ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Adam and Bailey, brothers, operated an illicit still. They customarily sold to anyone unless they suspected the person of being a revenue agent or an informant. One day when Adam was at the still alone, he was approached by Mitchell, who asked to buy a gallon of liquor. Mitchell was in fact a revenue officer. After Adam had sold him the liquor, Mitchell revealed his identity. Adam grabbed one of the rifles that the brothers kept handy in case of trouble with the law, and shot and wounded Mitchell. Other officers, hiding nearby, overpowered and arrested Adam. Shortly thereafter, Bailey came on the scene. The officers in hiding had been waiting for him. One of them approached him and asked to buy liquor. Bailey was suspicious and refused to sell. The officers nevertheless arrested him. Adam and Bailey were charged with conspiracy to violate revenue laws, illegal selling of liquor, and battery of the officer. On the charge of battery, which statement concerning Adam and Bailey is true? 
A. Neither is guilty.
B. Both are guilty.
C. Adam is guilty but Bailey is not, because the conspiracy had terminated with the arrest of Adam. 
D. Adam is guilty but Bailey is not, because Adam's act was outside the scope of the conspiracy
Answer: B
Odum owned Brightacre (a tract of land) in fee simple. He conveyed it "to Pike, his heirs and assigns; but if Farley shall be living 30 years from the date of this deed, then to Farley, his heirs and assigns." The limitation "to Farley, his heirs and assigns" is
A. valid, because Farley's interest is a reversion 
B. valid, because the interest will vest, if at all, within a life in being. 
C. valid, because Farley's interest is vested subject to divestment. 
D. invalid.
Answer: B
Defendant was driving his automobile at a legal speed in a residential zone. A child darted out in front of him and was run over and killed before Defendant could prevent it. Defendant's driver's license had expired three months previously; Defendant had neglected to check when it was due to expire. Driving without a valid license is a misdemeanor in the jurisdiction. On a charge of manslaughter, Defendant should be found
A. guilty under the misdemeanor-manslaughter rule.
B. guilty, because the licensing requirements are to protect life, and failure to obey is negligence. 
C. not guilty, because the offense was not the proximate cause of the death. 
D. not guilty, because there was no criminal intent
Answer: C
Pauline, an unmarried female, was prominent in the women's liberation movement. She recently gave birth to a baby and publicly announced that she had no intention of marrying the father or disclosing his identity. The local newspaper, Journal, decided to do a series of articles on Pauline entitled "The Perils of Pauline." The first article about Pauline discussed her parents. The article correctly stated that Mary, her mother, had died recently and that Frank, her father, was still living. The article referred to the fact that at the time of Pauline's birth there were rumors that she had been born six months after the marriage of Mary and Frank, that Frank was not in fact her father, and that a person identified as Albert, who had played minor roles in two motion pictures, was her real father. Albert has lived in retirement for the last 10 years. If Pauline asserts a claim based on invasion of privacy against Journal for the statements in the first article about her birth, and it is established that the statements are true, the most likely result is that Pauline will
A. not prevail, because truth is a complete defense. 
B. not prevail, because of her announcement concerning the birth of her own child. 
C. prevail, because the statements hold her up to ridicule and contempt. 
D. prevail, because the statements are embarrassing to her
Answer: B
Homer conveyed his home to his wife, Wanda, for life, remainder to his daughter, Dixie. There was a $20,000 mortgage on the home requiring monthly payments, each covering interest to date plus a portion of the principal. Which of the following statements about the monthly payment is correct?
A. Wanda must pay the full monthly payment.
B. Wanda must pay a portion of the monthly payment based on an apportionment of the value between Wanda's life estate and Dixie's remainder.
C. Wanda must pay the portion of the monthly payment which represents interest.
D. Dixie must pay the full monthly payment
Answer: C
The police, answering a complaint about noise, arrived at Sam's apartment and found Sam's wife dead on the living room floor. One of the officers turned to Sam and asked, "What happened?" Sam replied, "She was a bitch and I took care of her." At Sam's trial, his statement should be ruled
A. admissible, because the statement was part of the res gestae. 
B. admissible, because the statement was made at the scene, was essentially volunteered, and was not a product of a custodial interrogation. 
