imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: Carter, a nonunion carpenter, went to work on a construction project that was involved in a labor dispute. Every morning when he arrived at work, he would be accosted by the picketers who would try to persuade him not to continue to work. One morning while Carter was trying to get to work, one of the union workers, John, stopped Carter at the gate and told him that he shouldn't go to work. When Carter insisted that John get out of the way, John said, "Try to make me, scab!" Carter, intending to frighten John, swung his hammer at him. The head on the hammer, however, was defective and it flew off, hitting John in the face. John sues Carter for battery. Most likely he will:

Options:
A. Prevail, because he was struck by the hammer head.
B. Prevail, unless he intended to provoke Carter.
C. Not prevail, because the negligence of the manufacturer of the hammer was the direct cause of the injury.
D. Not prevail, if a reasonable person would have been angered by what John had said.
Answer: A
Question: The state of North Freedonia has long had a reputation for growing the biggest and tastiest potatoes in the country. Growers of potatoes in North Freedonia recently began spraying Bugoff onto their crops to prevent the spread of the Potato Maggot, an insect that can destroy young potato plants. Bugoff is manufactured exclusively by Growit, Inc., at its plant in South Freedonia. When the plant is producing Bugoff it emits a fine, sticky, harmless mist as a byproduct. The mist drifts over Clampett's property which is adjacent to Growit's plant. Although Growit uses the best technology available, it is unable to prevent the release of the mist. Clampett brings suit against Growit on the theory of private nuisance to enjoin the production of Bugoff at the South Freedonia plant. Which of the following facts, if established, will be most helpful to Growit's defense?

Options:
A. Growit commenced the manufacture of Bugoff at the South Freedonia plant three years before Clampett acquired the land adjacent to the plant.
B. Federal, state, and local agencies approved the design of the plant and equipment used to produce Bugoff.
C. The principal users of Bugoff are State and Federal Departments of Agriculture.
D. Bugoff is the only pesticide that can safely and effectively kill the Potato Maggot, which, if not controlled, would destroy North Freedonia's potato crop, its principal product.
Answer: D
Question: The United States General Accounting Office issued a call for competitive bids for a contract to supply the National Park Service with 3,000 four-wheel drive utility vehicles; the detailed specifications for the vehicles were included in the announcement. Auto Modifiers, Inc., of the state of Midwest won the contract as low bidder and began manufacture of the vehicles. Midwest statutes require that automobiles manufactured in that state be equipped with certain antipollution devices and have a maximum displacement of 2,500 cubic centimeters. The specifications of the federal contract require Auto Modifiers to manufacture the utility vehicles without the antipollution devices and with engines with a displacement of 4,000 cubic centimeters. When the president of Auto Modifiers learns that the Midwest Attorney General's office is investigating the manufacture of the government vehicles, he instructs his legal department to take affirmative action to protect the company. Auto Modifiers then files suit in state court for declaratory relief, seeking a judicial declaration that the state statute prescribing antipollution devices and engine size may not be enforced as to it. The court should rule:

Options:
A. The statute may not constitutionally be applied to Auto Modifiers in this instance because to do so would violate the $\mathrm{Su}-$ premacy Clause.
B. The statute may not constitutionally be applied to Auto Modifiers because to do so would violate the Contracts Clause.
C. The statute may not constitutionally be applied to Auto Modifiers because to do so would violate the Commerce Clause.
D. All of the above.
Answer: A
Question: The large metropolitan areas of East Rabbit's Foot and West Rabbit's Foot, Wyoming, lie adjacent to each other on the county line separating, respectively, Pecos and Tuscaloosa Counties, each city being entirely within its respective county. Wyoming state law grants each county great autonomy in setting the health standards governing the preparation, packaging, transportation, and sale of foodstuffs. The Pecos County council recently enacted an ordinance, valid under the constitution and statutes of Wyoming, prohibiting the packaging and sale of any food item in any nonbiodegradable material; the ordinance defines nonbiodegradable and specifically lists as prohibited all forms of plastics, cellophane, or similar materials. The ordinance specifically exempts from its terms sales of food to public institutions such as hospitals, jails, and schools. Snak-Mart, a retail food seller in East Rabbit's Foot, files an appropriate court action attacking the Pecos County ordinance on the grounds that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court should rule:

Options:
A. For Snak-Mart, because the state's interests could be effectuated by alternative methods less intrusive upon Snak-Mart's constitutional rights.
B. For Snak-Mart, because no compelling state interest is served by the challenged ordinance.
C. For Pecos County, because the state may regulate in this area as Congress has not entered the field.
D. For Pecos County, because the ordinance is rationally related to a legitimate state interest-the health and safety of its citizens. 
Answer: D
Question: The Bedford City Council enacted an ordinance regarding the right to parade in the streets of Bedford. The ordinance provided that city officials should automatically issue a parade permit to any group filing the proper papers with city authorities, except in situations where a prior group had already received permission to parade on the same street at the same time on the same day. Another city ordinance prescribed fines for persons conducting a parade in the city of Bedford without a permit. The Reverend Jim, leader of the Poor People's Association ("PPA"), filed appropriate papers with city officials to parade down Main Street in the city of Bedford at 1 p.m. on July 15 . City officials checked their records and noted that they had already issued a parade permit to the Little League Baseball Supporters to conduct a parade on Main Street at 1 p.m. on July 15 . The officials told Jim that he could not have a parade permit for the time and place requested and suggested that Jim select another day and/or location. Jim refused and told the city officials, "This is yet another insult to the poor from this administration. We poor people will march on Main Street any time we please, with or without your permits!" On July 15 at 1 p.m. both Little League and PPA assembled on Main Street and began to parade. There was much confusion. City officials asked Jim and his followers to desist, but they refused. Jim and other PPA supporters were arrested, convicted, and fined under the city ordinance. If Jim and other convicted PPA members seek to have their convictions overturned by the federal courts, they will:

Options:
A. Lose, because Jim should have gone to federal court to secure PPA's rights before violating the ordinance.
B. Lose, because the Bedford ordinances are a reasonable restriction on time, place, and manner of speech and were not applied in a discriminatory manner.
C. Lose, because the Bedford ordinances represented the will of the people as expressed through the city council. 
D. Win, because the Bedford ordinances, on their face, violate the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment.
Answer: B
Question: Photog, a freelance professional photographer, went to Department Store to purchase some film. As he was leaving the store, he noticed that Actress, a well-known Hollywood starlet, was browsing through the women's clothing department in Department Store. Photog took a picture of Actress in the clothing department without Actress's knowledge. Several days later, Photog took the photograph to the manager of Department Store and sold him the picture, explaining that Actress had agreed that Department Store could use the photograph in an advertising campaign. The manager enlarged the photograph and hung it above the main entrance to Department Store with a caption that read, "The store where Actress shops." One month earlier, Actress had entered into a contract with Hardware Store, the terms of which provided that Hardware Store had the exclusive right to use Actress's name and likeness for advertising purposes. As a result of the photograph's appearing at Department Store, Hardware Store canceled its contract with Actress. If Actress asserts a claim based on invasion of privacy against Department Store, will Actress prevail?

Options:
A. Yes, because Department Store, without Actress's permission, used Actress's picture for profit.
B. Yes, because Photog had no right to take Actress's picture.
C. No, because Department Store believed it had permission to display Actress's picture.
D. No, because Actress would clearly qualify as a public figure.
Answer: A
Question: To protect the minor children living in the area, the Rock Creek Town Council enacted an ordinance that prohibited advertisements that include "a depiction of a nude person, whether male or female." Sylvester Screen owns and operates Rock Creek Video, a videotape rental shop. Screen often posts large posters to advertise movies he has available for rent. A substantial part of his business consists of the rental of "X-rated" movies. These adult tapes are kept in a separate part of the shop. In the adult tape room he hangs movie advertisements, many of them depicting nude or partially nude people. Screen does not allow minors to enter the adult tape room. If Screen challenges the ordinance, and assuming that he has standing to sue, how will the court most likely rule? 

Options:
A. For the town, because the ordinance is a valid exercise of the town's power to protect the morals of its minor citizens.
B. For Screen, because prohibiting the posting of the movie advertisements violates his First Amendment rights.
C. For the town, because the posters may appeal to a minor's prurient interest in sex.
D. For Screen, because not all nudity is obscene.
Answer: D
Question: Christine and her friend Zelda were going away to college and had quite a few personal belongings to transport. Christine's father offered to drive them in his van, but when the van was loaded they discovered there was only room for two people, so Christine asked her boyfriend Harry to drive her in his car while Christine's father and Zelda rode in the van. About halfway to the college, while the van and Harry's car were driving down the freeway, the van in front, the van suddenly swerved out of control and ran off the highway, ending up on its side in the center divider. When Harry stopped his car and Christine ran to the van, she discovered to her horror that her father was dead. Zelda appeared to be injured, but not severely. Because her father previously had heart trouble, Christine assumed that he had had a heart attack while driving, although a later investigation would reveal that the accident was caused solely by a defect in the steering mechanism of the van. Filled with remorse, Christine told Zelda, "I'm so sorry about this. I'll make good any losses you suffer because of this accident." Later, when Christine learned that Zelda was going to seek treatment from Dr. Winston, she wrote the doctor a letter stating that she would be responsible for all of Zelda's medical expenses; Dr. Winston received the letter the next day. Assume for purposes of this question only that several months after the accident, but within the applicable statute of limitations, Zelda discovered that she had suffered an injury to her spinal column that would prevent her from ever playing basketball again. Zelda had been a scholarship athlete in basketball at the college and was considered to be a certain high draft selection for the newly formed women's professional basketball league when she graduated. She brought an action against Christine for several million dollars in damages. Which of the following is the best defense Christine could assert against Zelda's claim?

