imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: Rider, a bus passenger, sued Transit Company for injuries to his back from an accident caused by Transit's negligence. Transit denies that Rider received any injury in the accident. Transit Company calls Observer to testify that right after the accident, Rider told him that he had recently suffered a recurrence of an old back injury. The judge should rule Observer's testimony:

Options:
A. Admissible as an admission of a partyopponent.
B. Admissible as a spontaneous declaration.
C. Inadmissible, because it is irrelevant.
D. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
Answer: A
Question: Owens contracted to sell a tract of land, Overlea, to Painter by general warranty deed. However, at the closing Painter did not carefully examine the deed and accepted a quitclaim deed without covenants of title. Painter later attempted to sell Overlea to Thompson, who refused to perform because Owens had conveyed an easement for a highway across Overlea before Painter bought the property. Painter sued Owens for damages. Which of the following arguments will most likely succeed in Owens's defense?

Options:
A. The existence of the easement does not violate the contract.
B. The mere existence of an easement that is not being used does not give rise to a cause of action.
C. Painter's cause of action must be based on the deed and not on the contract.
D. The proper remedy is rescission of the deed.
Answer: C
Question: While hospitalized, Marsh requested her attorney to draw a deed conveying her home to her son, Simon. While Marsh remained in the hospital, the deed was drawn, properly executed, and promptly and properly recorded. On being informed of the existence of the deed, Simon told his mother, "I want no part of the property; take the deed right back." Marsh recovered and left the hospital, but shortly thereafter, before any other relevant event, Simon died intestate. Marsh brought an appropriate action against Simon's heirs to determine title. If Marsh wins, it will be because:

Options:
A. The court will impose a constructive trust to carry out the intent of the deceased son.
B. The presumption of delivery arising from the recording is not valid unless the grantee has knowledge at the time of the recording.
C. Simon's declaration was a constructive reconveyance of the land.
D. There was no effective acceptance of delivery of the deed. 
Answer: D
Question: Martinez, a widower, owns in fee simple a ranch, Ranchacre. Martinez has one child, Enrique, who is married. Enrique has one child, Ana Maria, who is also married but has no children. In an effort to dispose of Ranchacre to his descendants and to honor a request by Ana Maria that she be skipped in any such disposition, Martinez conveys Ranchacre to his son, Enrique, for life with the remainder to Ana Maria's children in fee simple. What interest, if any, is created in favor of Ana Maria's unborn children at the time of the conveyance?

Options:
A. A contingent remainder.
B. A vested remainder subject to divestment.
C. A springing use.
D. None.
Answer: A
Question: Oaks, the owner of Blackacre, conveyed a right-of-way to United Utility "for the underground transportation of gas by pipeline, the location of right-of-way to be mutually agreed upon by Oaks and United Utility." United Utility then installed a six-inch pipeline at a location selected by it and not objected to by Oaks. Two years later, United Utility advised Oaks of its intention to install an additional six-inch pipeline parallel to and three feet laterally from the original pipeline. In an appropriate action, Oaks sought a declaration that United Utility has no right to install the second pipeline. If Oaks prevails, it will be because:

Options:
A. Any right implied to expand the original use of the right-of-way creates an interest that violates the Rule Against Perpetuities.
B. The original installation by United Utility defined the scope of the easement.
C. Oaks did not expressly agree to the location of the right-of-way.
D. The assertion of the right to install an additional pipeline constitutes inverse condemnation.
Answer: B
Question: Trease owned Hilltop in fee simple. By his will, he devised as follows: "Hilltop to such of my grandchildren who shall reach the age of 21 ; and by this provision I intend to include all grandchildren whenever born." At the time of his death, Trease had three children and two grandchildren. Courts hold such a devise valid under the common law Rule Against Perpetuities. What is the best explanation of that determination?