C. inadmissible, because the statement is ambiguous and not necessarily incriminatory. 
D. inadmissible, because Sam was effectively in police custody and should have been given the Miranda warnings
Answer: B
An ordinance of City makes it unlawful to park a motor vehicle on a City street within 10 feet of a fire hydrant. At 1:55 p.m., Parker, realizing that he must be in Bank before it closed at 2:00 p.m., and finding no other space available, parked his automobile in front of a fire hydrant on a City street. Parker then hurried into the bank, leaving his aged neighbor, Ned, as a passenger in the rear seat of the car. About five minutes later, and while Parker was still in Bank, Driver was driving down the street. Driver swerved to avoid what he mistakenly thought was a hole in the street and sideswiped Parker's car. Parker's car was turned over on top of the hydrant, breaking the hydrant and causing a small flood of water. Parker's car was severely damaged and Ned was badly injured. There is no applicable guest statute."If Ned asserts a claim against Parker, the most likely result is that Ned will
A. recover, because Parker's action was negligence per se. 
B. recover, because Parker's action was a continuing wrong which contributed to Ned's injuries. 
C. not recover, because a reasonably prudent person could not foresee injury to Ned as a result of Parker's action. 
D. not recover, because a violation of a city ordinance does not give rise to a civil cause of action
Answer: C
An ordinance of City makes it unlawful to park a motor vehicle on a City street within 10 feet of a fire hydrant. At 1:55 p.m., Parker, realizing that he must be in Bank before it closed at 2:00 p.m., and finding no other space available, parked his automobile in front of a fire hydrant on a City street. Parker then hurried into the bank, leaving his aged neighbor, Ned, as a passenger in the rear seat of the car. About five minutes later, and while Parker was still in Bank, Driver was driving down the street. Driver swerved to avoid what he mistakenly thought was a hole in the street and sideswiped Parker's car. Parker's car was turned over on top of the hydrant, breaking the hydrant and causing a small flood of water. Parker's car was severely damaged and Ned was badly injured. There is no applicable guest statute.". If Parker asserts a claim against Driver for damage to Parker's automobile, the most likely result is that Parker will
A. recover, because the purpose of the ordinance is to provide access to the fire hydrant. 
B. recover, because Driver's negligence was later in time than Parker's act of parking. 
C. not recover, because Parker was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. 
D. not recover, because Parker's action in parking unlawfully was a continuing wrong. 
Answer: A
An ordinance of City makes it unlawful to park a motor vehicle on a City street within 10 feet of a fire hydrant. At 1:55 p.m., Parker, realizing that he must be in Bank before it closed at 2:00 p.m., and finding no other space available, parked his automobile in front of a fire hydrant on a City street. Parker then hurried into the bank, leaving his aged neighbor, Ned, as a passenger in the rear seat of the car. About five minutes later, and while Parker was still in Bank, Driver was driving down the street. Driver swerved to avoid what he mistakenly thought was a hole in the street and sideswiped Parker's car. Parker's car was turned over on top of the hydrant, breaking the hydrant and causing a small flood of water. Parker's car was severely damaged and Ned was badly injured. There is no applicable guest statute."If City asserts a claim against Driver for the damage to the fire hydrant and Driver was negligent in swerving his car, his negligence is
A. a cause in fact and a legal cause of City's harm.
B. a cause in fact, but not a legal cause, of City's harm because Parker parked illegally. 
C. a legal cause, but not a cause in fact, of City's harm because Parker's car struck the hydrant. 
D. neither a legal cause nor a cause in fact of City's harm
Answer: A
John Smith has denied his purported signature on a letter which has become critical in a breach of contract suit between Smith and Miller. At trial, Miller's counsel calls Alice, a teacher, who testifies that she taught John Smith mathematics in school 10 years earlier, knows his signature, and proposes to testify that the signature to the letter is that of John Smith. Smith's counsel objects. The trial judge should
A. sustain the objection on the ground that identification of handwriting requires expert testimony and the teacher does not, per se, qualify as an expert. 
