imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: Able, an attorney, sued Clinton, a client, for his fee, based on an agreed hourly rate. Clinton subpoenaed the attorney's time records for the days on which he purported to have worked for Clinton to show that Able had billed an impossible number of hours to Clinton and others on those days. Clinton's subpoena provided that any information concerning the matters handled for other clients be deleted or masked. Able moved to quash the subpoena on the ground of attorney-client privilege. The subpoena should be:

Options:
A. Upheld, because the information about hours billed is not within the privilege.
B. Upheld, because an attorney has no right to invoke his client's privilege without instructions from the client.
C. Quashed, because an attorney is entitled to a right of privacy for the work product in his files.
D. Quashed, because no permission was obtained from the other clients to divulge information from their files.
Answer: A
Question: Tyrone challenged Dennison to an automobile race from Smalltown to Littleburg, a distance of 11 miles. The only road that ran between the two cities was Highway 17, a two-lane country road. At the 7-mile mark, Tyrone attempted to pass Dennison by pulling into the lane to the left of the center line. At that moment, Pryor's car came into view, heading directly at Tyrone's vehicle. Tyrone applied his brakes and attempted to pull back into the lane to the right of the center line. In so doing, Tyrone lost control of his vehicle and collided with Pryor's car. Dennison's car, having already passed Pryor's car, was not involved in the collision. Pryor brings suit against Dennison for damages suffered in the collision. Which of the following would be Dennison's best course of action?

Options:
A. Seek dismissal of the claim, because Dennison did not cause Pryor's damage.
B. Seek indemnity from Tyrone, if Pryor recovers a judgment against Dennison.
C. Ask the court to limit his liability to onehalf of Pryor's damages.
D. Seek contribution from Tyrone, if Pryor recovers a judgment against Dennison.
Answer: D
Question: Jeff lived in Arkanzona, a state where gambling was illegal. Nevertheless, Jeff gambled on a regular basis. Unfortunately, Jeff had a string of bad luck and needed a loan. Jeff asked his friend Steve to lend him $ 5,000$ to bet on a football game. Jeff claimed that the heavily favored Sabrebacks would lose the game because the game was fixed, and thus he could make a fortune by betting $ 5,000$ against them. Steve, not wanting to miss out on a good deal, agreed to lend Jeff $ 2,500$ if Jeff would bet the other $ 2,500$ for Steve. Jeff agreed, took Steve's $ 5,000$, and placed the bet. Jeff's tip paid off and Jeff won on 4-to-1 odds. He gave Steve his $ 5,000$ back but refused to tender any winnings. If Steve sues Jeff to recover the winnings due under the contract, who will prevail?

Options:
A. Steve, because he fully performed his part of the bargain.
B. Steve, because the court will not allow Jeff to unfairly profit from his illegal contract.
C. Jeff, because the contract was illegal and the court will not enforce an illegal contract.
D. Jeff, because the contract was illegal and the court will only act to put the parties in the status quo ante, and Steve already has his money back.
Answer: C
Question: Sonny was arrested for shoplifting. As Sonny was being booked at the police station, Sonny's mother, Betty, arrived at the station. As she was talking with Sonny, Photog, a reporter for the Daily News, took Betty's picture. The photograph of Betty appeared on the front page of the next day's edition of the Daily News. The story of Sonny's arrest appeared just below it. A caption to the photograph identified Betty as Sonny's mother. Later that week, Betty lost her job as a result of the story in the Daily News. If Betty asserts a claim against the Daily News for invasion of privacy, Betty most likely will: 

