imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: The state of West Dakota has the following statute: No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value without notice thereof whose conveyance is first recorded. Judy, a West Dakota resident, owned several parcels of land there, including Steppeacre. Judy conveyed Steppeacre to Keith. Keith placed the deed in a safe deposit box but did not record the instrument before departing on an extended visit to Adak, a chic resort island in the Aleutian chain. Six months after Keith departed, Judy conveyed Steppeacre to Clyde, who promptly recorded his deed. Clyde had heard from several sources that Judy had sold Steppeacre to Keith, but he was sure that Judy would not sell him property she had already sold to someone else. Six months after Clyde took possession of Steppeacre, Keith returned from Adak, tanned and rested. When he went to visit Steppeacre he found Clyde there. Keith now sues Clyde in ejectment. Who owns Steppeacre?

Options:
A. Keith, because his deed from Judy came earlier than Clyde's.
B. Clyde, because he recorded first.
C. Keith, because Clyde is not protected by the recording act.
D. Clyde, because his recording cured any possible defect of his knowing of the earlier sale.
Answer: C
Question: On April 1, Stan, a law student, agreed to sell his prized possession - an antique dictionaryto Betsy for $ 1,500$, so that he could pay for his bar review course. Because Stan did not have to pay for his course until April 30, the written contract between Stan and Betsy provided that the dictionary would not be delivered to Betsy until April 20, thus giving Stan a last few extra days to peruse the dictionary's pages. Late on April 15, a terrible fire swept through Stan's apartment building and the dictionary was destroyed. Firefighters determined that the blaze started when Hugh, the tenant living below Stan, fell asleep while doing his taxes and dropped his cigarette onto his paperwork. Fortunately for Stan, he had insurance that covered all of his damages, including compensation for the destroyed dictionary. On April 20, Stan told Betsy of the fire, but still demanded payment, claiming that Betsy was the equitable owner of the dictionary when it was destroyed, and explaining that she could have obtained insurance on the dictionary had she wanted to, since she had an insurable interest in the dictionary as soon as the contract was made. Betsy refused to pay. Stan brings an action against Betsy for the $ 1,500$. Who will prevail?

Options:
A. Betsy, because Stan was fully compensated for his dictionary and making Betsy pay would therefore result in unjust enrichment.
B. Betsy, because destruction of the dictionary avoids the contract and discharges her duty to pay.
C. Stan, because when he contracted with Betsy, the risk of loss passed to her.
D. Stan, because of the doctrine of equitable conversion.
Answer: B
Question: Dogwood was put on trial for the robbery and aggravated battery of Birch. Despite having been seriously injured in the attack, Birch took the witness stand and identified Dogwood as his attacker. The first trial ended in a hung jury on both charges, and Birch died shortly thereafter from his injuries. The district attorney then charged Dogwood with felony murder. At the trial on that charge, the prosecution offers into evidence Birch's testimony at the first trial identifying Dogwood as his assailant. Dogwood's attorney immediately objects. The objection should be:

Options:
A. Sustained, because Birch's testimony was from a prosecution for a different offense than the present trial.
B. Sustained, because the use of the former testimony of someone who has died violates the defendant's constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him in a criminal case. 
C. Overruled, because Birch's testimony is nonhearsay under the Federal Rules as a statement of prior identification.
D. Overruled, because the requirements of the exception to the hearsay rule for former testimony have been satisfied.
Answer: D
Question: After a major merger and corporate reorganization, Gray, who had been an employee of Macho Corporation for 25 years and its public relations director for 10 years, was fired. The excuse given him was that the reorganization and merger required a trimming of personnel to make the corporation "lean and mean." Shortly after Gray's dismissal, Frogman, a member of the board of directors of Macho, who had always liked Gray and admired his competent work, told Gray, "I think what happened to you was rotten, and I want you to know I voted against it, but Cobb, as chairman of the board, took most of the directors with him when he made a point at the reorganization meeting to say, 'Now's our chance to get rid of old Gray, who just doesn't fit our corporate image of youthful vigor."' Gray, who was 60 years old, filed an age discrimination suit against Macho. It was typical practice that all directors' meetings be tape recorded, and that the corporate secretary use the tape recording to type up a formal transcript of the proceedings. The meeting at which Gray's dismissal was discussed was no exception. At the trial of Gray's case, Gray wishes to have Frogman testify as to Cobb's statement at the board meeting. If the defense objects, the court should rule that such testimony is:

Options:
A. Admissible, because it is based on Frogman's firsthand knowledge.
B. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule.
C. Inadmissible, because the audiotape of the directors' meeting is the best evidence.
D. Inadmissible, because the corporate secretary's transcription of the directors' meeting is the best evidence.
Answer: A
Question: Torrens owned Forestacre, a large tract of wooded land, in fee simple. He had always allowed hunters from the local hunting club to use his land during hunting seasons, and had often expressed the wish that they be permitted to continue to use it after he died. On his 75 th birthday, he conveyed Forestacre to his two nephews, Pelt and Dash, who were members of the local hunting club. The deed was a general warranty deed stating that the property was conveyed in fee simple absolute. A few days later, Dash had a serious dispute with Pelt and the other members of the hunting club, and he quit the club. Torrens then executed a written agreement with Pelt stating that the conveyance of Forestacre to Pelt and Dash was in trust for the benefit of the local hunting club for a period of ten years, with Pelt and Dash as trustees, and then to Pelt and Dash in fee simple. Several months later, Torrens died. When the next hunting season drew near, Pelt told Dash that members of the hunting club were once again planning to hunt on the property. Dash would not even consider it, and threatened to have anyone hunting on the property other than Pelt arrested for trespassing. Pelt did not wish to have any further confrontations with Dash, so he brought an action for appropriate legal or equitable relief to establish his rights and the rights of the hunting club. What, if any, relief should the court provide?

Options:
A. Deny Pelt any relief, because Dash has done nothing that would constitute an ouster of Pelt.
B. Partition Forestacre into two separate tracts so that Pelt may permit the hunting club to use his half of Forestacre.
C. Order Dash to permit the hunting club to hunt on Forestacre, because Torrens created an inter vivos trust with the requisite formalities for the benefit of the hunting club.
D. Order Dash to permit the hunting club to hunt on Forestacre, because Pelt is equally entitled to possession of all of it and can allow members of the hunting club to hunt on the property as his guests. 
Answer: B
Question: When Burt purchased Sweetacre, he financed the purchase through a mortgage on the property held by First Bank. The mortgage contained a "due-on-sale clause," requiring the mortgagor to pay off the mortgage at the time the property is sold. Burt made all of his mortgage payments in a timely manner. Five years after Burt purchased Sweetacre, he sold the property to Tully. Burt told Tully that there was a mortgage on the property but he did not mention the due-on-sale clause. Tully paid Burt the asking price for Sweetacre. Burt pocketed the proceeds without paying off the First Bank mortgage. Which of the following best states the effect of the due-on-sale clause on Tully's interest in Sweetacre?

Options:
A. First Bank can foreclose on Sweetacre.
B. Tully must agree to assume the First Bank Mortgage on Sweetacre.
C. The only effect of the clause is that Tully is personally liable on the mortgage.
D. The clause has no effect, because due-on- sale clauses are generally void as contrary to public policy. 
Answer: A
Question: Donnalou was the office cut-up and general practical jokester. She decided to pull a prank on Paul, a rather dour and staid co-worker. Knowing where Paul, a creature of habit, always kept his lunch box, she put a small quantity of mescaline, a synthetic hallucinogen, in Paul's thermos bottle of cranberry juice. She expected that strait-laced Paul would have a minor vision or two and act in a goofy and comical manner. However, when Paul drank his mescaline-laced juice at lunchtime he had a severe reaction to the mescaline and experienced wild hallucinations. Donnalou promptly drove Paul to the emergency room of nearby Hacksaw Hospital. Paul was put under observation for a couple of hours. The emergency room physician, Pillpush, was very busy and negligently released Paul prematurely. The next day, while driving, Paul had another powerful hallucination and drove his car into a bridge abutment. Paul suffered contusions, abrasions, a concussion, and several broken bones. After Paul recovered he sued Donnalou for his injuries. Who will prevail?

Options:
A. Donnalou, because the auto accident would not have occurred but for the negligence of Dr. Pillpush.
B. Donnalou, because Donnalou did not intend to harm Paul.
C. Paul, unless the automobile accident could not have reasonably been foreseen.
D. Paul, because Donnalou intended that Paul should ingest the mescaline. 
Answer: D
Question: Jenny, a general contractor, advertised in a trade publication that she planned to bid on the construction of a new building to be located in the Civic Mall. The advertisement welcomed bids from subcontractors to perform various functions, such as plumbing, electrical work, and masonry. The lowest electrical bid was from Ohmco, who bid $ 20,000$. The lowest plumbing bid was from Plunger, who bid $ 10,000$. Jenny used Ohmco's and Plunger's bids in preparing her general bid. At 2 p.m., on June 22, Jenny submitted her general bid. At 3 p.m., Plunger called her and said, 'I'm sorry, Jenny, but I made a mistake on that bid I submitted to you; I can't possibly do that plumbing work for a dime less than $ 12,000$." Jenny told him, "I can't do anything about that because I've already submitted my general bid." Jenny was awarded the contract. Assume for purposes of this question only that after receiving the contract, Jenny hired Flusher to do the plumbing work on the building at a cost of $ 12,000$. She now sues Plunger for damages. Jenny is entitled to recover:

Options:
A. $ 10,000$.
B. $ 2,000$, which represents the difference between Plunger's bid and the amount Jenny had to pay for plumbing work.
C. Nothing, because $ 12,000$ was a reasonable amount to pay for the work performed.
D. Nothing, because Jenny did not accept Plunger's bid before it was withdrawn.
Answer: D
Question: Alice entered into a written agreement with Moran, whereby Moran agreed to remodel the basement of Alice's home, and Alice agreed to pay Moran $ 8,000$ upon completion of the job. The agreement contained a list of specifications as to the types of materials to be used in the remodeling. Among these specifications was a provision that Moran was to use an imported Brazilian hardwood for the paneling. Moran began the job, and then assigned his right to payment under the agreement to Nicholls. When the job was a little more than half completed, Alice sold the house to Bill. In a document separate from the deed of conveyance, Alice assigned her right to Moran's labor and delegated her duty to pay under the contract to Bill. 11. Assume for purposes of this question only that Moran completed the job on time but used Wyoming knotty pine instead of Brazilian hardwood for the paneling. The knotty pine is considered to be inferior to the Brazilian hardwood and is much less expensive, and Bill was very displeased when he saw the result. Who can Bill sue for breach? (A) Alice only. (B) Moran only. (C) Moran and Nicholls. (D) Alice, Moran, and Nicholls. If Kuegler is tried for the crime of arson, the court should find him:

Options:
A. Not guilty, because Kuegler did not intend to burn the building.
B. Not guilty, because Kuegler's act was sufficient only for attempted arson.
C. Guilty, because Kuegler's conduct demonstrated the requisite state of mind for the crime.
D. Guilty, because Kuegler started the fire during the act of perpetrating another felony.
Answer: B
Question: Congress enacted a law requiring all civil service employees to retire at age 75 , except when such employees are employed by the armed services. Civil service employees of the armed services are required to retire at age 65 . Portman is an employee of the Department of the Army; he is 65 years old. He files suit in the federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment that would prevent the Army from requiring him to retire before age 75 . Portman's strongest argument in support of his contention that the statute's provisions regarding civil service employees of the armed services are invalid is that this provision:

Options:
A. Denies him the privileges and immunities of national citizenship. 
B. Denies him a property right without just compensation.
C. Is invidious discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
D. Is not within the enumerated powers of Congress under Article I, Section 8.
Answer: C
Question: Delbert had his laptop computer stolen from his office during a recent holiday weekend. He went to Alice's computer resale shop to find a replacement and saw what he mistakenly thought was his computer. He questioned Alice, who told him that someone had just sold her the computer a few days ago, but she refused to give him any information on the seller and would not let him inspect it more closely. That night, after the shop was closed, Delbert forced open the back door and took the computer. Alice's clerk, who lived in an apartment above the shop, heard someone breaking in and called the police. Delbert was apprehended a block away from the building. If Delbert is charged with burglary in a jurisdiction retaining the common law criminal offenses, which of the following facts will be most relevant in determining his guilt or innocence?

Options:
A. His mistake as to the identity of the computer was not reasonable.
B. He was unaware that there was an apartment above the shop and did not believe that anyone lived in the building.
C. He realized that the computer was not his before he carried it out.
D. None of the above facts are relevant. 
Answer: B
Question: Larry was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. After making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, Larry used a pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. A short time later, Vernon climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. He fell to the ground and severely injured his back. Larry was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. A statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." Larry was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. After a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. If Larry appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule?

Options:
A. Affirm the conviction, because Larry was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury.
B. Affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that Larry acted with malice.
C. Reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that Larry intended to injure anyone.
D. Reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that Larry bore any malice towards Vernon or the other workers on the roof.
Answer: B
Question: Owl contracted in writing to sell Birdacre to Partridge and Wren, as joint tenants, for $ 60,000$. Partridge and Wren put up $ 6,000$ as earnest money. Before the closing date, Owl died. Shortly thereafter, and also before the closing date, a garage on Birdacre burned down. The garage had a fair market value of $ 6,500$ and was a complete loss. After the fire Partridge went to see Eagle, the executor of Owl's estate. Partridge demanded that Eagle return the $ 6,000$, because Partridge and Wren were no longer interested in Birdacre. Eagle refused and told Partridge that he expected Partridge and Wren to tender the $ 54,000$ due on the property when the closing date arrived. Partridge and Wren did not do so. Partridge filed suit demanding a refund of the $ 6,000$. Eagle countersued, demanding specific performance by Partridge and Wren or, in the alternative, monetary damages. How should the court rule?

