ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Theresa owned Blueacre, a tract of land, in fee simple. Theresa wrote and executed, with the required formalities, a will that devised Blueacre to "my daughter, Della, for life with remainder to my descendants per stirpes." At the time of writing the will, Theresa had a husband and no descendants living other than her two children, Della and Seth. Theresa died and the will was duly admitted to probate. Theresa's husband predeceased her. Theresa was survived by Della, Seth, four grandchildren, and one great-grandchild. Della and Seth were Theresa's sole heirs at law. Della and Seth brought an appropriate action for declaratory judgment as to title of Blueacre. Guardians ad litem were appointed and all other steps were taken so that the judgment would bind all persons interested whether born or unborn. In that action, if the court rules that Della has a life estate in the whole of Blueacre and that the remainder is contingent, it will be because the court chose one of several possible constructions and that the chosen construction 
A. related all vesting to the time of writing of the will.
B. related all vesting to the death of Theresa.
C. implied a condition that remaindermen survive Della.
D. implied a gift of a life estate to Seth.
Answer: C
Driver negligently drove his car into Pedestrian, breaking her leg. Pedestrian's leg was put in a cast, and she used crutches to get about. While shopping at Market, her local supermarket, Pedestrian nonnegligently placed one of her crutches on a banana peel that had been negligently left on the floor by the manager of Market's produce department. Pedestrian's crutch slipped on the peel, and she fell to the floor, breaking her arm. Had Pedestrian stepped on the banana peel at a time when she did not have to use crutches, she would have regained her balance. Pedestrian sued Driver and Market for her injuries. Pedestrian will be able to recover from 
A. Driver, for her broken leg only. 
B. Driver, for both of her injuries. 
C. Market, for both of her injuries. 
D. Driver, for her broken leg only, and Market, for her broken arm only. 
Answer: B
FBI agents, without a warrant and without permission of Mexican law enforcement or judicial officers, entered Mexico, kidnapped Steven, an American citizen wanted in the United States for drug smuggling violations, and forcibly drove him back to Texas. Thereafter, the agents, again without a warrant, broke into the Texas home of Joan, wanted as a confederate of Steven, and arrested her. Steven and Joan were both indicted for narcotics violations. Both moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that their arrests violated the Fourth Amendment. The court should 
A. grant the motions of both Steven and Joan.
B. grant the motion of Steven and deny the motion of Joan.
C. grant the motion of Joan and deny the motion of Steven.
D. deny the motions of both Steven and Joan.
Answer: D
Gourmet purchased the front portion of the land needed for a restaurant he desired to build and operate, but the back portion was the subject of a will dispute between Hope and Faith (two sisters). Hope's attorney advised her that her claim was doubtful. Gourmet, knowing only that the unresolved dispute existed, agreed in a signed writing to pay Hope $6,000, payable $1,000 annually, in exchange for a quitclaim deed (a deed containing no warranties) from Hope, who promptly executed such a deed to Gourmet and received Gourmet's first annual payment. Shortly thereafter, the probate court handed down a decision in Faith's favor, ruling that Hope had no interest in the land. This decision has become final. Gourmet subsequently defaulted when his second annual installment came due. In an action against Gourmet for breach of contract, Hope will probably 
A. lose, because she was aware at the time of the agreement with Gourmet that her claim to the property quitclaimed was doubtful. 
B. lose, because Hope suffered no legal detriment in executing the quitclaim deed. 
C. win, because Gourmet bargained for and received in exchange a quitclaim deed from Hope. 
D. win, because Gourmet, by paying the first $1,000 installment, is estopped to deny that his agreement with Hope is an enforceable contract.