B. sustain the objection on the ground that the best evidence of Smith's handwriting would be testimony by a person who had examined his writing more recently than 10 years ago.
C. overrule the objection on the ground that a schoolteacher qualifies as an expert witness for the purpose of identifying handwriting.
D. overrule the objection on the ground that a layman may identify handwriting if he has seen the person in question write and has an opinion concerning the writing in question.
Answer: D
Paula sued for injuries she sustained in a fall in a hotel hallway connecting the lobby of the hotel with a restaurant located in the hotel building. The hallway floor was covered with vinyl tile. The defendants were Horne, owner of the hotel building, and Lee, lessee of the restaurant. The evidence was that the hallway floor had been waxed approximately an hour before Paula slipped on it, and although the wax had dried, there appeared to be excessive dried wax caked on several of the tiles. Horne's defense was that the hallway was a part of the premises leased to Lee over which he retained no control, and Lee denied negligence and alleged contributory negligence."Lee offered to prove by Marks, the restaurant manager, that in the week immediately preceding Paula's fall at least 1,000 people had used the hallway in going to and from the restaurant, and Marks had neither seen anyone fall nor received reports that anyone had fallen. The trial judge should rule this evidence
A. admissible, because it tends to prove that Paula did not use the care exercised by reasonably prudent people. 
B. admissible, because it tends to prove that Lee was generally careful in maintaining the floor. 
C. inadmissible, because Marks' testimony is self-serving. 
D. inadmissible, because it does not bear on the issue of Lee's exercise of due care on this specific occasion
Answer: D
Paula sued for injuries she sustained in a fall in a hotel hallway connecting the lobby of the hotel with a restaurant located in the hotel building. The hallway floor was covered with vinyl tile. The defendants were Horne, owner of the hotel building, and Lee, lessee of the restaurant. The evidence was that the hallway floor had been waxed approximately an hour before Paula slipped on it, and although the wax had dried, there appeared to be excessive dried wax caked on several of the tiles. Horne's defense was that the hallway was a part of the premises leased to Lee over which he retained no control, and Lee denied negligence and alleged contributory negligence."If Paula offered to prove that the day after she fell Horne had the vinyl tile taken up and replaced with a new floor covering, the trial judge should rule the evidence
A. admissible, because it is relevant to the issue of whether Horne retained control of the hallway. 
B. admissible, because it is relevant to the issue of awareness of the unsafe condition of the hallway at the time of Paula's fall. 
C. inadmissible, because there was no showing that the new floor covering would be any safer than the old. 
D. inadmissible, because to admit such would discourage a policy of making repairs to prevent further injury, regardless of fault
Answer: A
A newly enacted state criminal statute provides, in its entirety, "No person shall utter to another person in a public place any annoying, disturbing, or unwelcome language." Smith followed an elderly woman for three blocks down a public street, yelling in her ear offensive four-letter words. The woman repeatedly asked Smith to leave her alone, but he refused. In the subsequent prosecution of Smith, the first under this statute, Smith
A. can be convicted.
B. cannot be convicted, because speech of the sort described here may not be punished by the state because of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 
C. cannot be convicted, because, though his speech here may be punished by the state, the state may not do so under this statute. 
D. cannot be convicted, because the average user of a public street would think his speech/action here was amusing and ridiculous rather than "annoying," etc
Answer: C
In which of the following situations is Defendant's claim of intoxication most likely to result in his being found not guilty?
A. Defendant is charged with manslaughter for a death resulting from an automobile accident. Defendant, the driver, claims he was so drunk he was unable to see the other car involved in the accident. 
B. Defendant is charged with assault with intent to kill Watts as a result of his wounding Watts by shooting him. Defendant claims he was so drunk he did not realize anyone else was around when he fired the gun.
C. Defendant is charged with armed robbery. He claims he was so drunk he did not know if the gun was loaded.
D. Defendant is charged with statutory rape after he had sexual intercourse with a girl aged 15 in a jurisdiction where the age of consent is 16. Defendant claims he was so drunk he did not realize the girl was a minor.