Options:
A. In favor of Eagle, by requiring specific performance of Partridge and Wren.
B. In favor of Eagle, by assessing damages against Partridge and Wren.
C. In favor of Partridge, by ordering Eagle to refund the earnest money.
D. The court should rule that Eagle is not entitled to either damages or specific performance and that Partridge is not entitled to a refund of the earnest money.
Answer: A
Question: Steve gave his brother-in-law, Randy, permission to use his boat for a few hours of fishing on the local lake. Randy took the boat out on the lake for a while and then decided to cruise through a system of inland waterways to a larger chain of lakes. The fishing was so good that Randy stayed overnight there and fished most of the next day. On his way back, the boat was struck and seriously damaged by a large tree that fell from the bank without warning. Randy managed to bring the boat back to his house. Just as he got in, Steve called, demanding to know why Randy had not brought it back when he was supposed to. Randy promised that he would bring it back as soon as he could, but Steve replied that he was coming over right now to pick it up. Randy did not want to be around when Steve saw the damage to the boat, so he went out to the store. It was dark when Steve arrived, and he accidently ran over a corner of Randy's garden when he backed his truck up to the boat trailer. When he saw the damage to the boat, however, he left it there and went home. Assuming that the boat was worth $ 18,000$ before it was damaged and sustained $ 9,000$ worth of damage, what is the most that Steve will be entitled to recover in an action against Randy?

Options:
A. $9,000 and damages for loss of use.
B. $ 9,000$ and damages for loss of use, offset by the damage to Randy's garden.
C. $ 18,000$ plus interest.
D. $ 18,000$ plus interest, offset by the damage to Randy's garden.
Answer: C
Question: Just before going on an expedition to the Amazon, Farley gave his brother, Milton, a power of attorney to sell his house, which stated: My brother, Milton, is specifically empowered to sell and convey all, or any part, of the real property owned by me as of this date. Several weeks later, Milton sold Farley's house to Glenda and conveyed to her a customary deed containing covenants of title. A year later, when Farley returned from the expedition, he was served with a complaint by Glenda, who was suing him for breach of covenant because it turned out that Farley's former wife owns onehalf the house that Milton had sold on behalf of his brother. In this suit, Glenda should:

Options:
A. Prevail, because Farley, through his attorney-in-fact, Milton, had covenanted with regard to the title of the property.
B. Prevail, if in fact Farley's former wife has filed a claim against Glenda for her interest in the house.
C. Not prevail, unless the power to "sell and convey" is construed to include the power to execute a usual form of deed used to convey real property. 
D. Not prevail, because Farley did not make any specific covenants with regard to the sale of this house.
Answer: C
Question: Twin Falls has a city ordinance that makes it unlawful for any group of individuals or organizations in excess of 20 persons to demonstrate, march, or picket in the city's civic center without first posting a bond with the police department and receiving a permit. The permit procedure takes at least one working day, and a "parade" permit costs $ 10$. The requirement for a license is that each demonstration in excess of 20 persons have one parade marshal for each 20 persons who must be responsible for insuring that the demonstration remains on the city sidewalks, does not block traffic, and does not become noisy or unruly. The ordinance, in addition to making a violation a misdemeanor, authorizes the police department to terminate any demonstration if "any person in the demonstration, without provocation, uses, in the presence of other persons not a party to the demonstration, annoying, disturbing, opprobrious words and abusive language in such a manner as tending to cause a breach of the peace." YAAF (the Young Americans Against Fascism) brings suit in the state court to enjoin the city from preventing their scheduled demonstration on Memorial Day without a permit, and to enjoin the city from using this ordinance to require them to have a permit. YAAF's strongest contention for finding the provisions of this statute unconstitutional is that:

Options:
A. The city's civic center is a place where demonstrations of this type normally occur, and the city cannot prevent citizens from demonstrating there.
B. There is no showing by the city that YAAF's demonstrators are likely to become disruptive or unruly.
C. The ordinance is overbroad and unduly vague.
D. The First and Fourteenth Amendments ensure the right of association in public places without interference.
Answer: C