Answer: C
Athlete, a professional football player, signed a written consent for his team's physician, Doctor, to perform a knee operation. After Athlete was under a general anesthetic, Doctor asked Surgeon, a world famous orthopedic surgeon, to perform the operation. Surgeon's skills were superior to Doctor's, and the operation was successful. In an action for battery by Athlete against Surgeon, Athlete will 
A. prevail, because Athlete did not agree to allow Surgeon to perform the operation. 
B. prevail, because the consent form was in writing. 
C. not prevail, because Surgeon's skills were superior to Doctor's. 
D. not prevail, because the operation was successful. 
Answer: A
Senator makes a speech on the floor of the United States Senate in which she asserts that William, a federal civil servant with minor responsibilities, was twice convicted of fraud by the courts of State X. In making this assertion, Senator relied wholly on research done by Frank, her chief legislative assistant. In fact, it was a different man named William and not William the civil servant, who was convicted of these crimes in the state court proceedings. This mistake was the result of carelessness on Frank's part. No legislation affecting the appointment or discipline of civil servants or the program of the federal agency for which William works was under consideration at the time Senator made her speech about William on the floor of the Senate. William sues Senator and Frank for defamation. Both defendants move to dismiss the complaint. As a matter of constitutional law, the court hearing this motion should 
A. grant it as to Frank, because he is protected by the freedom of speech guarantee against defamation actions by government officials based on his mere carelessness; but deny it as to Senator, because, as an officer of the United States, she is a constituent part of the government and, therefore, has no freedom of speech rights in that capacity. 
B. grant it as to both defendants, because Senator is immune to suit for any speech she makes in the Senate under the speech or debate clause of Article I, Section 6, and Frank may assert Senator's immunity for his assistance to her in preparing the speech. 
C. deny it as to both defendants, because any immunity of Senator under the speech or debate clause does not attach to a speech that is not germane to pending legislative business, and Frank is entitled to no greater immunity than the legislator he was assisting. 
D. deny it as to Frank, because he is not a legislator protected by the speech or debate clause; but grant it as to Senator, because she is immune from suit for her speech by virtue of that clause.
Answer: B
Six years ago, Oscar, owner of Blackacre in fee simple, executed and delivered to Albert an instrument in the proper form of a warranty deed, purporting to convey Blackacre to "Albert and his heirs." At that time, Albert was a widower who had one child, Donna. Three years ago, Albert executed and delivered to Bea an instrument in the proper form of a warranty deed, purporting to convey Blackacre to "Bea." Donna did not join in the deed. Bea was and still is unmarried and childless. The only possibly applicable statute in the jurisdiction states that any deed will be construed to convey the grantor's entire estate, unless expressly limited. Last month, Albert died, never having remarried. Donna is his only heir. Blackacre is now owned by 
A. Donna, because Albert's death ended Bea's life estate pur autre vie. 
B. Bea in fee simple pursuant to Albert's deed.
C. Donna and Bea as tenants in common of equal shares.
D. Donna and Bea as joint tenants, because both survived Albert. 
Answer: B
Smart approached Johnson and inquired about hiring someone to kill his girlfriend's parents. Unknown to Smart, Johnson was an undercover police officer who pretended to agree to handle the job and secretly taped subsequent conversations with Smart concerning plans and payment. A few days before the payment was due, Smart changed his mind and called the plan off. Nevertheless, Smart was charged with solicitation to commit murder. Smart should be 
A. acquitted, because he withdrew before payment and commission of the act. 
B. acquitted, because no substantial acts were performed. 
C. convicted, because the offense was completed before his attempt to withdraw. 
D. convicted, because Johnson agreed to commit the offense.
Answer: C
Retailer, a dry goods retailer, telephoned Manufacturer, a towel manufacturer, and offered to buy for $5 each a minimum of 500 and a maximum of 1,000 large bath towels, to be delivered in 30 days. Manufacturer orally accepted this offer and promptly sent the following letter to Retailer, which Retailer received two days later: "This confirms our agreement today by telephone to sell you 500 large bath towels for 30-day delivery. /s/ Manufacturer." Twenty-eight days later, Manufacturer tendered to Retailer 1,000 (not 500) conforming bath towels, all of which Retailer rejected because it had found a better price term from another supplier. Because of a glut in the towel market, Manufacturer cannot resell the towels except at a loss. In a suit by Manufacturer against Retailer, which of the following will be the probable decision? 
