ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Defendant is charged with murder in connection with a carjacking incident during which Defendant allegedly shot Victim while attempting to steal Victim's car. The prosecutor calls Victim's four-year-old son, whose face was horribly disfigured by the same bullet, to testify that Defendant shot his father and him. The son's testimony should be 
A. admitted, provided the prosecutor first provides evidence that persuades the judge that the son is competent to testify despite his tender age. 
B. admitted, provided there is sufficient basis for believing that the son has personal knowledge and understands his obligation to testify truthfully. 
C. excluded, because it is insufficiently probative in view of the son's tender age. 
D. excluded, because it is more unfairly prejudicial than probative.
Answer: B
A federal statute provides that the United States Supreme Court has authority to review any case filed in a United States Court of Appeals, even though that case has not yet been decided by the court of appeals. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an agency in the executive branch of the federal government, issued an important environmental rule. Although the rule had not yet been enforced against them, companies that would be adversely affected by the rule filed a petition for review of the rule in a court of appeals, seeking a declaration that the rule was invalid solely because it was beyond the statutory authority of the EPA. The companies made no constitutional claim. A statute specifically provides for direct review of EPA rules by a court of appeals without any initial action in a district court. The companies have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court requesting immediate review of this case by the Supreme Court before the court of appeals has actually decided the case. The EPA acknowledges that the case is important enough to warrant Supreme Court review and that it should be decided promptly, but it asks the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds. The best constitutional argument in support of the EPA's request is that 
A. the case is not within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as defined by Article III, and it is not a proper subject of that court's appellate jurisdiction because it has not yet been decided by any lower court. 
B. the case is appellate in nature, but it is beyond the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, because Article III states that its jurisdiction extends only to cases arising under the Constitution. 
C. Article III precludes federal courts from reviewing the validity of any federal agency rule in any proceeding other than an action to enforce the rule.
D. Article III provides that all federal cases, except those within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, must be initiated by an action in a federal district court.
Answer: A
Patron ate a spicy dinner at Restaurant on Sunday night. He enjoyed the food and noticed nothing unusual about the dinner. Later that evening, Patron had an upset stomach. He slept well through the night, went to work the next day, and ate three meals. His stomach discomfort persisted, and by Tuesday morning he was too ill to go to work. Eventually, Patron consulted his doctor, who found that Patron was infected with a bacterium that can be contracted from contaminated food. Food can be contaminated when those who prepare it do not adequately wash their hands. Patron sued Restaurant for damages. He introduced testimony from a health department official that various health code violations had been found at Restaurant both before and after Patron's dinner, but that none of Restaurant's employees had signs of bacterial infection when they were tested one month after the incident. Restaurant's best argument in response to Patron's suit would be that 
A. no one else who ate at Restaurant on Sunday complained about stomach discomfort.
B. Restaurant instructs its employees to wash their hands carefully and is not responsible if any employee fails to follow these instructions.
C. Patron has failed to establish that Restaurant's food caused his illness.
D. Patron assumed the risk of an upset stomach by choosing to eat spicy food.
Answer: C
In a jurisdiction that has abolished the felony-murder rule, but otherwise follows the common law of murder, Sally and Ralph, both armed with automatic weapons, went into a bank to rob it. Ralph ordered all the persons in the bank to lie on the floor. When some were slow to obey, Sally, not intending to hit anyone, fired about 15 rounds into the air. One of these ricocheted off a stone column and struck and killed a customer in the bank. Sally and Ralph were charged with murder of the customer. Which of the following is correct? 
A. Sally can be convicted of murder, because she did the act of killing, but Ralph cannot be convicted of either murder or manslaughter. 
