imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: All of the deeds for the lots in the 5100 block of Elm Street contained a restrictive covenant requiring that all houses built on the lots be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the sidewalk. Local zoning regulations required that all homes in the area of the 5100 block of Elm Street be set back a minimum of 35 feet from the sidewalk. Dampier purchased a lot on the 5100 block of Elm Street on which it would be possible to build a home with a 50-foot setback. However, the lot was of an unusual shape, and Dampier applied to the city zoning commission asking for a variance allowing him to build a house set back 30 feet from the sidewalk. In his petition, Dampier cited the unusual shape of the lot and asserted that it would cause hardship for him to build in compliance with the 35-foot setback required by the zoning regulations. The zoning commission granted Dampier the variance. Nora, whose home was located at 5130 Elm Street, noticed surveyors putting up ropes 30 feet from the sidewalk on Dampier's lot, and she discovered that Dampier planned to build a home with only a 30 -foot setback. Nora seeks to enforce the restrictive covenant and brings suit to enjoin Dampier from building a residence with a setback of less than 50 feet. Who will prevail?

Options:
A. Dampier, because zoning regulations take precedence over restrictive covenants as a matter of public policy.
B. Dampier, because equity will not impose a hardship.
C. Nora, because Dampier will be unjustly enriched if he is permitted to build a 30 foot setback.
D. Nora, because a zoning variance does not affect the enforcement of a restrictive covenant.
Answer: D
Question: Vincent, who operated a local neighborhood liquor store, was robbed by a man wielding an unusual knife with a pearl-studded handle. Davis was arrested and charged with armed robbery of Vincent. At trial the prosecution calls Wilma to testify that, three days after the robbery of Vincent, she was robbed by Davis with a knife that had a pearl-studded handle. The court will most likely hold that Wilma's testimony is:

Options:
A. Admissible, as showing habit.
B. Admissible, as establishing an identifying circumstance.
C. Inadmissible, because it is improper character evidence.
D. Inadmissible, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Answer: B
Question: A statute in State B stated that directors of orphanages, homes for the developmentally disabled, and similar institutions stand in loco parentis to the children under their charge. Dieter, a mentally disabled 11-year-old child, had been abandoned by his parents and lived in the Miserere Home, a State B residential facility for the developmentally disabled operated by the Sisters of Hope, a religious order. Sister Mary Smith was the director of the facility. The Miserere Home had no fence around it, because children who lived there were not considered to be dangerous. Dieter wandered away from the premises and was gone for 36 hours before he was found by the police and returned to Miserere. When Dieter was away from the facility, he beat up Paul, a five-year-old boy. Paul's parents filed suit against Sister Mary on Paul's behalf. Assuming that no other liability statute applies, who will prevail? 

Options:
A. Paul, because under the statute Sister Mary has the responsibilities and duties of a parent.
B. Paul, because Sister Mary is strictly liable for Dieter's acts.
C. Sister Mary, because parents are not vicariously liable for the intentional torts of their children.
D. Sister Mary, unless she knew that Dieter had dangerous propensities.
Answer: D
Question: Mary boarded a city bus. The bus prominently displayed a sign stating "No Smoking. Violators Will Be Prosecuted." Mary was tired after a long day at work, and deciding that she could not wait until she got home, she lit a cigarette. The bus driver shouted, "Read the sign, lady; put that out or get off my bus!" Mary told the bus driver, "I've had a rough day; you can go to hell," and walked to the back of the bus and took a seat. The bus driver flagged down a passing police officer and told him that Mary was smoking on the bus (which was the misdemeanor of "disorderly conduct"). Mary, meanwhile, quickly extinguished the cigarette and put the butt in her purse so that by the time the police officer had boarded the bus, she was sitting there innocently chewing a breath mint. The officer told Mary that she was charged with disorderly conduct, and then he searched her purse and the coat that she was carrying. The officer found not only the recently extinguished cigarette butt, but also a marijuana cigarette in the coat pocket. Mary was then charged with possession of a controlled substance. At Mary's trial for possession, should the marijuana cigarette be admitted over Mary's objection?