A. Manufacturer can enforce a contract for 1,000 towels, because Retailer ordered and Manufacturer tendered that quantity. 
B. Manufacturer can enforce a contract for 500 towels, because Manufacturer's letter of confirmation stated that quantity term. 
C. There is no enforceable agreement, because Retailer never signed a writing. 
D. There is no enforceable agreement, because Manufacturer's letter of confirmation did not state a price term. 
Answer: B
Doctor, a resident of the city of Greenville in the state of Green, is a physician licensed to practice in both Green and the neighboring state of Red. Doctor finds that the most convenient place to treat her patients who need hospital care is in the publicly owned and operated Redville Municipal Hospital of the city of Redville in the state of Red, which is located just across the state line from Greenville. For many years Doctor had successfully treated her patients in that hospital. Early this year she was notified that she could no longer treat patients in the Redville hospital because she was not a resident of Red, and a newly adopted rule of Redville Municipal Hospital, which was adopted in conformance with all required procedures, stated that every physician who practices in that hospital must be a resident of Red. Which of the following constitutional provisions would be most helpful to Doctor in an action to challenge her exclusion from the Redville hospital solely on the basis of this hospital rule? 
A. The bill of attainder clause.
B. The privileges and immunities clause of Article IV.
C. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
D. The ex post facto clause.
Answer: B
Martin, the owner in fee simple of Orchardacres, mortgaged Orchardacres to Marie to secure the payment of the loan she made to him. The loan was due at the end of the growing season of the year in which it was made. Martin maintained and operated an orchard on the land, which was his sole source of income. Halfway through the growing season, Martin experienced severe health and personal problems and, as a result, left the state; his whereabouts were unknown. Marie learned that no one was responsible for the cultivation and care of the orchard on Orchardacres. She undertook to provide, through employees, the care of the orchard and the harvest for the remainder of the growing season. The net profits were applied to the debt secured by the mortgage on Orchardacres. During the course of the harvest, Paul, a business invitee, was injured by reason of a fault in the equipment used. Under applicable tort case law, the owner of the premises would be liable for Paul's injuries. Paul brought an appropriate action against Marie to recover damages for the injuries suffered, relying on this aspect of tort law. In such lawsuit, judgment should be for 
A. Paul, if, but only if, the state is a title theory state, because in other jurisdictions a mortgagee has no title interest but only a lien. 
B. Paul, because Marie was a mortgagee in possession. 
C. Marie, because she acted as agent of the owner only to preserve her security interest. 
D. Marie, if, but only if, the mortgage expressly provided for her taking possession in the event of danger to her security interest. 
Answer: B
Actor, a well-known movie star, was drinking Vineyard wine at a nightclub. A bottle of the Vineyard wine, with its label plainly showing, was on the table in front of Actor. An amateur photographer asked Actor if he could take his picture and Actor said, "Yes." Subsequently, the photographer sold the photo to Vineyard. Vineyard, without Actor's consent, used the photo in a wine advertisement in a nationally circulated magazine. The caption below the photo stated, "Actor enjoys his Vineyard wine." If Actor sues Vineyard to recover damages as a result of Vineyard's use of the photograph, will Actor prevail? 
