imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: West, a witness in a contract case, testified on direct examination that four people attended a meeting. When asked to identify them, she gave the names of three, but despite trying was unable to remember the name of the fourth person. The attorney who called her as a witness seeks to show her his handwritten notes of the part of his pretrial interview with her in which she provided all four names. The trial court is likely to consider the showing of the notes taken as:

Options:
A. A proper attempt to introduce recorded recollection.
B. A proper attempt to refresh West's recollection.
C. An improper attempt to lead the witness.
D. An improper attempt to support West's credibility. 
Answer: B
Question: Patricia sued Doris for injuries suffered when her car collided in an intersection with one driven by Doris. At trial, Patricia testified that she had had the right-of-way over Doris to enter the intersection. Doris did not cross-examine. Patricia then called Wendy to testify that, shortly after the collision, as she pulled Patricia from the car, Wendy heard Patricia say, "I think I'm dying! Didn't the other driver see I had the right-of-way?" Wendy's testimony was admitted over defense counsel's objections. On appeal from a verdict for Patricia, Doris challenges the admission of Wendy's testimony. Should the trial court's ruling be upheld?

Options:
A. Yes, because Patricia's statement was made under belief of impending death.
B. Yes, because Patricia's statement was an excited utterance.
C. No, because Patricia's credibility had not been attacked.
D. No, because Patricia's belief that she had the right-of-way had already been established without contradiction.
Answer: B
Question: Seth was one of a group of persons who were engaged in a demonstration against the discriminatory practices of a private club. During the demonstration, Seth threw a bomb containing highly toxic gas through the window of the club. At the time he threw the bomb, he knew that the club's president, Larsen, was inside the building. Unknown to Seth, Carver, the club's treasurer, was also inside. Seth is charged with attempted murder of both Larsen and Carver. At trial, Seth testified that the reason he threw the bomb was that he wanted to make sure that nobody would be able to use the club, and that he did not intend to hurt anyone. Presuming that the jury believes Seth, he can be convicted of the attempted murder of:

Options:
A. Larsen.
B. Carver.
C. Both Larsen and Carver.
D. Neither Larsen nor Carver.
Answer: D
Question: Dr. Wally, a local physician who was prominent in the community and beloved by his patients, died suddenly of a heart attack. Wally was only 46 years old at the time of his death, and so the local newspaper, The Daily Bleat, had never prepared a "pre-obituary," as it did for many prominent figures. Snoops, a reporter with The Daily Bleat, was assigned to write an obituary before the next day's edition went to press. Snoops talked briefly with Mary, Wally's widow, and then called State Medical School, from which Wally had always said he had graduated. As it was late in the afternoon, all the professors were out on the golf course; thus, Snoops spoke with Nina, a secretary in the office of the dean of the medical school. When asked about Wally, Nina replied, "I don't think Wally ever graduated." In Snoops's obituary, which appeared in the next morning's Daily Bleat, Snoops had written that Wally had never actually received a medical degree from State Medical School. Upon reading the obituary, Mary broke into tears and then became very angry, for she had worked hard to help put Wally through State Medical School, from which Wally had, in fact, graduated with high honors. Wally's executor, Eddie, was equally incensed. Both Eddie and Mary called The Daily Bleat, demanding a retraction. The next day, on the front page, The Daily Bleat admitted its error and stated that Wally graduated with high honors from State Medical School. They also fired Snoops. Nonetheless, both Eddie and Mary sued The Daily Bleat for defamation. What is The Daily Bleat's best defense?

Options:
A. There was no malice on the part of the defendant.
B. The newspaper's retraction negated any harm.
C. Snoops got his information from a secretary at the Medical School.
D. Wally is dead.
Answer: D
Question: The state of Eastern Seaboard enacted a sales tax on specified items purchased within the state. The General Services Administration ("GSA") of the United States Government purchased from a dealer in Scrodtown, the largest city in Eastern Seaboard, 100 new automobiles for use by federal agencies operating within the state. Must GSA pay the sales tax applicable to the new auto purchase?