Answer: B
On May 1, Ohner telegraphed Byer, "Will sell you any or all of the lots in Grover subdivision at $5,000 each. Details will follow in letter." The letter contained all the necessary details concerning terms of payment, insurance, mortgages, etc., and provided, "This offer remains open until June 1." On May 2, after he had received the telegram but before he had received the letter, Byer telegraphed Ohner, "Accept your offer with respect to lot 101." Both parties knew that there were 50 lots in the Grove subdivision and that they were numbered 101 through 150."For this question only, assume that Ohner and Byer were bound by a contract for the sale of lot 101 for $5,000, that on May 3 Ohner telephoned Byer to say that because he had just discovered that a shopping center was going to be erected adjacent to the Grove subdivision, he would "have to have $6,000 for each of the lots including lot 101," that Byer thereupon agreed to pay him $6,000 for lot 101, and that on May 6 Byer telegraphed, "Accept your offer with respect to the rest of the lots." Assuming that two contracts were formed and that there is no controlling statute, Byer will most likely be required to pay
A. only $5,000 for each of the 50 lots. 
B. only $5,000 for lot 101, but $6,000 for the remaining 49 lots. 
C. $6,000 for each of the 50 lots. 
D. $6,000 for lot 101, but only $5,000 for the remaining 49 lots
Answer: B
On May 1, Ohner telegraphed Byer, "Will sell you any or all of the lots in Grover subdivision at $5,000 each. Details will follow in letter." The letter contained all the necessary details concerning terms of payment, insurance, mortgages, etc., and provided, "This offer remains open until June 1." On May 2, after he had received the telegram but before he had received the letter, Byer telegraphed Ohner, "Accept your offer with respect to lot 101." Both parties knew that there were 50 lots in the Grove subdivision and that they were numbered 101 through 150.""For this question only, assume that on May 5 Ohner telephoned Byer to say that he had sold lots 102 through 150 to someone else on May 4, and that Byer thereafter telegraphed Ohner, "Will take the rest of the lots." Assume further that there is no controlling statute. In an action by Byer against Ohner for breach of contract, Byer probably will
A. succeed, because Ohner had promised him that the offer would remain open until June 1. 
B. succeed, because Ohner's attempted revocation was by telephone. 
C. not succeed, because Byer's power of acceptance was terminated by Ohner's sale of the lots to another party. 
D. not succeed, because Byer's power of acceptance was terminated by an effective revocation
Answer: D
On May 1, Ohner telegraphed Byer, "Will sell you any or all of the lots in Grover subdivision at $5,000 each. Details will follow in letter." The letter contained all the necessary details concerning terms of payment, insurance, mortgages, etc., and provided, "This offer remains open until June 1." On May 2, after he had received the telegram but before he had received the letter, Byer telegraphed Ohner, "Accept your offer with respect to lot 101." Both parties knew that there were 50 lots in the Grove subdivision and that they were numbered 101 through 150."For this question only, assume that on May 6 Byer telegraphed Ohner, "Will take the rest of the lots," and that on May 8 Ohner discovered that he did not have good title to the remaining lots. Which of the following would provide the best legal support for Ohner's contention that he was not liable for breach of contract as to the remaining 49 lots?
A. Impossibility of performance.
B. Unilateral mistake as to basic assumption.
C. Termination of the offer by Byer's having first contracted to buy lot 101.
D. Excuse by failure of an implied condition precedent.
Answer: C
Philip was a 10-year-old boy. Macco was a company that sold new and used machinery. Macco stored discarded machinery, pending sale for scrap, on a large vacant area it owned. This area was unfenced and was one-quarter mile from the housing development where Philip lived. Macco knew that children frequently played in the area and on the machinery. Philip's parents had directed him not to play on the machinery because it was dangerous. One day Philip was playing on a press in Macco's storage area. The press had several wheels, each geared to the next. Philip climbed on the largest wheel, which was about five feet in diameter. Philip's weight caused the wheel to rotate, his foot was caught between two wheels that were set in motion, and he was severely injured. A claim for relief was asserted by Philip through a duly appointed guardian. Macco denied liability and pleaded Philip's contributory fault as a defense. In determining whether Macco breached a duty to Philip, which of the following is the most significant?