A. No, because Actor consented to being photographed. 
B. No, because Actor is a public figure. 
C. Yes, because Vineyard made commercial use of the photograph. 
D. Yes, unless Actor did, in fact, enjoy his Vineyard wine.
Answer: C
At Defendant's trial for sale of drugs, the government called Witness to testify, but Witness refused to answer any questions about Defendant and was held in contempt of court. The government then calls Officer to testify that, when Witness was arrested for possession of drugs and offered leniency if he would identify his source, Witness had named Defendant as his source. The testimony offered concerning Witness's identification of Defendant is 
A. admissible as a prior inconsistent statement by Witness.
B. admissible as an identification of Defendant by Witness after having perceived him.
C. inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception. 
D. inadmissible, because Witness was not confronted with the statement while on the stand. 
Answer: C
Buyer mailed a signed order to Seller that read: "Please ship us 10,000 widgets at your current price." Seller received the order on January 7 and that same day mailed to Buyer a properly stamped, addressed, and signed letter stating that the order was accepted at Seller's current price of $10 per widget. On January 8, before receipt of Seller's letter, Buyer telephoned Seller and said, "I hereby revoke my order." Seller protested to no avail. Buyer received Seller's letter on January 9. Because of Buyer's January 8 telephone message, Seller never shipped the goods. Under the relevant and prevailing rules, is there a contract between Buyer and Seller as of January 10? 
A. No, because the order was an offer that could be accepted only by shipping the goods; and the offer was effectively revoked before shipment. 
B. No, because Buyer never effectively agreed to the $10 price term. 
C. Yes, because the order was, for a reasonable time, an irrevocable offer. 
D. Yes, because the order was an offer that seller effectively accepted before Buyer attempted to revoke it.
Answer: D
As Seller, an encyclopedia salesman, approached the grounds on which Hermit's house was situated, he saw a sign that said, "No salesmen. Trespassers will be prosecuted. Proceed at your own risk." Although Seller had not been invited to enter, he ignored the sign and drove up the driveway toward the house. As he rounded a curve, a powerful explosive charge buried in the driveway exploded, and Seller was injured. Can Seller recover damages from Hermit for his injuries? 
A. Yes, if Hermit was responsible for the explosive charge under the driveway. 
B. Yes, unless Hermit, when he planted the charge, intended only to deter, not to harm, a possible intruder. 
C. No, because Seller ignored the sign, which warned him against proceeding further. 
D. No, if Hermit reasonably feared that intruders would come and harm him or his family. 
Answer: A
Adam owned Blackacre. Adam entered into a written three-year lease of Blackacre with Bertha. Among other provisions, the lease prohibited Bertha from "assigning this lease, in whole or in part, and from subletting Blackacre, in whole or in part." In addition to a house, a barn, and a one-car garage, Blackacre's 30 acres included several fields where first Adam, and now Bertha, grazed sheep. During the following months, Bertha: I. By a written agreement allowed her neighbor Charles exclusive use of the garage for storage, under lock and key, of his antique Packard automobile for two years, charging him $240. II. Told her neighbor Doris that Doris could use the fields to practice her golf as long as she did not disturb Bertha's sheep. Which, if any, of Bertha's actions constituted a violation of the lease? 
A. I only.
B. II only.
C. Both I and II.
D. Neither I nor II.
Answer: A
Defendant is charged with murder. The evidence shows that she pointed a gun at Victim and pulled the trigger. The gun discharged, killing Victim. The gun belonged to Victim. Defendant testifies that Victim told her, and she believed, that the "gun" was a stage prop that could fire only blanks, and that she fired the gun as part of rehearsing a play with Victim at his house. If the jury believes Defendant's testimony and finds that her mistaken belief that the gun was a prop was reasonable, they should find her 
A. guilty of murder.
B. guilty of manslaughter.
C. guilty of either murder or manslaughter.
D. not guilty of murder or manslaughter.
Answer: D
Del's sporting goods shop was burglarized by an escaped inmate from a nearby prison. The inmate stole a rifle and bullets from a locked cabinet. The burglar alarm at Del's shop did not go off because Del had negligently forgotten to activate the alarm's motion detector. Shortly thereafter, the inmate used the rifle and ammunition stolen from Del in a shooting spree that caused injury to several people, including Paula. If Paula sues Del for the injury she suffered, will Paula prevail? 
