imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: Cantebury Trails operated a fleet of touring buses. It owned its own garage for repairing and maintaining its fleet. Behind this garage was a large vacant lot in which Cantebury Trails stored old, discarded, and wrecked buses, which it salvaged for parts or sold for scrap. This area was fenced in by a five-foot high chain link fence, but Cantebury was aware that children from the neighborhood would climb the fence and play among the junked buses. Consequently, Cantebury Trails would have one of its employees walk through the storage area sometime during the day to chase away any children who may have scaled the fence. One Saturday afternoon, when Cantebury Trails' garage had closed for the weekend, a group of children climbed over the storage area's fence to play army among the junked buses. One of the children, Donny (who had been chased away from the lot before and who also had been warned by his parents not to play in these buses), was trying to climb on the roof of one of the old buses, when he slipped on the front bumper of the bus and his arm broke through the front windshield. As a result of this accident, Donny severed the tendon and nerves in his right arm, leaving it permanently disabled. Through an appropriate guardian, Donny brought suit against Cantebury Trails for his injury. Which of the following, if established, would most aid Donny in showing that Cantebury Trails breached a duty owing to him?

Options:
A. It would have been economically feasible to remove the windows from all the abandoned buses. 
B. This area would be classified more as a residential neighborhood than an industrial area.
C. Cantebury Trails could have eliminated the risk of injury without unduly interfering with its normal operations.
D. Cantebury Trails improperly maintained the fence that surrounded the lot with the discarded and abandoned buses.
Answer: C
Question: Dillon held up a gasoline station. During the robbery he shot and killed a customer who attempted to apprehend him. Dillon was prosecuted for premeditated murder and convicted. Thereafter, he was indicted for armed robbery of the station. Before the trial, his attorney moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that further proceedings were unconstitutional because of Dillon's prior conviction. The motion to dismiss should be:

Options:
A. Granted, because once Dillon was convicted on any of the charges arising out of the robbery, the prosecution was constitutionally estopped from proceeding against Dillon on any charge stemming from the same transaction.
B. Granted, because the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits a subsequent trial on what is essentially a lesser included offense. 
C. Denied, because there is no constitutional requirement that all known charges against Dillon be brought in the same prosecution.
D. Denied, because estoppel does not apply when the defendant is charged with violating two different statutes.
Answer: C
Question: A state statute provides that only citizens of the United States may be employed by that state. In an action brought in a federal court, a resident alien who was prevented from obtaining state employment as a garbage collector solely because of his alien status challenged the statute's constitutionality as applied to his circumstances. Which of the following statements concerning the burden of persuasion applicable to this suit is correct?

Options:
A. The alien must demonstrate that there is no rational relationship between the citizenship requirement and any legitimate state interest.
B. The alien must demonstrate that the citizenship requirement is not necessary to advance an important state interest.
C. The state must demonstrate that there is a rational relationship between the citizenship requirement and a legitimate state interest.
D. The state must demonstrate that the citizenship requirement is necessary to advance a compelling state interest.
Answer: D
Question: Dietz and Atkins worked together as pickpockets. Dietz approached Verner from the front to distract him, holding a small camera and asking him to take a picture, while Atkins came up from behind with a knife to slice open Verner's back pocket of his pants and remove his wallet. Verner was drunk and believed Dietz had a gun and was trying to rob him, but was unaware of Atkins behind him. Verner reached into his back pocket to hand over his wallet and was cut by Atkins's knife as it was slicing through his pocket. The wallet dropped to the ground as Verner clutched his hand. Atkins picked it up and Dietz and Atkins fled while Verner knelt on the ground in pain. Dietz was apprehended shortly thereafter and charged with robbery. Should Dietz be found guilty?

Options:
A. Yes, because Atkins obtained the property by means of force.
B. Yes, because Verner believed that Dietz would shoot him if he did not give up his wallet.
C. No, because neither Dietz nor Atkins intended to use force against Verner to obtain the property.
D. No, because Verner's belief that Dietz was robbing him was unreasonable. 
Answer: A
Question: Parmott sued Dexter in an automobile collision case. At trial, Parmott wishes to show by extrinsic evidence that Wade, Dexter's primary witness, is Dexter's partner in a gambling operation. This evidence is:

Options:
A. Admissible as evidence of Wade's character.
B. Admissible as evidence of Wade's possible bias in favor of Dexter.
C. Inadmissible, because criminal conduct can be shown only by admission or record of conviction.
D. Inadmissible, because bias must be shown on cross-examination and not by extrinsic evidence.
Answer: B
Question: Rogers gave Mitchell a power of attorney containing the following provision: My attorney, Mitchell, is specifically authorized to sell and convey any part or all of my real property. Mitchell conveyed part of Rogers's land to Stone by deed in the customary form containing covenants of title. Stone sues Rogers for breach of a covenant. The outcome of Stone's suit will be governed by whether:

Options:
A. Deeds without covenants are effective to convey realty.
B. The jurisdiction views the covenants as personal or running with the land.
C. Stone is a bona fide purchaser.
D. The power to "sell and convey" is construed to include the power to execute the usual form of deed used to convey realty. 
Answer: D
Question: Leonard was the high priest of a small cult of Satan worshippers living in New Arcadia. As a part of the practice of their religious beliefs, a cat was required to be sacrificed to the glory of Satan after a live dissection of the animal in which it endured frightful pain. In the course of such a religious sacrifice, Leonard was arrested on the complaint of the local Humane Society and charged under a statute punishing cruelty to animals. On appeal, a conviction of Leonard probably will be:

Options:
A. Sustained, on the grounds that belief in or worship of Satan does not enjoy constitutional protection.
B. Sustained, on the grounds that sincere religious belief is not an adequate defense on these facts.
C. Overturned, on the grounds that the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion and its expression was violated.
D. Overturned, on the grounds that the beliefs of the cult members in the need for the sacrifice might be reasonable, and their act was religious. 
Answer: B
Question: Johnson and Tenniel owned Brownacre as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. Johnson executed a mortgage on Brownacre to Lowden to secure a loan. Subsequently, but before the indebtedness was paid to Lowden, Johnson died intestate with Stokes as her only heir at law. The jurisdiction in which Brownacre is located recognizes the title theory of mortgages. In an appropriate action, the court should determine that title to Brownacre is vested:

Options:
A. In Tenniel, with the entire interest subject to the mortgage.
B. In Tenniel, free and clear of the mortgage.
C. Half in Tenniel, free of the mortgage, and half in Stokes subject to the mortgage.
D. Half in Tenniel and half in Stokes, with both subject to the mortgage. 
Answer: C
Question: Darren's car was stopped by Officer Jones for a minor traffic violation. The officer recognized Darren as a suspect in a multimillion-dollar bank fraud scheme that had just been discovered by the authorities. She placed Darren under arrest and gave him Miranda warnings. She then asked for permission to search the trunk of the car. Darren nodded and unlocked the trunk. Officer Jones searched the trunk and discovered a bag containing what appeared to be cocaine in a compartment in the trunk. When later tests determined that it was cocaine, the authorities added a charge of transporting illegal narcotics to Darren's indictment. At a preliminary hearing, Darren moved to have evidence of the cocaine excluded as the result of a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Should the court grant Darren's motion?

Options:
A. Yes, because one taken into custody cannot give valid consent to a search that would otherwise require a warrant.
B. Yes, because the search exceeded the scope of a permissible search incident to a lawful arrest.
C. No, if the court finds that Darren's consent was voluntary under the circumstances.
D. No, because persons have a lesser expectation of privacy in their vehicles for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
Answer: C
Question: Barnes had been a beekeeper for many years, making a modest living selling honey in the area surrounding his farm. When he became aware of a sudden demand for beeswax for use in the manufacture of candles and certain types of exotic soaps sold in specialty shops, he built a plant to manufacture these items. The candle and soap business developed so rapidly that Barnes found it profitable to sell his bee farm to Stevens for $ 50,000$. The sale contract provided that "Barnes reserves the right to purchase all of the beeswax produced by Stevens during the next five years at the current market price at time of delivery, delivery and payment to be made at weekly intervals, and Stevens agrees to supply in any event a minimum of 100 pounds of beeswax per month during that period."' When the sale was closed, Barnes's lawyer handed Stevens's lawyer a letter stating: "This is to notify you that I will take all of your beeswax production until further notice."' For one year, Stevens delivered to Barnes and Barnes paid for all of the beeswax produced by Stevens. During that year, Stevens, who was an expert beekeeper, increased his beeswax production by $100 \%$ by increasing the number and productivity of the bees. Stevens then proposed to Barnes that, since he had doubled production, it would only be fair that he supply Barnes with half of his new total, but in any event a minimum of 100 pounds per month, leaving Stevens free to sell the remainder of the wax at higher prices for new uses being made of beeswax. Barnes, in a signed writing, agreed to the proposal by Stevens for the remaining period of the original contract. During the following year, Stevens delivered to Barnes, and Barnes paid for, one-half of all of the beeswax produced by Stevens. As the first year of the new contract ended, Stevens was stung by a bee and, due to an allergy, became so seriously and permanently ill and impaired as to be unable to attend to the bees. From that time on he never made another delivery to Barnes. Jones offered to testify that he looked up Smith's telephone number in the directory, called that number, and that a voice answered, "This is Smith speaking." At this, Jones asked, "Was that your horse that tramped across my cornfield this afternoon?" The voice replied, "Yes." The judge should rule the testimony:

Options:
A. Admissible, because the answering speaker's identification of himself, together with the usual accuracy of the telephone directory and transmission system, furnishes sufficient authentication.
B. Admissible, because judicial notice may be taken of the accuracy of telephone directories.
C. Inadmissible unless Jones can further testify that he was familiar with Smith's voice and that it was in fact Smith to whom he spoke.
D. Inadmissible unless Smith has first been asked whether or not the conversation took place and has been given the opportunity to admit, deny, or explain.
Answer: A
Question: Congress provides by statute that any state that fails to prohibit automobile speeds of over 55 miles per hour on highways within the state shall be denied federal highway construction funding. The state of Atlantic, one of the richest and most highway-oriented states in the country, refuses to enact such a statute. Which of the following potential plaintiffs is most likely to be able to obtain a judicial determination of the validity of this federal statute?

Options:
A. A taxpayer of the United States and the state of Atlantic who wants his state to get its fair share of his tax monies for highways, and fears that, if it does not, his state taxes will be increased to pay for the highway construction in the state of Atlantic that federal funds would have financed.
B. Contractors who have been awarded contracts by the state of Atlantic for specified highway construction projects, which contracts are contingent on payment to the state of the federal funds to which it would otherwise be entitled. 
C. An automobile owner who lives in the state of Atlantic and regularly uses its highway system.
D. An organization dedicated to keeping the federal government within the powers granted it by the Constitution.
Answer: B
Question: Paul sued Dave for making a slanderous statement that greatly embarrassed Paul. Dave denied that he ever made such a statement. At trial, Paul called Willie to the stand, and Willie testified that he heard Dave make the statement on August 4. Dave discredited Willie, and Park offers evidence of Willie's good reputation for truthfulness. The rehabilitation is most likely to be permitted if the discrediting evidence by Dave was testimony that:

Options:
A. Willie and Paul had known each other since childhood. 
B. Willie had been convicted of perjury in an unrelated case.
C. Willie had attended a school for mentally retarded children.
D. Willie disliked Dave.
Answer: B
Question: All lawyers practicing in the state of Erewhon must be members of the State Bar Association, by order of the state supreme court. Several state officials serve on the Bar Association's Board of Bar Governors. The Board of Bar Governors authorizes the payment of dues for two staff members to the Cosmopolitan Club, a private dining club licensed to sell alcoholic beverages. The Cosmopolitan Club is frequented by affluent businessmen and professionals and by legislators. It is generally known that the purpose of the membership of the Bar Association staff is to enable them to go where members of the "elite" meet and to lobby for legislation in which the Bar Association is interested. The State Association has numerous committees and subcommittees concerned with family law, real estate law, unauthorized practice, etc., and its recommendations often influence state policy. Some committee meetings are held at the Cosmopolitan Club. The club is known to have rules which restrict membership by race, religion, and sex. Plaintiffs, husband and wife, who are members of the Erewhon Bar Association, petition the Board of Bar Governors to adopt a resolution prohibiting the payment of club dues to and the holding of meetings of the Bar Association or its committees at places that discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or sex. After substantial public discussion, the Board of Bar Governors, by a close vote, fails to pass such a resolution. These events receive extensive coverage in the local newspapers. Plaintiffs bring an action in federal court seeking an injunction against such payments and the holding of meetings in such places as the Cosmopolitan Club. The strongest argument for Plaintiffs is:

Options:
A. Private rights to discriminate and associate freely must defer to a public interest against discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or sex.
B. The failure of the State Bar Association to pass a resolution forbidding discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or sex constitutes a denial of equal protection.
C. The State Bar Association is an agency of the state and its payment of dues to such private clubs promotes discrimination on the basis of race, religion, and sex.
D. The State Bar Association's payment of dues to such private clubs promotes discrimination on the basis of race, religion, and sex.
Answer: C
Question: Ortega owned Blackacre in fee simple and by his will specifically devised Blackacre as follows: "To my daughter, Eugenia, her heirs and assigns, but if Eugenia dies survived by a husband, a child or children, then to Eugenia's husband during his lifetime with remainder to Eugenia's children, their heirs and assigns. Specifically provided, however, that if Eugenia dies survived by a husband and no child, Blackacre is specifically devised to my nephew, Luis, his heirs and assigns." While Ortega's will was in probate, Luis quitclaimed all his interest in Blackacre to Eugenia's husband, Jose. Three years later Eugenia died, survived by Jose but no children. Eugenia left a will devising her interest in Blackacre to Jose. The only applicable statute provides that any interest in land is freely alienable. Luis instituted an appropriate action against Jose to establish title to Blackacre. Judgment should be for:

Options:
A. Luis, because his quitclaim deed did not transfer his after-acquired title.
B. Luis, because Jose took nothing under Ortega's will.
C. Jose, because Luis had effectively conveyed his interest to Jose.
D. Jose, because the doctrine of after-acquired title applies to a devise by will.
Answer: C
Question: Defendant, a worker in a metal working shop, had long been teasing Vincent, a young colleague, by calling him insulting names and ridiculing him. One day Vincent responded to the teasing by picking up a metal bar and attacking Defendant. Defendant could have escaped from the shop. He parried the blow with his left arm, and with his right hand struck Vincent a blow on his jaw from which the young man died. What is the most serious offense of which Defendant could be properly convicted?

Options:
A. Involuntary manslaughter.
B. Voluntary manslaughter.
C. Murder.
D. None of the above.
Answer: D
Question: Three states, East Winnetka, Midland, and West Hampton, are located next to one another in that order. The states of East Winnetka and West Hampton permit the hunting and trapping of snipe, but the state of Midland strictly forbids it in order to protect snipe, a rare species of animal, from extinction. The state of Midland has a state statute that provides, "Possession of snipe traps is prohibited. Any game warden finding a snipe trap within the state shall seize and destroy it." Snipe traps cost about $ 15$ each. Prentis is a resident of West Hampton and an ardent snipe trapper. She drove her car to East Winnetka to purchase a new improved snipe trap from a manufacturer there. In the course of her trip back across Midland with the trap in her car, Prentis stopped in a Midland state park to camp for a few nights. While she was in that park, a Midland game warden saw the trap, which was visible on the front seat of her car. The warden seized the trap and destroyed it in accordance with the Midland statute after Prentis admitted that the seized item was a prohibited snipe trap. No federal statutes or federal administrative regulations apply. For this question only, assume that a valid federal administrative rule, adopted under a federal consumer product safety act, regulates the design of snipe traps. The rule was issued to prevent traps from causing injury to human beings, e.g., by pinching fingers while persons were setting the traps. No other federal law applies. Which of the following best states the effect of the federal rule on the Midland state statute?

Options:
A. The federal rule preempts the Midland state statute, because the federal rule regulates the same subject mattersnipe traps.
B. The federal rule preempts the Midland state statute, because the federal rule does not contain affirmative authorization for continued state regulation.
C. The federal rule does not preempt the Midland state statute, because the Midland state statute regulates wild animals, a field of exclusive state power.
D. The federal rule does not preempt the Midland state statute, because the purposes of the federal rule and the Midland state statute are different.
Answer: D
Question: Hammond decided to kill his wife by poisoning her. He asked his friend, Jordan, a pharmacist, to obtain some curare, a deadly poison, and to give it to him without recording the transaction. Because Jordan suspected Hammond's motive, she supplied Hammond with a small quantity of Marvane, an antibiotic, instead of curare. Marvane is harmless if administered in small quantities, except for the less than $1 \%$ of the population who are allergic to the drug. Hammond injected his wife with the Marvane while she slept. She was allergic to the drug and died from the injection. Jordan was distraught and confessed the entire affair to the police, explaining that she had failed to report Hammond's conduct to the authorities because she feared that it would end their friendship if she did. In a common law jurisdiction, Hammond is guilty of:

Options:
A. Murder only.
B. Murder and conspiracy.
C. Attempted murder only.
D. Attempted murder and conspiracy. 
Answer: A
Question: One night after work, Dunken stopped in at a bar next to his place of employment to have a few drinks before heading home. While there, he became intoxicated. Upon leaving the bar, Dunken decided that he would drive home rather than walk. Dunken went next door to a used car lot to take a car to drive home. However, Dunken discovered that there were no keys in any of the cars. He then broke into the main office of the used car lot where he surmised correctly that the keys would be kept. As he left the office with keys to one of the cars, Dunken saw a security guard coming toward him. Dunken pushed the guard to the side as he ran past. The guard fell back, hit his head on the pavement, and died. Dunken then climbed into the car and drove away. On his way home, he was so intoxicated that he missed his exit. Making an illegal u-turn to go back, he struck a car legally parked on the side of the road, killing its occupant. Relevant statutes extend burglary to include buildings not used as a dwelling. First degree murder is defined as "the premeditated and intentional killing of another or a killing during commission of a rape, robbery, burglary, or arson." Second degree murder is defined as all murders that are not first degree murder. 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