imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: In 1951, Owner conveyed Blackacre to Brian for "so long as Blackacre is used solely for residential purposes. Should Brian ever use Blackacre for any other purpose, the interest in Blackacre shall revert to Owner and his heirs." Brian used Blackacre as his personal residence for 20 years, but in 1971, he began operating a bar on Blackacre. Owner knew that Brian was operating a bar on Blackacre, but he took no action. In 2000, the aged Brian decided to get out of the saloon business. Brian closed his business and once again began to use Blackacre solely as his personal residence. Also in 2000, Owner died, survived by his son and only heir, Stephen. In 2002, Stephen laid claim to Blackacre. The jurisdiction in which Blackacre is located has a seven-year adverse possession statute and another statute that bars enforcement of possibilities of reverter 55 years after their creation. May Stephen validly claim title to Blackacre?

Options:
A. Yes, because less than 55 years has elapsed since the creation of the possibility of reverter.
B. Yes, because the adverse possession period began to run when Brian returned the property to residential status, and Brian has not held for the requisite seven years.
C. No, because the adverse possession period began to run in 1971, and Brian has held the property for more than the requisite seven years.
D. No, because Owner did not assert his possibility of reverter; thus, no cause of action arose in Owner or his heirs.
Answer: C
Question: A federal statute provided for federal grants to cities that desired to reclaim and rebuild inner-city areas for multi-family residential housing. The city of Owenoak applied for funding to build housing and received a grant of $ 2.5$ million. After the area was prepared for construction, however, the city council decided it would greatly benefit the inner-city dwellers if, in addition to housing, commercial property was built. Thus, the Council decided to use $ 1.5$ million for housing and to "borrow" the remaining $ 1$ million from the housing fund to build a commercial mall. The city resolution provided that $30 \%$ of the rental from the mall each year would go to a fund for maintenance of the housing and for funds to build additional housing. Construction had started on two high-rise residential buildings and the commercial mall when the federal court, at the request of the federal government, froze the construction accounts containing the proceeds from the grant. In a motion by the city to release the funds, the court would most likely:

Options:
A. Grant the motion, because the city's plan for a fund to build more residential housing substantially complies with the terms of the grant.
B. Grant the motion, because the doctrine of preservation of state sovereignty prevents the federal government from interfering with the state's discretion in this situation.
C. Deny the motion, because the federal government can control the expenditure of the funds since it provided the funds.
D. Deny the motion, since the doctrine of state sovereignty has no application in this situation since the action was by the city council and not the state legislature.
Answer: C
Question: Opal owned a large tract of land in fee simple and subdivided 100 acres into 250 lots. She obtained all the necessary governmental approvals, and between 1991 and 2003 sold 175 of the lots. Preston, who purchased one of the lots to build a house, received a deed containing the following provision, which was in all the deeds to these 175 lots: It is agreed and covenanted by Opal that the property conveyed herein shall be used for a single-family dwelling only and that no structure, other than a single-family dwelling, shall be erected or maintained; further, that occupancy in any dwelling built on this property shall be by a single family for residential purposes only. This agreement is specifically made binding on the grantee and grantee's heirs, their assigns and successors. In 2004, Opal contracted with Fun Spa to sell an additional 100 acres that she owned contiguous to these lots. As part of this agreement, Opal conveyed to Fun Spa the 75 lots she had not previously sold. Nothing in the deeds for these 75 lots restricted their use to single-family residences, and in fact, Fun Spa was planning to use all the property purchased from Opal for a resort and for multi-family dwellings. If Preston brought suit against Opal to establish that all the original 250 lots, including the 75 she had agreed to sell to Fun Spa, had to be used only for single-family dwellings in a proper proceeding, what would be the most likely result?