Options:
A. Recover, if she was not involved in the events that led to Sonny's arrest.
B. Recover, because the photograph and news story caused Betty to be discharged from her employment.
C. Not recover, since Betty's photograph was taken in a public place.
D. Not recover, because the caption was accurate.
Answer: C
Question: Mom, a wealthy woman, wished to buy her son, Sylvester, an expensive Rolls-Royce for a wedding present. She visited Dealership, a Rolls-Royce dealer, several times, looked at many cars, and discussed possible sales prices with Huck, a salesman. On May 15, after much discussion, Huck and Mom signed a writing that stated, "If we can agree on price on or before June 1, Mom agrees to buy and Huck, for Dealership, agrees to sell one yellow Rolls-Royce Silver Streak, serial number XO857623." On May 20, Mom dispatched a letter to Huck stating, "I will buy the Rolls-Royce for $ 150,000$." On the same day, Huck dispatched a letter to Mom, stating, "I will sell the Rolls-Royce for $ 150,000$." Has a valid contract been formed between Dealership and Mom?

Options:
A. Yes, because the May 15 writing constitutes a contract with a missing price term, and that term was filled by the crossing offers.
B. Yes, because when two crossing offers are identical in import, one will be treated as an offer and the other as an acceptance.
C. No, because there were two crossing offers and no acceptance; hence there was no mutual assent.
D. No, but the result would be different if Mom were a merchant.
Answer: C
Question: The Drug Control Act is a federal law that seeks to control those substances that are dangerous to the health of the population in general. The statute provides substantial penalties for violations of the Act. The Food and Drug Administration has conducted a substantial number of tests on a new drug called Gelutan. The results of the studies show that the drug might have dangerous side effects when taken regularly, and the Food and Drug Administration now seeks to prohibit its distribution under the Drug Control Act. Drugco, a major pharmaceutical company that desires to market Gelutan, sues to have the statute declared unconstitutional. The most likely result in this suit is that the statute will be declared to be:

Options:
A. Constitutional, as a proper exercise of the general welfare power.
B. Constitutional, as a proper exercise of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
C. Unconstitutional, because it interferes with the right of privacy of Gelutan users.
D. Unconstitutional, because it deprives Drugco of property without just compensation.
Answer: B
Question: Fred is arrested and charged with the burglary of Sam's warehouse. At the request of the police investigating the burglary, the night watchman at Sam's Warehouse who had seen the thief leaving the premises wrote out a description of a person who bore a strong likeness to Fred. However, the night watchman died of a heart attack before Fred was arrested and brought to trial. The prosecution attempts to offer the description written out by the night watchman into evidence. The description is:

Options:
A. Admissible as a past recollection recorded.
B. Admissible as an identification of a person the night watchman knew committed the crime in question.
C. Inadmissible as hearsay not within an exception.
D. Inadmissible as an opinion of a nonexpert.
Answer: C
Question: Baxter was heavily in debt and was concerned that his home was about to be repossessed. To try to generate money to satisfy his creditors, Baxter promised to pay his friend Dunn $ 100$ if Dunn would enter Baxter's house that evening and take his expensive color television and stereo. Baxter explained that he would then report the items as being stolen to the insurance company and collect a settlement from them. Baxter gave Dunn directions to his home, which was one of several tract houses in a fairly new development. Baxter told Dunn to arrive at approximately 9 p.m. and to enter through a window at the rear of the house that Baxter would leave ajar. Dunn knew that since Baxter lived alone, there was no possibility that he might find someone within the house when he arrived at the appointed time. Dunn arrived at the location at approximately 9 p.m., but due to the darkness of the evening and the fact that all of the homes in the development looked the same, he mistakenly entered the house belonging to Baxter's neighbor. He found a window ajar at the rear of the neighbor's home and pushed it open. He entered and took the neighbor's television set and stereo. When he returned to the bar where Baxter was waiting for him, both men were arrested by the police. If Baxter and Dunn are tried for conspiracy, the court will most likely find them:

Options:
A. Not guilty, because Dunn failed to take Baxter's property.
B. Not guilty, because Dunn, being in the wrong house, could not take Baxter's property.
C. Guilty, because they actually took the neighbor's property.
D. Guilty, because they intentionally agreed to defraud the insurance company.
Answer: D
Question: Pike sued Digger, the contractor who constructed Pike's house, for breach of warranty of habitability. At trial, in cross-examination of Pike, Digger's attorney asked whether Pike had sued another contractor 30 years earlier, claiming similar defects in another house built for Pike. The question was not objected to and Pike answered that she had had some "water problems" with the first house she ever purchased, but no suit was filed. Digger then called Wirth, the contractor of 30 years earlier, to testify that Pike had brought suit against Wirth for defects in the earlier house, many of which were like those now claimed to be found in the home Digger built, but that the case was settled without trial. The trial court should rule Wirth's offered testimony:

Options:
A. Admissible as proper impeachment since Pike will have an opportunity to deny or explain Wirth's statement.
B. Admissible, because Pike failed to object to Digger's questions on cross-examination relative to the prior suit.
C. Inadmissible, because the best evidence of the former suit is the court record.
D. Inadmissible, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that it will confuse the issues and waste time.
Answer: D
Question: Argus Corporation is privately owned and incorporated in the state of Kiowa. It contracted with the United States to construct a dam across the Big Sandy River in the state of Arapahoe. The state of Arapahoe imposed a gross receipts tax on all business conducted within the state. Arapahoe sued Argus Corporation to collect that tax on the receipts Argus received under this federal contract. No federal statutes or administrative rules are applicable, and the contract between the United States and the Argus Corporation does not mention state taxation. The court should hold the state tax, as applied here, to be:

Options:
A. Constitutional, because a state has exclusive jurisdiction over all commercial transactions executed wholly within its borders.
B. Constitutional, because private contractors performing work under a federal contract are not immune in these circumstances from nondiscriminatory state taxation.
C. Unconstitutional, because it violates the Supremacy Clause.
D. Unconstitutional, because it imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce.
Answer: B
Question: A state penal statute makes it a misdemeanor to "willfully shut off the gas, electricity, or any other form of power for cooking, heating, or illumination to an inhabited dwelling" unless strictly outlined procedures for notice and hearing are met. Shelley owned several small, single-family residences in City, which she rented to various student groups and families. One such rental, a small, furnished two-bedroom house located in one of the poorer sections of City, had been rented to a young married couple for several months when Shelley failed to receive the monthly rent check. She drove by the house several times for two weeks and received no answer to her knocks. Neighbors told her that they had not seen the couple for at least three weeks. Finally, Shelley used her keys to enter the house. She discovered that the old set of dishware and utensils she had permitted the couple to use was still in the kitchen, but that there was no food in the house and all but a few old items of clothing had been removed from the closets. Concluding that the couple had abandoned the rental without paying the last month's rent, Shelley called the power company and had the electricity and gas shut off until she could find another tenant. A week later, the couple returned from an extended visit to the young wife's sick mother in Mexico. When they found that their power had been turned off, they reported this to the authorities and Shelley was prosecuted under the misdemeanor statute. At trial, it was established that the couple had inadvertently failed to place the proper postage on the rent check, which they had mailed from Mexico, and it had eventually been returned by Mexican postal authorities to the wife's mother's residence. Shelley will probably be:

Options:
A. Convicted, because the charged crime is violation of a public safety statute, and she is strictly liable for her action in turning off the power.
B. Convicted, because she did not undertake a more thorough inquiry or wait a more reasonable length of time before concluding that the house had been abandoned.
C. Acquitted, if the trier of fact concludes that Shelley was reasonable in believing that the house had been abandoned.
D. Acquitted, if the trier of fact concludes that the young couple was negligent in not placing proper postage on the rent check mailed from Mexico.
Answer: C
Question: Sam was a famous auto racer and builder of racing cars. He and Bob signed a contract for sale of one of Sam's hand-built race cars for $ 25,000$, the price to be paid and the car to be delivered one week later. The day after the contract was signed, Sam called Bob and told him that Sam's wife, Winnie, who had a half interest in the race car, would not go along with the sale at $ 25,000$. Winnie would agree to a sale for $ 40,000$. If Winnie in fact has a half interest in the racing car:

Options:
A. There is no enforceable contract because the car cannot be sold unless both owners convey title.
B. There is an enforceable contract only if Bob was unaware of Winnie's interest when he signed with Sam.
C. There is an enforceable contract regardless of whether Bob was aware of Winnie's interest at the time he signed.
D. The contract is discharged by prospective inability of performance.
Answer: C
Question: Jack, a 17-year-old high school student living at home with his parents, decided one day to try the old practical joke he had seen so many times on television and in movies where a bucket of water is balanced on a partially open door so that the next person to enter the room through that door is drenched. Knowing that his parents were giving a dinner party that evening, Jack obtained a bucket from the tool shed, filled it with ice water, and balanced it on the partially open door of the guest bedroom, knowing that his father would take the guests' coats and wraps in there and toss them on the bed. Later that evening, Walt, an invited guest of Jack's parents, mistakenly wandered into the guest bedroom in search of the bathroom. Jack's father had decided to keep all the guests' coats in the hall closet, since there were only three couples coming to dinner. As Walt opened the door to the guest bedroom, the bucket of ice water plunged down upon him, opening a four-inch cut in his scalp. Walt was rushed to the hospital, where 12 stitches were required to close the head wound. Assume for the purposes of this question only that the jury believes Jack's testimony that he did not mean to hurt anyone, and did not expect anyone other than his father to enter the room where the bucket trap was set. Jack may be held liable for:

Options:
A. Negligence only.
B. Negligence and recklessness only.
C. Negligence, recklessness, and battery.
D. Battery only.
Answer: C
Question: Police investigating a homicide had probable cause to believe that Drake had committed it. They then learned from a reliable informant that, a short while ago, Drake had gone to Trent's house to obtain a false driver's license from Trent, a convicted forger. Believing that Drake might still be there, the police, without obtaining a warrant, went to Trent's house. They entered the house and found Drake hiding in the basement. He was arrested and given his Miranda warnings. At the police station, he confessed to the homicide. At a preliminary hearing, Drake's attorney contends that the confession should be suppressed on Fourth Amendment grounds. Is the court likely to agree?

Options:
A. Yes, because the police did not have a search warrant to enter Trent's house and there were no exigent circumstances.
B. Yes, because the police did not have an arrest warrant for Drake and there were no exigent circumstances.
C. No, because a reliable informant told police that Drake was in Trent's house.
D. No, because the police had probable cause to arrest Drake. 
Answer: D
Question: Smythe was charged with the murder of his wife. In his defense, he testified that, at the time he killed her, he believed that his wife was planning to destroy the world by detonating a massive explosive device that she had developed and built in the basement of their home. He further testified that he had tried many times to dissuade his wife from her plan and had tried to destroy devices that she stored in the basement. She had, he testified, foiled his efforts by, on two occasions, signing papers for his hospitalization, which lasted for a brief period each time. He said that he had concluded that the only way to prevent her scheme was to kill her and that he had become so obsessed with the importance of doing so that he could think of nothing else. One day when he saw her open the door to the basement, he lunged at her and pushed her down the steps to her death. The best defense raised by Smythe's testimony is:

Options:
A. Lack of the requisite mental element.
B. Lack of the requisite act element.
C. Insanity.
D. Belief that the situation justified his actions. 
Answer: C
Question: Pitt sued Dow for damages for injuries that Pitt incurred when a badly rotted limb fell from a curbside tree in front of Dow's home and hit Pitt. Dow claimed that the tree was on city property and thus was the responsibility of the city. At trial, Pitt offered testimony that, a week after the accident, Dow had cut the tree down with a chainsaw. The offered evidence is:

Options:
A. Inadmissible, because there is a policy to encourage safety precautions.
B. Inadmissible, because it is irrelevant to the condition of the tree at the time of the accident.
C. Admissible to show the tree was on Dow's property.
D. Admissible to show the tree was in a rotted condition. 
Answer: C
Question: A grand jury was investigating a bank robbery. The only information known to the prosecutor was a rumor that Taylor might have been involved. The grand jury subpoenaed Taylor. He refused to answer questions about the robbery and was granted use immunity. He then testified that he and Simmons had robbed the bank. The grand jury indicted both Taylor and Simmons for the bank robbery. The prosecutor permitted Simmons to enter a plea to a lesser offense in exchange for Simmons's agreement to testify against Taylor. The prosecutor had no evidence as to the identity of the robbers except the testimony of Simmons and Taylor. At Taylor's trial, his objection to Simmons's being permitted to testify should be:

Options:
A. Sustained, because the prosecutor may not bargain away the rights of one co-defendant in a deal with another.
B. Sustained, because Simmons's testimony was acquired as a result of Taylor's grand jury testimony.
C. Overruled, because the police suspected Taylor even before he testified in the grand jury hearing.
D. Overruled, because a witness cannot be precluded from testifying if his testimony is given voluntarily.
Answer: B
Question: A state statute provides that persons moving into a community to attend a college on a fulltime basis may not vote in any elections for local or state officials that are held in that community. Instead, the statute provides that for voting purposes all such persons shall retain their residence in the community from which they came. In that state the age of majority is 18 . Which of the following is the strongest argument to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of this state statute?

Options:
A. A state does not have an interest that is sufficiently compelling to justify the exclusion from voting of an entire class of persons.
B. There are less restrictive means by which the state could assure that only actual residents of a community vote in its elections.
C. Most persons moving to a community to attend college full-time are likely to have attained the age of majority under the laws of this state.
D. On its face this statute impermissibly discriminates against interstate commerce.
Answer: B
Question: In which of the following situations is Defendant least likely to be guilty of burglary in a jurisdiction that has extended burglary to buildings other than dwellings but otherwise retains the common law requirements?

Options:
A. Defendant posed as a member of a cleaning crew so that a security guard would give him access to a department store after it was closed for the night, and then hid in a storage closet until the cleaning crew left. He then stole a quantity of jewelry from several jewelry cases, and forced open a loading dock door to escape from the building.
B. Defendant, intending to steal money and valuables from a house he believed was unoccupied for the evening, pushed open a mail slot and reached his hand in to try to unlock the front door. The owners' dog bit Defendant's hand and he immediately pulled it out and fled.
C. Defendant was owed $ 500$ by Victor, his bookie. While Victor was out of town one night, Defendant went to Victor's house to get his money, because he knew that Victor had $ 500$ in cash in a desk drawer and the debt was long overdue. Defendant opened an unlocked window and entered the house. He could not find the cash, so he decided to take a painting that he knew was worth substantially more than $ 500$. He later sold it for $ 1,000$ and kept the proceeds.
D. Defendant, a security officer in a housing project, saw Von, who was wanted on a warrant for drug dealing, through a window of an apartment one evening. He fired his gun at Von from the sidewalk, intending to injure him, although Defendant knew that he was not legally authorized to use deadly force in that situation. The bullet went through the window and missed Von, lodging in a wall behind him.
Answer: C
Question: Cars driven by Pugh and Davidson collided, and Davidson was charged with driving while intoxicated in connection with the accident. She pleaded guilty and was merely fined, although, under the statute, the court could have sentenced her to two years in prison. Thereafter, Pugh, alleging that Davidson's intoxication had caused the collision, sued Davidson for damages. At trial, Pugh offers the properly authenticated record of Davidson's conviction. The record should be:

Options:
A. Admitted as proof of Davidson's character.
B. Admitted as proof of Davidson's intoxication.
C. Excluded, because the conviction was not the result of a trial.
D. Excluded, because it is hearsay not within any exception. 
Answer: B