Options:
A. There was no consideration supporting her promise to Zelda to make good any losses.
B. She did not intend to offer to pay Zelda for the loss of her professional career when she said she would make good any losses.
C. She was in error when she assumed that her father's heart attack was the cause of the accident.
D. She did not know that Zelda would not be able to play basketball when she offered to make good any losses.
Answer: A
Question: State B's legislature passed a statute that required every used car sold in the state to be tested prior to sale to determine whether it was in compliance with a set of strict exhaust emission standards that were also included in the legislation. Used cars would have to be brought up to standard and pass the emissions test prior to sale. Certain persons in the state object to the legislation because one of its results will be to raise the average price of used cars in State B. Only cars to be sold for junk are exempt from the statute. Among the following, who would be most likely to have standing to raise a constitutional challenge to the legislation?

Options:
A. A State B resident who was thinking about selling used cars in State B.
B. A State B resident who was thinking about buying a used car in State B.
C. An out-of-state dealer in used cars who had a contract to sell cars to a large dealer in State B.
D. An out-of-state manufacturer who might be required to indemnify its dealers in State B for costs arising from the statute.
Answer: C
Question: The United States entered into a treaty with Mexico whereby both countries agreed to ban hunting of the red tailed raccoon, a species of raccoon indigenous to both the United States and Mexico. The red tailed raccoon had been placed on the endangered species list of the International Wildlife Federation and other conservation groups. The raccoons tend to roam in small family groups in the semidesert lands of the western United States and northern Mexico. The raccoons freely crossed state lines and the international boundary. Laws in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico permitted hunting of the red tailed raccoons. After the treaty was fully ratified by the United States and Mexico, a federal court would most likely hold that the state laws permitting hunting of the raccoons are:

Options:
A. Unconstitutional, because a treaty is the supreme law of the land.
B. Unconstitutional, because free roaming wildlife is federal property.
C. Constitutional, because wild animals are natural inhabitants of the state, and the federal government may not take state property without consent of the state.
D. Constitutional, under the rights reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
Answer: A
Question: Commercial fishing, primarily for salmon and tuna, in the waters of the Pacific Ocean along the state's western boundary, has long been one of Washington's major industries. To protect the fishing industry, which was being harmed by the too rapid depletion of the fish in the waters of the state's coast, and to promote the general welfare of the state's citizens, the state legislature enacted statutes for the first time requiring licenses for commercial fishing. To receive a license, the applicant must pay a $ 500$ fee and establish by acceptable evidence that he has been engaged in commercial fishing in the waters of the state of Washington (including ocean waters within three miles of its coastline) since January 1, 1995. A limited number of special licenses are available for those who do not meet the requirements of the regular licenses, and these special licenses are expressly reserved for citizens who have resided in Washington for at least three years prior to the date of the application. 116. $\mathrm{Ng}$, a legally admitted alien who has been residing in the state of Washington for 10 years, brings suit in federal court to enjoin enforcement of the licensing statute as to himself and all other similarly situated noncitizen legal residents of the state of Washington. Which of the following doctrines will probably be determinative of his claims? (A) The powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. (B) The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (C) The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. (D) The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. At trial, prosecution offers evidence that when Fred was arrested, shortly after the crime had been committed, he had a large amount of cocaine hidden in the trunk of his car. This evidence should be:

Options:
A. Admitted to prove Fred's propensity to commit crimes.
B. Admitted to prove Fred's general bad character.
C. Excluded because such evidence may be offered only to rebut evidence of good character offered by the defendant.
D. Excluded because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Answer: D
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. In an action by Walt against Jack and his parents for personal injuries, the court should determine Jack's culpability according to:

Options:
A. The presumption against negligence afforded to all minors.
B. The age, experience, and intelligence of an ordinarily prudent minor in circumstances similar to Jack's.
C. The standard applicable to adults, since Jack is nearly grown.
D. Strict liability, since the practical joke turned out to be so dangerous.
Answer: B
Question: Joey escaped from prison and stole a car. He picked up a young woman hitchhiker, Jenny, and told her what he had done. Jenny was emotionally disturbed and of borderline mental retardation, but understood that the police were after Joey, and because she hated the police, she told Joey she would do anything she could to help him. To avoid the police, they drove to the mountains with Jenny doing much of the driving. The following day, they were both very hungry. Toward evening, Joey saw Fisher camped by a stream nearby, and told Jenny, "Go down there and steal some food from his ice chest; he'll never even see you, but if he does, hit him with something heavy." When she hesitated, Joey became angry and said, "Go on, or I'll just leave you here to starve!" Jenny went down to Fisher's campsite, and had just grabbed a sandwich out of his ice chest and taken a bite out of it, when Fisher, who was 6'6" tall and weighed 250 pounds, ran back from the stream and grabbed her arm. Jenny was terrified and picked up a heavy frying pan and hit Fisher on the head; he slumped to the ground apparently dead. Joey then ran up and said, "He's dead. We'd better put him in the stream so it will look like he drowned after slipping and falling." They thereupon put Fisher in the stream without attempting to determine if he was alive or dead. Later, a medical examination showed conclusively that the blow only knocked Fisher out; he died of suffocation due to water in the lungs. With respect to the stolen car, at common law, Jenny is:

Options:
A. Liable as a co-conspirator to car theft.
B. Liable as an accessory after the fact to car theft.
C. Liable for compounding a felony.
D. Not liable for any common law crime.
Answer: B
Question: Buyer, a retail seller of lawn and garden equipment, entered into a written contract with Seller, a manufacturer of wheelbarrows. The terms of the contract call for Seller to deliver 100 fifteen-pound capacity, red wheelbarrows to Buyer by March 1. On February 28, Buyer received from Seller 90 fifteen-pound capacity, red wheelbarrows and 10 twenty-pound capacity, red wheelbarrows. A letter accompanying the shipment stated, "We no longer make fifteen-pound capacity wheelbarrows. We are sending the last 90 we have in stock along with 10 twenty-pound capacity wheelbarrows. The twenty-pound capacity were sent as an accommodation to you." Which of the following correctly states the rights of Buyer? I. Buyer can reject the entire shipment. II. Buyer can accept the 90 conforming wheelbarrows, reject the 10 nonconforming wheelbarrows, and sue Seller for damages. III. Buyer can accept the entire shipment and sue Seller for damages.

Options:
A. Only I. and II. are correct.
B. Only I. is correct.
C. I., II., and III. are correct.
D. Only II. is correct.
Answer: C
Question: The German-made Doppelpferd, featuring sleek styling and remarkable fuel efficiency, is the most popular automobile in the United States. Its United States sales are booming, and the average retail markup in such sales is $30 \%$. Hardsell Motors, Inc., a franchised Doppelpferd dealer in the United States, contracted with Shift to sell him a new Doppelpferd for $ 9,000$ cash, the sale to be consummated after delivery to Hardsell of the car, which Hardsell ordered from the manufacturer specifically for Shift. The signed retail contractual document was a form drafted by Hardsell's lawyer, and Shift did not question or object to any of its terms, including the price inserted by Hardsell. When the car arrived from Germany, Shift repudiated the contract. Hardsell at once sold the car for $ 9,000$ cash to Karbuff, for whom Hardsell had also ordered from the manufacturer a Doppelpferd identical to Shift's. In an action against Shift for breach of contract, Hardsell will probably recover:

Options:
A. $ 9,000$ minus what it cost Hardsell to purchase the car from the manufacturer.
B. $ 9,000$ minus the wholesale price of an identical Doppelpferd in the local wholesale market among dealers.
C. Nominal damages only because Hardsell resold the car to Karbuff without lowering the retail price.
D. Nothing, because the parties' agreement was an adhesion contract and therefore unconscionable. 
Answer: A
Question: Marvin Manufacturing Company was in the business of making copper tubing. Golde Industries telephoned Marvin's sales department and placed an order for 10,000 linear feet of copper tubing at a sale price of $ 2$ per foot. The tubing was to be used in the production of a custom order for one of Golde's customers. Marvin installed special equipment for the manufacture of the tubing to Golde's specifications and had completed a portion of the order when Golde again telephoned the sales department. This time, however, Golde canceled its order, saying it no longer had need of the tubing because its customer had been declared bankrupt, and refused to pay for the order. If Marvin sues for breach, it will:

Options:
A. Win, because the contract is fully enforceable.
B. Win, because the contract is enforceable to the extent of the portion of the order completed.
C. Lose, because a contract for the sale of goods over $ 500$ must be in writing.
D. Lose, because the parol evidence rule would preclude testimony about the initial telephone call.
Answer: A