Options:
A. Opal will prevail, because the provision in the deed only binds the grantee.
B. Opal will prevail, because the remaining 75 deeds did not contain this provision.
C. Preston will prevail, if he can show that a common development scheme had been established for the entire subdivision.
D. Preston will prevail, unless the evidence shows that Fun Spa was not aware of this provision at the time of its agreement with Opal.
Answer: C
Question: Moms operated a corner drugstore. One afternoon she heard a screeching of brakes and Moms immediately rushed out of the store. She saw a car speeding off into the distance and found a badly injured Victor lying in the street. Victor gasped to Moms, "I'm going to die. The car that hit me had license number DD666!" Victor then lapsed into unconsciousness. Moms gave her information to the police, including a description of the car and Victor's comment on the license plate. Police traced the registration to Dick Devilish. Victor recovered from his injuries but now suffers permanent disabilities. Victor filed suit against Devilish for his injuries. At the trial, Victor wants to have Moms testify as to Victor's statement regarding Devilish's license number. The court should rule that such testimony by Moms is:

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: D
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. Stone brings suit to reform the contract to reflect his exclusive right to sell newspapers and magazines in the office building. The most likely result of this suit is that:

Options:
A. Stone will prevail.
B. Stone will prevail only if he can prove a mutual mistake.
C. Stone will not prevail because of the application of the parol evidence rule.
D. Stone will not prevail because the mistake on his part was unilateral.
Answer: B
Question: Walter purchased a new power boat with an inboard engine from City Marine. The boat was manufactured by Watersports, Inc. Later that summer, Walter was using his boat on the lake to tow some of his friends while they waterskied when he found himself near the end of the lake where the large dam that had formed the lake was located. Several hundred feet from the dam were large pylons bearing signs warning boaters to stay at least 50 yards away. Between the pylons and the dam, about 100 feet from the pylons, was a partially submerged chain link fence covering the underwater pipes that drew water to run the hydroelectric generating turbines. Walter decided to show off by weaving his boat in and out of the warning pylons. As he rounded the last of them, the steering mechanism of his boat jammed, and it and Walter were propelled into the chain link fence. Tom, who was skiing behind the boat, was pulled into one of the pylons. Both Walter and Tom were severely injured. The jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence rules. If Tom brings a negligence action against Watersports, Inc., and it is found that the steering failure resulted from a manufacturing defect in the boat, will he recover for his injuries?

Options:
A. No, because he did not purchase the boat.
B. No, if Walter is found to have been negligent in weaving in and out of the pylons.
C. Yes, if the defect in the steering mechanism could have been discovered by Watersports, Inc. in the exercise of reasonable care.
D. Yes, unless the defect in the steering mechanism could have been discovered by City Marine in the exercise of reasonable care.
Answer: C
Question: Cheryl is on trial for fraud, it having been alleged that she participated in an illegal scheme in which her victims were invited to become local distributors for a supposed cosmetics manufacturer. The victims were given bonus payments, after they had made a large initial "investment," for additional distributors who they would bring to the manufacturer. Cheryl's defense is that she knew nothing of the scheme. She claims she was brought into the scheme by the purported head of the manufacturer's sales department and was just following instructions to bring additional distributors into the sales force. The prosecution intends to call Darryl, who will testify that Cheryl had talked him into making an investment in a similar scheme involving household products, rather than cosmetics, five years ago. Should the trial court admit this evidence over Cheryl's objection?

Options:
A. No, because evidence of other acts or wrongs is not admissible to prove character and action in conformity therewith.
B. No, because it is irrelevant.
C. Yes, because it is evidence of Cheryl's character for dishonesty.
D. Yes, because it is evidence of Cheryl's state of mind.
Answer: D
Question: Cheryl is on trial for fraud, it having been alleged that she participated in an illegal scheme in which her victims were invited to become local distributors for a supposed cosmetics manufacturer. The victims were given bonus payments, after they had made a large initial "investment," for additional distributors who they would bring to the manufacturer. Cheryl's defense is that she knew nothing of the scheme. She claims she was brought into the scheme by the purported head of the manufacturer's sales department and was just following instructions to bring additional distributors into the sales force. The prosecution calls Zeke as a witness. Zeke is a former business associate of Cheryl's, and he testifies that her reputation in the community is for frequently participating in very questionable transactions, usually resulting in heavy losses for her investors. He testifies further that he thinks she is dishonest. Should the trial court admit this evidence over Cheryl's objection?