Options:
A. No, unless Congress has consented to such a tax.
B. No, because the tax unfairly discriminates against interstate commerce.
C. Yes, because the tax is nondiscriminatory.
D. Yes, because there is a rational basis for the tax and it does not appear to be a disguised penalty. 
Answer: A
Question: Egbert has died without having executed a will, and his rather substantial estate must be distributed by the probate court. The jurisdiction's applicable statute provides that where a decedent leaves neither issue nor spouse, nor parents, his estate goes to his brothers and sisters and their descendants. Egbert was never married, had no children, and both of his parents are dead. Tamara, whose birth certificate was destroyed by fire, seeks to establish that she is the daughter of Egbert's only sibling, Ethel, now also deceased. Tamara offers into evidence the statement in a trust instrument recorded pursuant to statute in the office of the county recorder (in which the original is kept). The instrument was executed by Egbert's father, Ethelbert, and recited that certain specified real property conveyed by Ethelbert into the trust should be held for the benefit of "my devoted son Egbert and my beloved daughter Ethel and her loving daughter Tamara." The document actually offered is an enlarged print photocopy of microfilm records, authenticated by an employee of the county. The trial court should:

Options:
A. Exclude the evidence, because it is not the best evidence.
B. Exclude the evidence, because it is inadmissible hearsay not within any recognized exception.
C. Admit the evidence, because it is a record of a document affecting an interest in property.
D. Admit the evidence, because it constitutes a past recollection recorded.
Answer: C
Question: Oliver, who owned the Rocking O Ranch in fee simple, died and left the property to his daughter, "Melinda, her heirs and assigns; but if my son, Oliver Jr., is living 25 years from the date of my death, then to Oliver Jr., his heirs and assigns." At the time of Oliver's death, Oliver Jr. was one year old. The common law Rule Against Perpetuities is unmodified in the jurisdiction. The grant in the will to Oliver Jr. is:

Options:
A. Valid, because the interest vests, if at all, within a life in being.
B. Valid, because it grants Oliver Jr. a reversionary interest.
C. Invalid, because the will grants Melinda the complete interest in the property, so there is nothing to be left to Oliver Jr.
D. Invalid, if this jurisdiction does not recognize a testator's ability to convey a possibility of reverter by will.
Answer: A
Question: One night when Bob was very drunk, he took one of his rifles, loaded it, and fired a bullet through his front door. Unknown to him, at the time he fired the rifle, someone was driving by the house. The bullet went through the front door, through the window of the car, and killed the driver. Bob was convicted of murder and appeals. He contends that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of murder. The court of appeals should rule that the evidence is:

Options:
A. Sufficient to prove that the killing was intentional.
B. Sufficient to prove that the killing was done with malice aforethought.
C. Insufficient, because Bob did not know that the driver was driving by his house and therefore he could not have acted intentionally.
D. Insufficient, because at most Bob's conduct constituted gross negligence and involuntary manslaughter.
Answer: B
Question: Hines and West had been dating for many years. They decided to live together and some day, should things work out, get married. Since each earned a sizable income, they decided to invest some of their money in real estate. They purchased Blackacre for $ 100,000$, each contributing half the purchase price from savings. They took title as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Two years later, Hines and West were married. One year after that, the parties separated. Hines then quitclaimed all of his interest in Blackacre to his brother, Brown, who duly recorded the deed. The jurisdiction has no applicable statute. Blackacre is now held by:

Options:
A. West and Brown, as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
B. West and Brown, as tenants in common.
C. Hines and West, as tenants by the entirety.
D. Hines and West, as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
Answer: B
Question: Bruno is on trial in federal court, charged with having sold cocaine to an undercover agent. Bruno calls Flossie to the stand, and Flossie testifies that she was with Bruno in another state on the date of the alleged drug sale. Following Flossie's testimony, the prosecution seeks to introduce the record of judgment of Flossie's seven-year-old embezzlement conviction. Bruno's attorney objects. The court should rule the record of judgment:

Options:
A. Admissible, as going to Flossie's credibility.
B. Admissible, provided no appeal is pending.
C. Inadmissible, because the record is inadmissible hearsay.
D. Inadmissible, because, for impeachment, a specific act of misconduct cannot be shown by extrinsic evidence.
Answer: A
Question: The legislature of State Yellow passed a "Fairness in Elections" statute. A major provision of the statute stated that "no newspaper in this state shall publish a political endorsement or an editorial favoring one political candidate or party over another on either the day of election or the day preceding the day of election." The stated purpose for the legislation was to prevent unfair attacks on candidates and to ensure that they would have time to respond to or rebut any published article prior to the election. The Yellow Press was the leading newspaper published in State Yellow. It had a high reputation regionally and was also distributed in states bordering on Yellow. The Yellow Press filed suit in federal court seeking to enjoin enforcement of the statute. The newspaper's best argument for the invalidity of the statute is which of the following?