Options:
A. Yes, because it was obtained in a search incident to a valid arrest.
B. Yes, because the coat was within Mary's "wingspan" or reach.
C. No, because the arrest was invalid.
D. No, because the police officer did not give Mary Miranda warnings.
Answer: C
Question: Leftacre and Rightacre are adjoining 50-acre parcels of land. For many years, Leftacre and Rightacre have been thriving dairy farms. In 1959, McWilliams, the owner of Rightacre, purchased Leftacre. She continued to operate both parcels as separate dairy farms. In 1979, McWilliams sold Rightacre to Stone, who promptly and properly recorded the deed. Since Rightacre had no direct access to a public road, McWilliams wrote into the deed, "Stone, his heirs and assigns shall have the right to use the existing dirt path along the eastern border of Leftacre for ingress and egress to Rightacre." The dirt path, which connected with a public road on the northern boundary of Leftacre, was wide enough for motored vehicle traffic and had been graded for that purpose. In 1994, Sandberg purchased Leftacre from McWilliams. In 2002, Stone died, leaving a will that devised all his interest in Rightacre to O'Toole. For this question only, assume the following facts: In 2003, Sandberg decided to subdivide Leftacre into lots for singlefamily residences. Since no street in the proposed subdivision will align with the dirt path mentioned in the 1979 deed from McWilliams to Stone, O'Toole will be without ingress and/or egress to Rightacre. $O$ 'Toole instituted an appropriate action to enjoin the blocking of the dirt path. The most likely result is that judgment will be for:

Options:
A. O'Toole, because the owner of the servient tenement cannot obstruct an express easement.
B. O'Toole, because O'Toole has a way by necessity.
C. Sandberg, because there has been a significant change in conditions and circumstances.
D. Sandberg, because the appropriate remedy for $\mathrm{O}^{\prime}$ Toole is damages, not injunction.
Answer: A
Question: In an action by Patrick against David, one of the issues is whether David is a licensed psychotherapist. Normally, the names of all licensed psychotherapists are registered with the office of the State Department of Professional Registrations. Patrick wishes to introduce a certified document, signed by the chief registrar of the Department, stating that an examination of the Department's rolls does not disclose David's name. Should the document be admitted?

Options:
A. Yes, because a statement of absence from public record is admissible.
B. Yes, but only if the chief registrar is unavailable.
C. No, because the document is hearsay not within an exception.
D. No, because the document is not selfauthenticating.
Answer: A
Question: Benjamin, a foreign correspondent, wished to purchase Whiteacre. Smith, the owner of Whiteacre, was not yet sure he wished to sell the property. He was waiting to see if his bid on another parcel was going to be accepted. Before Smith could make up his mind, Benjamin was assigned to cover an ethnic conflict in eastern Europe that was escalating into a war. Prior to his departure, Benjamin gave his attorney, Lenora, $ 100,000$ and his power of attorney. He instructed Lenora that, should Whiteacre be put up for sale, she was authorized to: offer up to $ 100,000$ for it, enter into a binding contract to purchase it on Benjamin's behalf, and if he did not return in time, she was authorized to close on the property. In early January, Smith put Whiteacre on the market. Lenora offered $ 75,000$ for it, which Smith readily accepted. On January 15, Lenora, on Benjamin's behalf, entered into a written contract to purchase Whiteacre for $ 75,000$. Closing was set for February 15 . During this time, Lenora heard nothing from Benjamin. When he had not returned by the date of closing, Lenora attended the closing and tendered the $ 75,000$. Smith tendered a deed made out to Benjamin as the grantee. On February 20, news was received that Benjamin had been killed by a stray bullet on January 14. Benjamin's will left his entire estate to his niece, Nellie. In the meantime, Smith has had someone offer him $ 150,000$ for Whiteacre. Having heard of Benjamin's death, Smith believes the conveyance to Benjamin is invalid. Smith brings a suit to quiet title to Whiteacre. The court will most likely find that the owner of Whiteacre is:

Options:
A. Nellie, because Lenora held the deed on constructive trust for Benjamin's estate.
B. Nellie, because of the operation of the doctrine of equitable conversion.
C. Smith, because a deed to a nonexistent person is void and conveys no title.
D. Smith, because the risk of loss is on the buyer. 
Answer: C
Question: The High National Grasslands is owned by the United States and is located in the center of a large western state. Acting pursuant to a federal statute authorizing such action, the United States Bureau of Land Management leased the grazing rights in the High National Grasslands to ranchers located nearby. Grazingland Company owns a vast amount of rangeland adjacent to the High National Grasslands and leases its land for livestock grazing purposes to the same ranchers, but at prices higher than those charged by the Bureau. Grazingland Company sued the Bureau in an appropriate federal district court to restrain the Bureau from competing with that company by leasing the High National Grasslands. Which of the following constitutional provisions may most easily and directly be used to justify the federal statute authorizing this leasing program of the Bureau of Land Management?

Options:
A. The General Welfare Clause of Article I, Section 8.
B. The Federal Property Clause of Article IV, Section 3.
C. The Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8.
D. The Supremacy Clause of Article VI.
Answer: B
Question: Rose was convicted in federal court of possession of one kilogram of heroin with intent to distribute. She was sentenced to a prison term. Subsequently, Rose was indicted by a federal grand jury for conspiracy to distribute the same kilogram of heroin. She moved to dismiss the indictment. Her motion should be:

Options:
A. Denied, because the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply when the second prosecution is for violation of a separate statute.
B. Denied, because each prosecution requires proof of an element that the other does not.
C. Granted, because the Double Jeopardy Clause protects her against a second prosecution for the same criminal conduct.
D. Granted, because the Due Process Clause protects her against double punishment for the same criminal conduct.
Answer: B
Question: Pops, owner of a street corner candy store, heard several gunshots and rushed out in the street. He found Velma lying on the sidewalk, bleeding profusely. She gasped to Pops, "I'm going to die. Danny Deft shot me." Velma lapsed into unconsciousness and died on the way to the hospital without uttering another word. Danny Deft was arrested and charged with the murder of Velma. At Deft's trial, the prosecution seeks to have Pops testify as to Velma's statement. Such testimony should be ruled:

Options:
A. Inadmissible, because it is more prejudicial than probative.
B. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule.
C. Admissible, as a declaration made in belief of impending death.
D. Admissible, as an excited utterance.
Answer: C
Question: Stone operated a newsstand on leased space in an office building. On March 15, Quinn purchased the office building and told Stone that he wanted to negotiate a new lease. During the negotiations, Stone and Quinn orally agreed that Stone would have the exclusive right to sell newspapers and magazines in the office building. Quinn prepared a written lease outlining the Stone-Quinn agreement, but forgot to include the agreement that Stone would have exclusive rights in the office building. Stone was given a copy of the lease to read, but Stone merely glanced over the lease because he assumed it reflected his agreement with Quinn. Stone then signed the lease, which included a merger and integration clause. On March 30, Quinn leased space to Jacobs for the establishment of a drug store to be run by Jacobs. The Quinn-Jacobs lease did not prevent Jacobs from selling newspapers or magazines. As a result of the competition, Stone lost substantial profits in his business. Assume for purposes of this question only that Stone's prior lease had given him the exclusive right to sell newspapers and magazines in the office building. Assume further that Stone told Quinn that he wanted the new lease to be the same as the old lease, and that Quinn had handed the new lease to Stone and represented it to be the same as the old lease, knowing that this was not true. Stone signed the lease without reading it because Quinn told him that there was no reason to read the new lease. If Stone sues Quinn, Stone could obtain:

Options:
A. Rescission.
B. Reformation. 
C. Novation.
D. Repudiation.
Answer: A
Question: Justin is being tried for the murder of Harvey, which occurred during the course of the robbery of Harvey's house. A witness to the robbery and murder had aided the police artist in making the composite picture by which Justin was identified. This witness disappeared before trial, and the prosecutor now wants to offer the sketch into evidence. The sketch is:

Options:
A. Inadmissible, under the best evidence rule.
B. Inadmissible, as hearsay not within any exception.
C. Admissible, as a record by a public employee.
D. Admissible, as a prior identification.
Answer: B
Question: Mary's doctor informed her that she had a rare blood disease that was almost always fatal. He further informed her that there was no treatment known to medical science for this disease. Out of desperation, Mary consulted Quack, who claimed to have a cure for the blood disease. Mary entered into an agreement with Quack under which Quack promised to treat Mary for the blood disease. However, no price was given for the treatment. After two months of treatment, Mary did not appear to have improved at all. Mary's father, Stu, went to see Quack and told Quack that if Quack would cure Mary of the blood disease, Stu would pay Quack $ 25,000$. Four months later, after weekly sessions with Quack, Mary again went to see her doctor. This time her doctor told her that she appeared to have recovered completely from the blood disease, because all tests for the disease proved negative; and that, in his opinion, she was completely cured. Assume for the purposes of this question only that Mary refused to pay Quack anything. Quack brings suit against Mary for services rendered. Quack will:

Options:
A. Recover whatever amount Quack shows is his normal fee for the treatment. 
B. Recover a reasonable price for his services.
C. Not recover, because no price term was contained in the original contract.
D. Not recover, because Quack cannot prove that he was the cause of Mary's recovery.
Answer: B
Question: Zelda, a paving contractor with an excellent reputation in the community, entered into a written contract with Norman to pave the parking lot behind his new store. The contract contained no provision regarding assignment. A few days after they entered into the contract, Zelda realized that scheduling difficulties would make it impossible for her to complete the job in the time Norman needed to have the job done. Instead of running the risk of being in breach of contract, she assigned the job to one of her competitors, Kurt, whom she regarded as being almost as good as she, and who agreed to do the job for the contract price. Assume for the purposes of this question only that Kurt paved the parking lot under the contract, but Norman did not realize that Kurt was substituting for Zelda until the job was half complete. Upon learning that, Norman let Kurt complete the job. If Kurt fails to perform the job in accordance with the original terms of the agreement between Zelda and Norman, Norman:

Options:
A. Has a cause of action only against Kurt for damages.
B. Has a cause of action against Kurt and Zelda for damages.
C. Has no cause of action against Kurt, because he and Kurt are not in privity of contract.
D. Has no cause of action against Zelda, because he accepted performance from Kurt.
Answer: B
Question: Edgar was employed as an electrician by Edgewater Electric Services. Edgewater had contracts with a number of large office and condominium buildings to provide emergency electrical services and repairs at any hour of the day or night. Edgewater also advertised in the telephone "yellow pages": "If it's an electrical emergency, call Edgewater Electric Servicesnight or day."' Although Edgar usually worked from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at Edgewater, the nature of Edgewater's emergency services required Edgar to be "on call" 24 hours a day. Therefore, Edgewater required Edgar to drive his company van to his home each night, so he would be in a position to speed off to an emergency with all of his tools and equipment at hand. One afternoon, Edgar left the Edgewater Electric offices at 4 p.m. as usual. However, when he left the main highway, he did not turn left toward his home but instead turned right toward the supermarket a few blocks away to pick up some items for dinner. While leaving the supermarket parking lot, Edgar drove negligently and struck Parka, a pedestrian. Parka suffered serious injuries and required several operations and a lengthy hospital stay. Parka filed suit against Edgewater for $ 100,000$. Is Parka likely to recover from Edgewater?