Options:
A. No, because the prosecution cannot initiate evidence of the accused's character.
B. No, because use of Zeke's opinion is improper.
C. Yes, because it is evidence of Cheryl's character for dishonesty.
D. Yes, because it is evidence of habit. 
Answer: A
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 equipment concerned had been installed by Alice, but the facts were otherwise unchanged, the effect of the State Bank's prayer for an injunction would be that the:

Options:
A. Likelihood of the State Bank's succeeding would be lessened.
B. Likelihood of the State Bank's succeeding would be improved.
C. Likelihood of the State Bank's succeeding would be unaffected.
D. Outcome of the litigation would depend on whether the mortgage expressly mentioned personal property located on the premises.
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. If Jenny is charged with petit theft of Fisher's food, a misdemeanor, the court should rule that:

Options:
A. Jenny is not guilty because she was acting under the direction of Joey.
B. Jenny is guilty because an otherwise criminal act cannot be justified by threats of starvation.
C. Jenny is not guilty because there was no "carrying away" of Fisher's food, and hence no completed theft crime was committed.
D. Jenny is not guilty if a reasonable person would have regarded the theft as essential to avoid starvation.
Answer: D
Question: Dirk broke into Vera's house one night. As he started to stuff silverware into a sack, he was surprised by Vera, who had arrived home earlier than usual. Dirk struck Vera on the head with a candlestick and tied her up. He finished filling his sack and left. The police discovered Vera several hours later and rushed her to the hospital. Dirk was apprehended by the police early the following morning with the loot still in his possession. He was taken to police headquarters, given Miranda warnings, and asked if he wished to make a statement about the prior evening's events. The police did not mention that Vera had been seriously injured and was in the hospital. Dirk said he understood his rights and was willing to talk. He then admitted that he committed the burglary of Vera's house. The following day, Vera died from injuries caused by the blow to her head. If, at Dirk's trial for murder, Dirk moves to prevent introduction of the confession into evidence, his motion should most probably be:

Options:
A. Denied, because failure of the police to advise Dirk of Vera's condition was harmless error since felony murder does not require intent to kill or injure.
B. Denied, because Dirk's waiver of his rights did not depend upon the nature of the charges that were later filed against him.
C. Granted, because Dirk could not make a knowing and intelligent waiver unless he had information concerning Vera's condition.
D. Granted, because the use of a confession to burglary in a prosecution for murder violates due process where the police withheld information about the potential seriousness of the offense.
Answer: B
Question: Walter purchased a new power boat with an inboard engine from City Marine. The boat was manufactured by Watersports, Inc. Later that summer, Walter was using his boat on the lake to tow some of his friends while they waterskied when he found himself near the end of the lake where the large dam that had formed the lake was located. Several hundred feet from the dam were large pylons bearing signs warning boaters to stay at least 50 yards away. Between the pylons and the dam, about 100 feet from the pylons, was a partially submerged chain link fence covering the underwater pipes that drew water to run the hydroelectric generating turbines. Walter decided to show off by weaving his boat in and out of the warning pylons. As he rounded the last of them, the steering mechanism of his boat jammed, and it and Walter were propelled into the chain link fence. Tom, who was skiing behind the boat, was pulled into one of the pylons. Both Walter and Tom were severely injured. The jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence rules. Walter brings an action for damages against City Marine on a theory of strict liability in tort. Who will prevail?

Options:
A. City Marine, if it properly inspected the boat before selling it to Walter.
B. City Marine, if Walter is found to have been negligent in weaving in and out of the pylons.
C. Walter, if he can show that the steering failed due to a defect present when the boat left the manufacturer.
D. Walter, because the steering mechanism failed while he was operating the boat.
Answer: C
Question: There is high and persistent unemployment in the industrialized state of Green. Its legislature therefore enacted a statute requiring every business with annual sales in Green of over $ 1$ million to purchase each year goods and/or services in Green equal in value to at least half of its sales in Green. Which of the following parties most clearly has standing to contest the constitutionality of this statute of Green in federal court?