Options:
A. All of Trease's children would be measuring lives.
B. The rule of convenience closes the class of beneficiaries when any grandchild reaches the age of 21 . 
C. There is a presumption that Trease intended to include only those grandchildren born prior to his death.
D. There is a subsidiary rule of construction that dispositive instruments are to be interpreted so as to uphold interests rather than to invalidate them under the Rule Against Perpetuities.
Answer: A
Question: Ohner holds title in fee simple to a tract of 1,500 acres. He desires to develop the entire tract as a golf course, country club, and residential subdivision. He contemplates forming a corporation to own and to operate the golf course and country club; the stock in the corporation will be distributed to the owners of lots in the residential portions of the subdivision, but no obligation to issue the stock is to ripen until all the residential lots are sold. The price of the lots is intended to return enough money to compensate Ohner for the raw land, development costs (including the building of the golf course and the country club facilities), and developer's profit, if all of the lots are sold. Ohner's market analyses indicate that he must create a scheme of development that will offer prospective purchasers (and their lawyers) a very high order of assurance that several aspects will be clearly established: Of the following, the greatest difficulty that will be encountered in establishing the scheme is that:

Options:
A. Any judicial recognition will be construed as state action which, under current doctrines, raises a substantial question whether such action would be in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment.
B. The scheme, if effective, renders title unmarketable. 
C. One or more of the essential aspects outlined by Ohner will result in a restraint on alienation.
D. There is a judicial reluctance to recognize an affirmative burden to pay money in installments and over an indefinite period as a burden that can be affixed to bind future owners of land.
Answer: D
Question: Mrs. Ritter, a widow, recently purchased a new uncrated electric range for her kitchen from Local Retailer. The range has a wide oven with a large oven door. The crate in which Stove Company, the manufacturer, shipped the range carried a warning label that the stove would tip over with a weight of 25 pounds or more on the oven door. Mrs. Ritter has one child-Brenda, age three. Recently, at about 5:30 p.m., Brenda was playing on the floor of the kitchen while Mrs. Ritter was heating water in a pan on the stove. The telephone rang and Mrs. Ritter went into the living room to answer it. While she was gone Brenda decided to find out what was cooking. She opened the oven door and climbed on it to see what was in the pan. Brenda's weight ( 25 pounds) on the door caused the stove to tip over forward. Brenda fell to the floor and the hot water spilled over her, burning her severely. Brenda screamed. Mrs. Ritter ran to the kitchen and immediately gave her first aid treatment for burns. Brenda thereafter received medical treatment. Brenda's burns were painful. They have now healed and do not bother her, but she has ugly scars on her legs and back. Brenda's claim is asserted on her behalf by the proper party. If Brenda asserts a claim based on strict liability against Stove Company, she must establish that:

Options:
A. The defendant negligently designed the stove.
B. Stoves made by other manufacturers do not turn over with a 25-pound weight on the oven door.
C. The defendant failed to warn the Ritters that the stove would turn over easily.
D. The stove was defective and unreasonably dangerous to her. 
Answer: D
Question: Donna was arrested and taken to police headquarters, where she was given her Miranda warnings. Donna indicated that she wished to telephone her lawyer and was told that she could do so after her fingerprints had been taken. While being fingerprinted, however, Donna blurted out, "Paying a lawyer is a waste of money because I know you have me." At trial, Donna's motion to prevent the introduction of the statement she made while being fingerprinted will most probably be:

Options:
A. Granted, because Donna's request to contact her attorney by telephone was reasonable and should have been granted immediately.
B. Granted, because of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine.
C. Denied, because the statements were volunteered and not the result of interrogation.
D. Denied, because fingerprinting is not a critical stage of the proceeding requiring the assistance of counsel.
Answer: C
Question: Park sued Dent for breach of an oral contract which Dent denied making. Weston testified that he heard Dent make the contract on July 7. Dent discredited Weston, and Park offers evidence of Weston's good reputation for truthfulness. The rehabilitation is most likely to be permitted if the discrediting evidence by Dent was testimony that:

Options:
A. Weston had been promoting highly speculative stocks.
B. Weston had been Park's college roommate.
C. Weston had attended a school for mentally retarded children.
D. Weston had been out of town the whole week of July 4-10.
Answer: D
Question: Darden was prosecuted for armed robbery. At trial, Darden testified in his own behalf, denying that he had committed the robbery. On crossexamination, the prosecutor intends to ask Darden whether he had been convicted of burglary six years earlier. The question concerning the burglary conviction is:

Options:
A. Proper if the court finds that the probative value for impeachment outweighs the prejudice to Darden.
B. Proper, because the prosecutor is entitled to make this inquiry as a matter of right.
C. Improper, because burglary does not involve dishonesty or false statement.
D. Improper, because the conviction must be proved by court record, not by question on cross-examination. 
Answer: A
Question: Lester, the owner in fee simple of a small farm consisting of 30 acres of land improved with a house and several outbuildings, leased the same to Tanner for a 10 -year period. After two years had expired, the government condemned 20 acres of the property and allocated the compensation award to Lester and Tanner according to their respective interest so taken. It so happened, however, that the 20 acres taken embraced all of the farm's tillable land, leaving only the house, outbuildings, and a small woodlot. There is no applicable statute in the jurisdiction where the property is located nor any provision in the lease relating to condemnation. Tanner quit possession and Lester brought suit against him to recover rent. Lester will: 

Options:
A. Lose, because there has been a frustration of purpose which excuses Tanner from further performance of his contract to pay rent.
B. Lose, because there has been a breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment by Lester's inability to provide Tanner with possession of the whole of the property for the entire term.
C. Win, because of the implied warranty on the part of the tenant to return the demised premises in the same condition at the end of the term as they were at the beginning.
D. Win, because the relationship of landlord and tenant was unaffected by the condemnation, thus leaving Tanner still obligated to pay rent. 
Answer: D
Question: Innes worked as a secretary in an office in a building occupied partly by her employer and partly by Glass, a retail store. The two areas were separated by walls and were in no way connected, except that the air conditioning unit served both areas and there was a common return-air duct. Glass began remodeling, and its employees did the work, which included affixing a plastic surfacing material to counters. To fasten the plastic to the counters, the employees purchased glue, with the brand name Stick, that was manufactured by Steel, packaged in a sealed container by Steel, and retailed by Paint Company. In the course of the remodeling job, one of Glass's employees turned on the air conditioning and caused fumes from the glue to travel from Glass through the air conditioning unit and into Innes's office. The employees did not know that there was common ductwork for the air conditioners. Innes was permanently blinded by the fumes from the glue. The label on the container of glue read, "DANGER. Do not smoke near this product. Extremely flammable. Contains Butanone, Toluol, and Hexane. Use with adequate ventilation. Keep out of the reach of children." The three chemicals listed on the label are very toxic and harmful to human eyes. Steel had received no reports of eye injuries during the 10 years that the product had been manufactured and sold. If Innes asserts a claim against Paint Company, the most likely result is that she will:

Options:
A. Recover if she can recover against Steel.
B. Recover, because Innes was an invitee of a tenant in the building. 
C. Not recover, unless Paint Company was negligent.
D. Not recover, because the glue came in a sealed package.
Answer: A
Question: Furrow leased in writing a 100 -acre farm from Quark for five years at $ 2,000$ per year, with an option to purchase "five acres of the land for $ 10,000$ cash" at the end of the lease term. Before the lease was executed, Quark orally promised to have a five-acre parcel surveyed before the end of the lease term. Furrow took possession of the farm and paid the rent for five years. During the fifth year, having decided that he would exercise the purchase option, Furrow planted several fruit trees and built a large grain silo on the property. At the end of the term, Furrow tendered Quark $ 10,000$ and demanded a conveyance, but Quark repudiated the option agreement and retook possession of the farm. He had never had the five-acre parcel surveyed. In an action by Furrow against Quark for specific performance of the option agreement, which of the following is Quark's best defense?