A. Yes, if Paula's injury would have been prevented had the motion detector been activated. 
B. Yes, because Del was negligent in failing to activate the motion detector. 
C. No, because the storage and sale of firearms and ammunition is not an abnormally dangerous activity. 
D. No, unless there is evidence of circumstances suggesting a high risk of theft and criminal use of firearms stocked by Del.
Answer: D
A statute of the state of Texona prohibits any retailer of books, magazines, pictures, or posters from "publicly displaying or selling to any person any material that may be harmful to minors because of the violent or sexually explicit nature of its pictorial content." Violation of this statute is a misdemeanor. Corner Store displays publicly and sells magazines containing violent and sexually explicit pictures. The owner of this store is prosecuted under the above statute for these actions. In defending against this prosecution in a Texona trial court, the argument that would be the best defense for Corner Store is that the statute violates the 
A. First Amendment as it is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, because the statute is excessively vague and overbroad. 
B. First Amendment as it is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, because a state may not prohibit the sale of violent or sexually explicit material in the absence of proof that the material is utterly without any redeeming value in the marketplace of ideas. 
C. equal protection of the laws clause, because the statute irrationally treats violent and sexually explicit material that is pictorial differently from such material that is composed wholly of printed words. 
D. equal protection of the laws clause, because the statute irrationally distinguishes between violent and sexually explicit pictorial material that may harm minors and such material that may harm only adults.
Answer: A
In an arson prosecution the government seeks to rebut Defendant's alibi that he was in a jail in another state at the time of the fire. The government calls Witness to testify that he diligently searched through all the records of the jail and found no record of Defendant's having been incarcerated there during the time Defendant specified. The testimony of Witness is
A. admissible as evidence of absence of an entry from a public record.
B. admissible as a summary of voluminous documents.
C. inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception. 
D. inadmissible, because the records themselves must be produced.
Answer: A
By warranty deed, Marta conveyed Blackacre to Beth and Christine "as joint tenants with right of survivorship." Beth and Christine are not related. Beth conveyed all her interest to Eugenio by warranty deed and subsequently died intestate. Thereafter, Christine conveyed to Darin by warranty deed. There is no applicable statute, and the jurisdiction recognizes the common-law joint tenancy. Title to Blackacre is in 
A. Darin.
B. Marta.
C. Darin and Eugenio. (C) Darin and Eugenio.
D. Darin and the heirs of Beth.
Answer: C
Peavey was walking peacefully along a public street when he encountered Dorwin, whom he had never seen before. Without provocation or warning, Dorwin picked up a rock and struck Peavey with it. It was later established that Dorwin was mentally ill and suffered recurrent hallucinations. If Peavey asserts a claim against Dorwin based on battery, which of the following, if supported by evidence, will be Dorwin's best defense? 
A. Dorwin did not understand that his act was wrongful.
B. Dorwin did not desire to cause harm to Peavey.
C. Dorwin did not know that he was striking a person.
D. Dorwin thought Peavey was about to attack him.
Answer: C
Penstock owned a large tract of land on the shore of a lake. Drury lived on a stream that ran along one boundary of Penstock's land and into the lake. At some time in the past, a channel had been cut across Penstock's land from the stream to the lake at a point some distance from the mouth of the stream. From where Drury lived, the channel served as a convenient shortcut to the lake. Erroneously believing that the channel was a public waterway, Drury made frequent trips through the channel in his motorboat. His use of the channel caused no harm to the land through which it passed. If Penstock asserts a claim for damages against Drury based on trespass, which of the following would be a correct disposition of the case? 
A. Judgment for Penstock for nominal damages, because Drury intentionally used the channel. 
B. Judgment for Drury, if he did not use the channel after learning of Penstock's ownership claim. 
C. Judgment for Drury, because he caused no harm to Penstock's land. 
D. Judgment for Drury, because when he used the channel he believed it was a public waterway. 
Answer: A