Options:
A. A business in another state that supplies from that other state $95 \%$ of the goods and services bought by a corporation that has annual sales in Green of $ 20$ million.
B. A corporation selling $ 300,000$ worth of goods in Green but presently purchasing only $ 10,000$ in goods and services in Green. 
C. The governor of an adjacent state on behalf of the state and its residents.
D. The owner of high-grade, secured bonds issued by a corporation with sales in Green of $ 10$ million that currently purchases only $ 1$ million in goods and services in Green.
Answer: A
Question: Simmons and Boyd entered into a written contract for the sale and purchase of Wideacre. The contract provided that "Simmons agrees to convey a good and marketable title to Boyd 60 days from the date of this contract."' The purchase price was stated as $ 60,000$. At the time set for closing, Simmons tendered a deed in the form agreed to in the contract. Boyd's examination of the record prior to the date of closing had disclosed, however, that the owner of record was not Simmons, but Olson. Further investigation by Boyd revealed that, notwithstanding the state of the record, Simmons had been in what Boyd concedes is adverse possession for 15 years. The period of time to acquire title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 10 years. Boyd refuses to pay the purchase price or to take possession "because of the inability of Simmons to transfer a marketable title." In an appropriate action by Simmons against Boyd for specific performance, Simmons will:

Options:
A. Prevail, because he has obtained a "good and marketable title" by adverse possession.
B. Prevail, because Simmons's action for specific performance is an action in rem even though Olson is not a party.
C. Not prevail, because Boyd cannot be required to buy a lawsuit even if the probability is great that Boyd would prevail against Olson.
D. Not prevail, because Simmons's failure to disclose his lack of record title constitutes fraud.
Answer: C
Question: In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be not guilty of the charge made?

Options:
A. Believing that state law made it a crime to purchase Valium without a prescription, Defendant purchased without a prescription a certain quantity of Valium. Unknown to Defendant, the state legislature had repealed the statute, and Valium could be legally purchased without a prescription. Defendant is charged with attempting to purchase Valium without a prescription.
B. While in the course of a fight, Defendant, intending to kill Stan, ran up and stabbed Stan from behind. Unknown to Defendant, Stan had been stabbed through the chest only seconds before by another participant in the fight, killing him instantly. Defendant is charged with attempted murder.
C. Defendant misrepresented his identity to a garage in order to take possession of an automobile that had been left with the garage for repairs earlier that week. The owner of the garage was not deceived and refused to turn over possession. Defendant is charged with attempting to obtain property by false pretenses.
D. Police arrested Robber as he was leaving a house where he had stolen a good deal of property. As part of a plea-bargain arrangement, Robber took the property to Defendant and offered to sell it. Defendant, believing the property to be stolen, purchased it. Defendant is charged with attempting to receive stolen property. 
Answer: A
Question: Jane, an architectural historian, bought a house in 1979 from William. She paid him $ 50,000$ in cash, and the balance of the $ 150,000$ sale price came from the proceeds of a mortgage she took out with State National Bank. The mortgage was recorded. In 1987, Jane borrowed $ 5,000$ from the Home Finance Company, using her house as security. Home Finance recorded its mortgage on the property. In 1996, Jane had an architect friend design an addition to her house. She borrowed $ 40,000$ from Property Equity Lenders, Inc. to pay for this construction. Property Equity did not record the mortgage Jane gave it to secure this debt. In 2003, Jane lost her job and was unable to make payments on some of her obligations. She made the payments on the State National mortgage, but was unable to make any payments on either the Home Finance or Property Equity Lenders mortgages. Home Finance filed foreclosure of its mortgage. At the foreclosure sale, Susan bought the property. After acquiring the property at the sale, what is Susan's obligation toward the holders of the other two mortgages, State National Bank and Property Equity Lenders, Inc.?

Options:
A. She takes the property subject to both mortgages.
B. She takes the property subject to neither mortgage.
C. She takes the property subject to Property Equity Lenders's mortgage, but not subject to State National Bank's mortgage.
D. She takes the property subject to State National Bank's mortgage, but not subject to Property Equity Lenders's mortgage. 
Answer: D