Options:
A. The option part of the agreement is unenforceable because it lacked a separate consideration.
B. The description of the property to be sold in the parties' written agreement is too indefinite to permit the remedy sought.
C. Quark's failure to have the five-acre parcel surveyed was failure of a condition precedent to his own duty of performance. 
D. The option part of the agreement is unenforceable under the parol evidence rule.
Answer: B
Question: Adam and Bailey, brothers, operated an illicit still. They customarily sold to anyone unless they suspected the person of being a revenue agent or an informant. One day when Adam was at the still alone, he was approached by Mitchell, who asked to buy a gallon of liquor. Mitchell was in fact a revenue officer. After Adam had sold him the liquor, Mitchell revealed his identity. Adam grabbed one of the rifles that the brothers kept handy in case of trouble with the law, and shot and wounded Mitchell. Other officers, hiding nearby, overpowered and arrested Adam. Shortly thereafter, Bailey came on the scene. The officers in hiding had been waiting for him. One of them approached him and asked to buy liquor. Bailey was suspicious and refused to sell. The officers nevertheless arrested him. Adam and Bailey were charged with conspiracy to violate revenue laws, illegal selling of liquor, and battery of the officer. On the charge of battery, which statement concerning Adam and Bailey is true?

Options:
A. Neither is guilty.
B. Both are guilty.
C. Adam is guilty but Bailey is not, because the conspiracy had terminated with the arrest of Adam.
D. Adam is guilty but Bailey is not, because Adam's act was outside the scope of the conspiracy.
Answer: B
Question: Powers sued Debbs for battery. At trial, Powers's witness, Wilson, testified that Debbs had made an unprovoked attack on Powers. On cross-examination, Debbs asks Wilson about a false claim that Wilson had once filed on an insurance policy. The question is:

Options:
A. Proper, because the conduct involved untruthfulness.
B. Proper, provided that the conduct resulted in conviction of Wilson.
C. Improper, because the impeachment involved a specific instance of misconduct.
D. Improper, because the claim form would be the best evidence.
Answer: A
Question: Statutes in the jurisdiction define criminal assault as "an attempt to commit a criminal battery" and criminal battery as "causing an offensive touching." As Edward was walking down the street, a gust of wind blew his hat off. Edward reached out, trying to grab his hat, and narrowly missed striking Margaret in the face with his hand. Margaret, fearful of being struck by Edward, pushed Edward away. If charged with criminal battery, Margaret should be found:

Options:
A. Guilty, because she intentionally pushed Edward.
B. Guilty, because she caused the touching of Edward whether she meant to do so or not.
C. Not guilty, because a push is not an offensive touching.
D. Not guilty, because she was justified in pushing Edward.
Answer: D
Question: In Polk's negligence action against Dell arising out of a multiple-car collision, Witt testified for Polk that Dell went through a red light. On crossexamination, Dell seeks to question Witt about her statement that the light was yellow, made in a deposition that Witt gave in a separate action between Adams and Baker. The transcript of the deposition is self-authenticating. On proper objection, the court should rule the inquiry:

Options:
A. Admissible for impeachment only.
B. Admissible as substantive evidence only.
C. Admissible for impeachment and as substantive evidence.
D. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception. 
Answer: C
Question: Meadowview is a large tract of undeveloped land. Black, the owner of Meadowview, prepared a development plan creating 200 house lots in Meadowview with the necessary streets and public areas. The plan was fully approved by all necessary governmental agencies and duly recorded. However, construction of the streets, utilities, and other aspects of the development of Meadowview has not yet begun, and none of the streets can be opened as public ways until they are completed in accordance with the applicable ordinances of the municipality in which Meadowview is located. College Avenue, one of the streets laid out as part of the Meadowview development, abuts Whiteacre, an adjacent one-acre parcel owned by White. Whiteacre has no access to any public way except an old, poorly developed road which is inconvenient and cannot be used without great expense. White sold Whiteacre to Breyer. The description used in the deed from White to Breyer was the same as that used in prior deeds except that the portion of the description which formerly said, "thence by land of Black, northeasterly a distance of 200 feet, more or less," was changed to "thence by College Avenue as laid out on the Plan of Meadowview North $16^{\circ}$ East $201.6$ feet," with full reference to the plan and as recording data. Breyer now seeks a building permit which will show that Breyer intends to use College Avenue for access to Whiteacre. Black objects to the granting of a building permit on the grounds that he has never granted any rights to White or Breyer to use College Avenue. There are no governing statutes or ordinances relating to the problem. Black brings an appropriate action in which the right of Breyer to use College Avenue without an express grant from Black is at issue. The best argument for Black in this action is that:

Options:
A. Breyer's right must await the action of appropriate public authorities to open College Avenue as a public street, since no private easements arose by implication.
B. The Statute of Frauds prevents the introduction of evidence which might prove the necessity for Breyer to use College Avenue.
C. Breyer's right to use College Avenue is restricted to the assertion of a way by necessity and the facts preclude the success of such a claim.
D. Breyer would be unjustly enriched if he were permitted to use College Avenue.
Answer: A
Question: Defendant is charged with assault and battery. The state's evidence shows that Victim was struck in the face by Defendant's fist. In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be not guilty of assault and battery?

Options:
A. Defendant had been hypnotized at a party and ordered by the hypnotist to strike the person he disliked the most. 
B. Defendant was suffering from an epileptic seizure and had no control over his motions.
C. Defendant was heavily intoxicated and was shadow boxing without realizing that Victim was near him.
D. Defendant, who had just awakened from a deep sleep, was not fully aware of what was happening and mistakenly thought Victim was attacking him.
Answer: B
Question: A state statute makes it a felony for any teacher at a state institution of higher education to accept anything of value from a student at the same institution. Monroe, a student at the state university, offered Professor Smith, his English teacher, $ 50$ in exchange for a good grade in his English course. Smith agreed and took the money. Professor Smith and Monroe are tried jointly for violation of the state statute. Professor Smith is charged with violating the statute and Monroe with aiding and abetting him. Monroe's best argument for a dismissal of the charge against him is that:

Options:
A. A principal and an accessory cannot be tried together, since the principal must be convicted first.
B. He cannot be an accessory, since he is the victim of the crime.
C. The legislature did not intend to punish the person giving the thing of value.
D. He did not assist Professor Smith in violating the statute.
Answer: C
Question: In a will case, Paula seeks to prove her relationship to the testator Terrence by a statement in a deed of a gift from Terrence, "I transfer to my niece Paula ..." The deed was recorded pursuant to statute in the office of the county recorder and is kept there. Paula calls Recorder, who authenticates an enlarged print photocopy of the deed. The photocopy was made from the microfilm records kept in Recorder's office pursuant to statute. The photocopy is:

Options:
A. Admissible as a record of a document affecting an interest in property.
B. Admissible as recorded recollection.
C. Inadmissible as hearsay not within any recognized exception.
D. Inadmissible as not the best evidence.
Answer: A
Question: Price sued Derrick for injuries Price received in an automobile accident. Price claimed Derrick was negligent in (a) exceeding the posted speed limit of 35 m.p.h., (b) failing to keep a lookout, and (c) crossing the center line. Bystander, Price's eyewitness, testified on cross-examination that Derrick was wearing a green sweater at the time of the accident. Derrick's counsel calls Wilson to testify that Derrick's sweater was blue. Wilson's testimony is:

Options:
A. Admissible as substantive evidence of a material fact.
B. Admissible as bearing on Bystander's truthfulness and veracity.
C. Inadmissible, because it has no bearing on the capacity of Bystander to observe.
D. Inadmissible, because it is extrinsic evidence of a collateral matter.
Answer: D