Options:
A. Yes, because Edgar's trip to the market was only a slight deviation from the direct route to his home.
B. Yes, but only if Edgewater knew that Edgar had proclivities to drive negligently.
C. No, because turning in the opposite direction from his home constituted a "frolic" by Edgar.
D. No, because an employer is not liable for the torts of an employee traveling to and from work.
Answer: A
Question: Scholastica, the Academic Dean at Woodbine College, was well liked and considered a competent scholar and a fine teacher. However, six months after her appointment as Dean, Scholastica received a certified letter from Rector, the Provost of Woodbine College, summarily dismissing her. No reasons were given in the letter for Scholastica's dismissal. Scholastica had her lawyer, Loretta, contact Rector to discover the basis of her dismissal, if possible. Two days later, Loretta received a letter from Rector stating, in relevant part, "Scholastica was dismissed from her employment at Woodbine College because I received an anonymous telephone call informing me that Scholastica was involved in selling drugs to students. One can't be too careful about these things in this day and age." Rector had, in fact, received such a phone call, but the basis of the statement was untrue, because Scholastica had never even used illegal drugs, much less sold them. If Scholastica files suit against Rector for libel:

Options:
A. Scholastica will win, if Rector should have verified the anonymous statement before repeating it to Loretta.
B. Scholastica will lose, because by having her attorney ask the reason for the dismissal, Scholastica impliedly consented to the statement in the letter.
C. Rector will win, because Rector was merely repeating the defamatory communication of another.
D. Rector will lose, because Scholastica was not dealing in drugs.
Answer: B
Question: In which of the following cases would a leading question least likely be permitted over objection?

Options:
A. When asked on direct examination of a disinterested witness.
B. When asked on direct examination of a minor.
C. When asked on cross-examination of an expert witness.
D. When related to the name, address, or occupation of the witness.
Answer: A
Question: In July of last summer George, a grape grower, contracted with Walter's Winery to deliver " 500 tons of premium quality pinot chardonnay grapes grown on my ranch Grapeacre in Grape County." The price was to be $ 1,000$ per ton and delivery was to be on or before September 15. In August of the same year, George entered into an identical contract with Vinnie's Vintner Co. to sell 300 tons of premium quality pinot chardonnay grapes. George completed his harvest by September 10 and had 800 tons of premium quality grapes. On September 11, an unexpected rain ruined 400 tons, and George notified Walter and Vinnie on that day that he would only be able to deliver 250 tons to Walter and 150 tons to Vinnie. On September 14, Vinnie purchased an additional 150 tons of premium quality pinot chardonnay grapes from Godfrey, one of several other available sources for premium quality pinot chardonnay grapes. These grapes along with the 150 tons from George gave Vinnie the 300 tons he needed. On September 15, what is Walter's Winery's legal position with regard to George's failure to deliver the 500 tons of grapes required by his contract?

Options:
A. If Walter has given George a written notice of termination, Walter will have the right to refuse to accept the 250 tons of grapes but will have no cause of action for damages against George.
B. Even if Walter has given George a written notice of termination, Walter must accept the 250 tons of grapes and will have no cause of action for damages against George.
C. Since Vinnie's purchase establishes that it is possible for George to perform by obtaining additional grapes from other available sources, Walter may accept the 250 tons from George and recover damages for George's failure to deliver the balance of the amount specified by the contract.
D. Since George's contract with Walter was entered into before his contract with Vinnie, George is bound to deliver the entirety of his grape crop to Walter.
Answer: A
Question: Doris was at a restaurant eating lunch when she looked up and saw another woman take Doris's coat off the coat rack and walk out the door with it. Doris quickly left and followed the woman. She saw the woman enter a house where she apparently lived. Later, when Doris knew that the woman was not at home, Doris opened a window in the woman's house, climbed in, and got her coat out of the front closet. When she put the coat on, however, she noticed for the first time that in fact it was not her coat. But, because it was so cold outside, Doris decided to wear this coat home and to return it the next day. The following day Doris changed her mind and decided to keep the coat. Doris is guilty of:

Options:
A. Larceny.
B. Burglary.
C. Both larceny and burglary.
D. Neither larceny nor burglary.
Answer: A