A. Whether the press on which Philip was injured was visible from a public way.
B. Whether the maintenance of the area for the storage of discarded machinery was a private nuisance.
C. Whether the maintenance of the area for the storage of discarded machinery was a public nuisance.
D. Whether Macco could have eliminated the risk of harm without unduly interfering with Macco's normal operations
Answer: D
Si was in the act of siphoning gasoline from Neighbor's car in Neighbor's garage and without his consent when the gasoline exploded and a fire followed. Rescuer, seeing the fire, grabbed a fire extinguisher from his car and put out the fire, saving Si's life and Neighbor's car and garage. In doing so, Rescuer was badly burned.If Rescuer asserts a claim against Si for personal injuries, Rescuer will
A. prevail, because he saved Si's life. 
B. prevail, because Si was at fault in causing the fire. 
C. not prevail, because Rescuer knowingly assumed the risk. 
D. not prevail, because Rescuer's action was not a foreseeable consequence of Si's conduct
Answer: B
Si was in the act of siphoning gasoline from Neighbor's car in Neighbor's garage and without his consent when the gasoline exploded and a fire followed. Rescuer, seeing the fire, grabbed a fire extinguisher from his car and put out the fire, saving Si's life and Neighbor's car and garage. In doing so, Rescuer was badly burned.If Rescuer asserts a claim against Neighbor for personal injuries, Rescuer will
A. prevail, because he saved Neighbor's property. 
B. prevail, because he acted reasonably in an emergency. 
C. not prevail, because Neighbor was not at fault. 
D. not prevail, because Rescuer knowingly assumed the risk
Answer: C
Defendant was tried for robbery. Victim and Worth were the only witnesses called to testify. Victim testified that Defendant threatened her with a knife, grabbed her purse, and ran off with it. Worth testified that he saw Defendant grab Victim's purse and run away with it but that he neither saw a knife nor heard any threats. On this evidence the jury could properly return a verdict of guilty of
A. robbery only.
B. larceny only.
C. either robbery or larceny.
D. both robbery and larcen
Answer: C
Congressional legislation authorizing marriages and divorces as a matter of federal law on prescribed terms and conditions could most easily be upheld if it
A. applied only to marriages and divorces in which at least one of the parties was a member of the armed forces.
B. applied only to marriages performed by federal judges and to divorces granted by federal courts.
C. implemented an executive agreement seeking to define basic human rights.
D. applied only to marriages and divorces in the District of Columbia
Answer: D
Assume for the purposes of these questions that you are counsel to the state legislative committee that is responsible for real estate laws in your state.. The committee wants you to draft a statute governing the recording of deeds that fixes priorities of title, as reflected on the public record, as definitely as possible. Which of the following, divorced from other policy considerations, would best accomplish this particular result?
A. Eliminate the requirement of witnesses to deeds.
B. Make time of recording the controlling factor.
C. Make irrebuttable the declarations in the deeds that valuable consideration was paid.
D. Make the protection of bona fide purchasers the controlling factor
Answer: B
Assume for the purposes of these questions that you are counsel to the state legislative committee that is responsible for real estate laws in your state.The committee wants you to draft legislation to make all restrictions on land use imposed by deeds (now or hereafter recorded) unenforceable in the future so that public land-use planning through zoning will have exclusive control in matters of land use. Which of the following is LEAST likely to be a consideration in the drafting of such legislation?
A. Compensation for property rights taken by public authority.
B. Impairment of contract.
C. Sovereign immunity.
D. Police power.
Answer: C
Price sued Derrick for injuries Price received in an automobile accident. Price claims that Derrick was negligent in (a) exceeding the posted speed limit of 35 m.p.h., (b) failing to keep a lookout, and (c) crossing the center lineBystander, Price's eyewitness, testified on crossexamination that Derrick was wearing a green sweater at the time of the accident. Derrick's counsel calls Wilson to testify that Derrick's sweater was blue. Wilson's testimony is
A. admissible as substantive evidence of a material fact.
B. admissible as bearing on Bystander's truthfulness and veracity.
C. inadmissible, because it has no bearing on the capacity of Bystander to observe. 
D. inadmissible, because it is extrinsic evidence of a collateral matte
Answer: D