B. Neither can be guilty of murder, but both can be convicted of manslaughter based upon an unintentional homicide. 
C. Sally can be convicted only of manslaughter, but Ralph cannot be convicted of murder or manslaughter. 
D. Both can be convicted of murder.
Answer: D
In recent years, several large corporations incorporated and headquartered in State A have suddenly been acquired by out-of-state corporations that have moved all of their operations out of State A. Other corporations incorporated and headquartered in State A have successfully resisted such attempts at acquisition by out-of-state corporations, but they have suffered severe economic injury during those acquisition attempts. In an effort to preserve jobs in State A and to protect its domestic corporations against their sudden acquisition by out-of-state purchasers, the legislature of State A enacts a statute governing acquisitions of shares in all corporations incorporated in State A. This statute requires that any acquisition of more than 25% of the voting shares of a corporation incorporated in State A that occurs over a period of less than one year must be approved by the holders of record of a majority of the shares of the corporation as of the day before the commencement of the acquisition of those shares. The statute expressly applies to acquisitions of State A corporations by both in-state and out-of-state entities. Assume that no federal statute applies. Is this statute of State A constitutional? 
A. No, because one of the purposes of the statute is to prevent out-of-state entities from acquiring corporations incorporated and headquartered in State A. 
B. No, because the effect of the statute will necessarily be to hinder the acquisition of State A corporations by other corporations, many of whose shareholders are not residents of State A and, therefore, it will adversely affect the interstate sale of securities. 
C. Yes, because the statute imposes the same burden on both in-state and outof-state entities wishing to acquire a State A corporation, it regulates only the acquisition of State A corporations, and it does not create an impermissible risk of inconsistent regulation on this subject by different states. 
D. Yes, because corporations exist only by virtue of state law and, therefore, the negative implications of the commerce clause do not apply to state regulations governing their creation and acquisition.
Answer: C
A written construction contract began with the following recital: "This Agreement, between Land, Inc. (hereafter called  Owner'), and Builder, Inc., and Boss, its President (hereafter called  Contractor'), witnesseth:" The signatures to the contract appeared in the following format: LAND, INC. By /s/ Oscar Land President BUILDER, INC. By /s/ George Mason Vice President /s/ Mary Boss, President Mary Boss Builder, Inc., became insolvent and defaulted. Land, Inc., sued Boss individually for the breach, and at the trial Boss proffered evidence from the pre-contract negotiations that only Builder, Inc., was to be legally responsible for performing the contract. If the court finds the contract to be completely integrated, is Boss's proffered evidence admissible? 
A. Yes, because the writing is ambiguous as to whether or not Boss was intended individually to be a contracting party. 
B. Yes, because the evidence would contradict neither the recital nor the form of Boss's signature. 
C. No, because the legal effect of Boss's signature cannot be altered by evidence of prior understandings. 
D. No, because of the application of the "four corners" rule, under which the meaning of a completely integrated contract must be ascertained solely from its own terms. 
Answer: A
When Parents were told that their child, Son, should repeat second grade, they sought to have him evaluated by a psychologist. The psychologist, who charged $300, determined that Son had a learning disability. Based upon the report, the school board placed Son in special classes. At an open meeting of the school board, Parents asked that the $300 they had paid to the psychologist be reimbursed by the school district. A reporter attending the meeting wrote a newspaper article about this request, mentioning Son by name. In a privacy action brought by Son's legal representative against the newspaper, the plaintiff will 
A. recover, because the story is not newsworthy. 
B. recover, because Son is under the age of consent. 
C. not recover, if the story is a fair and accurate report of what transpired at the meeting. 
D. not recover, if Parents knew that the reporter was present.
Answer: C
On trial for murdering her husband, Defendant testified she acted in self-defense. Defendant calls Expert, a psychologist, to testify that under hypnosis Defendant had described the killing, and that in Expert's opinion Defendant had been in fear for her life at the time of the killing. Is Expert's testimony admissible? 
A. Yes, because Expert was able to ascertain that Defendant was speaking truthfully. 
B. Yes, because it reports a prior consistent statement by a witness (Defendant) subject to examination concerning it. 
C. No, because reliance on information tainted by hypnosis is unconstitutional. 
D. No, because it expresses an opinion concerning Defendant's mental state at the time of the killing. 
Answer: D
The legislature of State X enacts a statute that it believes reconciles the state's interest in the preservation of human life with a woman's right to reproductive choice. That statute permits a woman to have an abortion on demand during the first trimester of pregnancy but prohibits a woman from having an abortion after that time unless her physician determines that the abortion is necessary to protect the woman's life or health. If challenged on constitutional grounds in an appropriate court, this statute will probably be held 
A. constitutional, because the state has made a rational policy choice that creates an equitable balance between the compelling state interest in protecting fetal life and the fundamental right of a woman to reproductive choice. 