Options:
A. The statute unduly burdens interstate commerce, because the Yellow Press is circulated in other states.
B. The statute unduly interferes with the Yellow Press's property interest in distributing newspapers.
C. The statute unduly restricts the Yellow Press's freedom of speech.
D. The statute violates the Equal Protection Clause, because restrictions are imposed merely on the basis of the day the newspaper is printed, while the same material can be printed on other days.
Answer: C
Question: On January 1, 2000, Red leased Whiteacre from Blue for a period of 10 years. On January 1,2005 , the state took title to Whiteacre under proper eminent domain proceedings. Which of the following statements are correct concerning the rights of Red? I. Red may continue to occupy Whiteacre, as eminent domain proceedings will not affect lessees. II. Red may not continue to occupy Whiteacre, is relieved from his obligation to pay rent to Blue, and will not share in the condemnation award. III. Red may not continue to occupy Whiteacre, and is entitled to share in the condemnation award based on the value of the remaining five years less rent that would have been paid during that period.

Options:
A. Only I. is correct.
B. Only II. is correct.
C. Only III. is correct.
D. None of the above are correct.
Answer: C
Question: Maude's will left her farm in Rural County to her two grown children, Lisa and Louis. The will stated that the farm passed to the children "jointly, as tenants in common." Lisa and Louis, having had no interest in farming, had long since moved to Paree, a large city located about 150 miles from the farm. However, after Maude's death, Louis had second thoughts about living on the farm. His children were becoming disciplinary problems in school, and remembering some of his strict but kindly teachers in the Rural County schools, he decided to move back to the farm. Thus, Louis and his family moved into Maude's home. Louis rented various parts of the land to sharecroppers. Louis regularly sent half of any profits from the farm to his sister. If Pitts asserts a claim against Drago, Pitts will:

Options:
A. Prevail, unless Stratton was negligent in the manufacture of the car that Pitts was driving.
B. Prevail, because Drago's negligent driving was a cause in fact of the collision.
C. Not prevail, because the door latch on Pitts's car violated a local ordinance.
D. Not prevail if Pitts would not have been injured but for the failure of the seatbelt buckle.
Answer: B
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, after treating Zelda for her injuries until she recovered, Dr. Winston sent Christine a bill for services rendered. When Christine refused to pay, Dr. Winston brought an action to recover the amount of her bill. Who will prevail?

Options:
A. Dr. Winston, because she gave medical treatment to Zelda after receiving Christine's letter. 
B. Dr. Winston, because Christine's promise to pay Zelda's medical expenses was in writing.
C. Christine, because there was no consideration for her promise to Dr. Winston.
D. Christine, because she derived no benefit from the medical services rendered to Zelda.
Answer: A
Question: On January 1, Fred executed and delivered a deed to his daughter, Diane, conveying his avocado ranch as follows: "To Diane for life, but if Diane dies survived by her spouse and children, then to Diane's spouse for life, with the remainder in fee simple to Diane's children; but if Diane dies survived by her spouse and no children, then to my son Sam in fee simple." On June 15, Diane married George and as a wedding gift Fred quitclaimed his interest in the avocado ranch to George. Assume that the jurisdiction does not follow the doctrine of destructibility of contingent remainders. Assume for the purposes of this question only that Diane died survived by George and two children, Ann and Bradley. Bradley dies intestate two days after Diane, leaving one child, Curtis, as his only heir. What are the respective interests of George, Ann, and Curtis in the avocado ranch?

Options:
A. George has a life estate, Ann has an absolutely vested remainder, and Curtis has nothing. 
B. George has fee simple ownership of the ranch, and Ann and Curtis have nothing.
C. George has a life estate, and Ann and Curtis have absolutely vested remainders.
D. George has a life estate, and Ann has a vested remainder subject to open.
Answer: C
Question: Alice owned Red Acre, a tract of land with a one-story house on it. Alice leased Red Acre to Betty for a term of three years. Betty and her teenage son, Norm, planned to live in the house for this period. Norm was a star baseball player for the local high school team. To provide Norm with an adequate place to practice, Betty installed a fully operational batting cage in the backyard located on Red Acre. In addition to the batting cage, Betty installed an automatic pitching machine and electric lights so that Norm could practice at night. Six months after Alice leased the premises to Betty, Alice mortgaged Red Acre to State Bank to secure a loan. Betty was not notified directly of the mortgage but the mortgage was recorded. Six months before the three-year term was to end, Alice defaulted on her mortgage payments, and State Bank began foreclosure proceedings, as it was entitled to do on the terms of the mortgage. Although unaware of the mortgage proceedings, Betty knew that her lease with Alice was about to end; she therefore began to remove all of the equipment she had installed in the backyard. State Bank brought an action to enjoin the removal of the equipment, naming both Betty and Alice as defendants in the suit. If the court refuses the injunction, it would be because:

Options:
A. The circumstances reveal that the equipment was installed for Betty's (Norm's) exclusive benefit.
B. The Statute of Frauds precludes the bank from claiming any interest in the equipment.
C. Betty was never given direct notice of the mortgage.
D. In the absence of a contrary agreement, a residential tenant is entitled to remove any personal property she voluntarily brings upon the premises.
Answer: A
Question: The city of Newtown adopted an ordinance providing that street demonstrations involving more than 15 persons may not be held in commercial areas during "rush" hours. "Exceptions" may be made to the prohibition "upon 24-hour advance application to and approval by the police department." The ordinance also imposes sanctions on any person "who shall, without provocation, use to or of another, and in his presence, opprobrious words or abusive language tending to cause a breach of the peace." No court has of yet interpreted the ordinance. Which of the following is the strongest argument for the unconstitutionality of both parts of the ordinance on their faces?

