked four or five years older, entered a store owned by Mathews and asked a clerk for a box of .22 caliber shells. Mathews had instructed her employees not to sell ammunition to minors. The clerk asked Duncan his age. Duncan said he was 20 . The clerk then placed a box of shells on the counter and asked, "Anything else?" Duncan said that was all he wanted but then discovered he did not have enough money to pay for the shells, so the clerk put the box back onto the shelf. If Mathews, the owner of the store, is charged with attempting to violate the statute, her best argument would be that:

Options:
A. It was impossible for the sale to have occurred.
B. She had strictly instructed her employees not to sell ammunition to minors.
C. Duncan lied about his age.
D. The clerk did not have the mental state needed for attempt. 
Answer: D
Question: In 1975, Hubert Green executed his will which in pertinent part provided, "I hereby give, devise, and bequeath Greenvale to my surviving widow for life, remainder to such of my children as shall live to attain the age of 30 years, but if any child dies under the age of 30 years survived by a child or children, such child or children shall take and receive the share which his, her, or their parent would have received had such parent lived to attain the age of 30 years." At the date of writing his will, Green was married to Susan, and they had two children, Allan and Beth. Susan died in 1980 and Hubert married Waverly in 1982. At his death in 1990 , Green was survived by his wife, Waverly, and three children, Allan, Beth, and Carter. Carter, who was born in 1984, was his child by Waverly. In a jurisdiction that recognizes the common law Rule Against Perpetuities unmodified by statute, the result of the application of the Rule is that the:

Options:
A. Remainder to the children and to the grandchildren is void because Green could have subsequently married a person who was unborn at the time Green executed his will.
B. Remainder to the children is valid, but the substitutionary gift to the grandchildren is void because Green could have subsequently married a person who was unborn at the time Green executed his will.
C. Gift in remainder to Allan and Beth or their children is valid, but the gift to Carter or his children is void.
D. Remainder to the children and the substitutionary gift to the grandchildren are valid.
Answer: D
Question: Defendant was charged with murder. His principal defense was that he had killed in hot blood and should be guilty only of manslaughter. The judge instructed the jury that the state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that the killing was presumed to be murder, and that the charge could be reduced to manslaughter, and Defendant accordingly found guilty of this lesser offense, if Defendant showed by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the killing was committed in the heat of passion on sudden provocation. Defendant was convicted of murder. On appeal, he seeks a new trial and claims error in the judge's instructions to the jury. Defendant's conviction will most probably be:

Options:
A. Affirmed, because the judge carefully advised the jury of the state's obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
B. Affirmed, because Defendant's burden to show hot blood was not one of ultimate persuasion but only one of producing evidence to rebut a legitimate presumption.
C. Reversed, because the instruction put a burden on Defendant that denied him due process of law.
D. Reversed, because presumptions have a highly prejudicial effect and thus cannot be used on behalf of the state in a criminal case.
Answer: C
Question: Brown contended that Green owed him $ 6,000$. Green denied that he owed Brown anything. Tired of the dispute, Green eventually signed a promissory note by which he promised to pay Brown $ 5,000$ in settlement of their dispute. In an action by Brown against Green on the promissory note, which of the following, if true, would afford Green the best defense?

Options:
A. Although Brown honestly believed that $ 6,000$ was owed by Green, Green knew that it was not owed.
B. Although Brown knew that the debt was not owed, Green honestly was in doubt whether it was owed.
C. The original claim was based on an oral agreement, which the Statute of Frauds required to be in writing.
D. The original claim was an action on a contract, which was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
Answer: B
Question: Rimm and Hill were fooling around with a pistol in Hill's den. Rimm aimed the pistol in Hill's direction and fired three shots slightly to Hill's right. One shot ricocheted off the wall and struck Hill in the back, killing him instantly. The most serious crime of which Rimm can be convicted is:

Options:
A. Murder.
B. Voluntary manslaughter.
C. Involuntary manslaughter.
D. Assault with a dangerous weapon.
Answer: A
Question: Alpha and Beta made a written contract pursuant to which Alpha promised to convey a specified apartment house to Beta in return for Beta's promise (1) to convey a 100 -acre farm to Alpha and (2) to pay Alpha $ 1,000$ in cash six months after the exchange of the apartment house and the farm. The contract contained the following provision: "It is understood and agreed that Beta's obligation to pay the $ 1,000$ six months after the exchange of the apartment house and the farm shall be voided if Alpha has not, within three months after the aforesaid exchange, removed the existing shed in the parking area in the rear of the said apartment house." Federal taxpayer Allen challenges the provision that allows the distribution of free textbooks to students in a private school where religious instruction is included in the curriculum. On the question of the adequacy of Allen's standing to raise the constitutional question, the most likely result is that standing will be:

Options:
A. Sustained, because any congressional spending authorization can be challenged by any taxpayer.
B. Sustained, because the challenge to the exercise of congressional spending power is based on a claimed violation of specific constitutional limitations on the exercise of such power.
C. Denied, because there is insufficient nexus between the taxpayer and the challenged expenditures.
Answer: B