Options:
A. No type of prior restraint may be imposed on speech in public places.
B. Laws, regulating by their terms expressive conduct or speech, may not be overbroad or unduly vague.
C. The determination as to whether public gatherings may be lawfully held cannot be vested in the police.
D. The right of association in public places without interference is ensured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Answer: B
Question: While on a hiking trip during the late fall, Page arrived toward the end of the day at a clearing where several similar cabins were located, none of which was occupied. One of the cabins belonged to Levin, Page's friend, who had given Page permission to use it. Page entered one of the cabins, which she thought was Levin's, and prepared to spend the night. In fact the cabin was owned, not by Levin, but by Dwyer. When the night turned cold, Page started a fire in the stove. Unknown to Page, there was a defect in the stove that allowed carbon monoxide fumes to escape into the cabin. During the night the fumes caused serious injury to Page. If Page asserts a claim against Dwyer for her injury, will Page recover?

Options:
A. Yes, if Dwyer knew that the stove was defective.
B. Yes, if Dwyer could have discovered the defect in the stove by a reasonable inspection.
C. No, because Dwyer had no reason to anticipate Page's presence in the cabin.
D. No, unless Page needed to use the cabin for her own protection. 
Answer: C
Question: Developer owned a large tract of land that she had surveyed by a licensed surveyor and then subdivided into numerous lots. At the time of the survey, the surveyor drove wooden stakes into the ground to mark the boundaries. The surveyor then made a plat of the survey and recorded the plat in the County Recorder of Deeds Office. On June 1, Andrew purchased Lot 20 in the tract from Developer. Prior to purchase, Developer had shown Andrew the wooden stakes, and Andrew accepted such stakes as marking the boundaries of Lot 20 . After taking possession of Lot 20 , Andrew built a house thereon and enclosed it with a fence. On September 5, Bruce purchased Lot 21 from Developer. Lot 21 was adjacent to Lot 20. After taking possession of Lot 21, Bruce hired a licensed surveyor to survey Lot 21 . This surveyor discovered that, according to the recorded plat, Andrew's fence extended two feet onto Lot 21. Upon learning this, Bruce demanded that Andrew remove his fence. Andrew refused. If Bruce sues Andrew, who will prevail?

Options:
A. Andrew, because he bought his lot first.
B. Andrew, because the surveyor's stakes are controlling.
C. Bruce, because the recorded plat controls.
D. Bruce, because the adverse possession period has not run.
Answer: B
Question: The jurisdiction in which Dawn lives follows the common law Rule Against Perpetuities. If Dawn conveys her property to "Clara, her heirs and assigns, as long as the premises are used for noncommercial purposes, then to Grant, his heirs and assigns," Dawn's interest in the property, if any, is:

Options:
A. Nothing.
B. A reversion in fee simple absolute.
C. A possibility of reverter.
D. A right of entry based on a condition subsequent.
Answer: C
Question: Thomas wanted to give his home to his brother, Ben. In 1995, Thomas executed a warranty deed conveying the home to Ben. Thomas then wrote a letter to Ben saying, "Dear Ben, My home is now yours." He put the letter and deed in an envelope and wrote the following on the outside of the envelope: "Kenneth, you are to give this deed to my brother, Ben, when I die. Until then, you should safeguard this envelope and the documents inside. Signed Thomas." Thomas delivered these items to his cousin Kenneth and continued to live in his home by himself. In 1997, Thomas executed a will leaving all of his property to his sister Sally. Thomas died in January 2004 . Shortly thereafter, Kenneth delivered the envelope containing the deed to Ben, who promptly recorded the deed. Thomas's will has been admitted to probate and Xavier is the executor. Xavier has brought an appropriate action against Ben to determine the title to Thomas's home. The court should rule:

Options:
A. For Sally, because the deed was not effectively delivered before Thomas died.
B. For Sally, because the deed was not recorded before the grantor died.
C. For Ben, because the deed effectively conveyed title when it was executed.
D. For Ben, because Thomas no longer owned his home when he died.
Answer: D