B. constitutional, because recent rulings by the United States Supreme Court indicate that after the first trimester a fetus may be characterized as a person whose right to life is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 
C. unconstitutional, because the state has, without adequate justification, placed an undue burden on the fundamental right of a woman to reproductive choice prior to fetal viability. 
D. unconstitutional, because a statute unqualifiedly permitting abortion at one stage of pregnancy, and denying it at another with only minor exceptions, establishes an arbitrary classification in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Answer: C
Olive owned Blackacre, a single-family residence. Fifteen years ago, Olive conveyed a life estate in Blackacre to Lois. Fourteen years ago, Lois, who had taken possession of Blackacre, leased Blackacre to Trent for a term of 15 years at the monthly rental of $500. Eleven years ago, Lois died intestate leaving Ron as her sole heir. Trent regularly paid rent to Lois and, after Lois's death, to Ron until last month. The period in which to acquire title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 10 years. In an appropriate action, Trent, Olive, and Ron each asserted ownership of Blackacre. The court should hold that title in fee simple is in 
A. Olive, because Olive held a reversion and Lois has died. 
B. Ron, because Lois asserted a claim adverse to Olive when Lois executed a lease to Trent. 
C. Ron, because Trent's occupation was attributable to Ron, and Lois died 11 years ago. 
D. Trent, because of Trent's physical occupancy and because Trent's term ended with Lois's death. 
Answer: C
While browsing in a clothing store, Alice decided to take a purse without paying for it. She placed the purse under her coat and took a couple of steps toward the exit. She then realized that a sensor tag on the purse would set off an alarm. She placed the purse near the counter from which she had removed it. Alice has committed 
A. no crime, because the purse was never removed from the store. 
B. no crime, because she withdrew from her criminal enterprise. 
C. only attempted larceny, because she intended to take the purse out of the store. 
D. larceny, because she took the purse from its original location and concealed it with the intent to steal.
Answer: D
Adam's car sustained moderate damage in a collision with a car driven by Basher. The accident was caused solely by Basher's negligence. Adam's car was still drivable after the accident. Examining the car the next morning, Adam could see that a rear fender had to be replaced. He also noticed that gasoline had dripped onto the garage floor. The collision had caused a small leak in the gasoline tank. Adam then took the car to Mechanic, who owns and operates a body shop, and arranged with Mechanic to repair the damage. During their discussion Adam neglected to mention the gasoline leakage. Thereafter, while Mechanic was loosening some of the damaged material with a hammer, he caused a spark, igniting vapor and gasoline that had leaked from the fuel tank. Mechanic was severely burned. Mechanic has brought an action to recover damages against Adam and Basher. The jurisdiction has adopted a pure comparative negligence rule in place of the traditional common-law rule of contributory negligence. In this action, will Mechanic obtain a judgment against Basher? 
A. No, unless there is evidence that Basher was aware of the gasoline leak. 
B. No, if Mechanic would not have been harmed had Adam warned him about the gasoline leak. 
C. Yes, unless Mechanic was negligent in not discovering the gasoline leak himself. 
D. Yes, if Mechanic's injury was a proximate consequence of Basher's negligent driving. 
Answer: D
Adam's car sustained moderate damage in a collision with a car driven by Basher. The accident was caused solely by Basher's negligence. Adam's car was still drivable after the accident. Examining the car the next morning, Adam could see that a rear fender had to be replaced. He also noticed that gasoline had dripped onto the garage floor. The collision had caused a small leak in the gasoline tank. Adam then took the car to Mechanic, who owns and operates a body shop, and arranged with Mechanic to repair the damage. During their discussion Adam neglected to mention the gasoline leakage. Thereafter, while Mechanic was loosening some of the damaged material with a hammer, he caused a spark, igniting vapor and gasoline that had leaked from the fuel tank. Mechanic was severely burned. Mechanic has brought an action to recover damages against Adam and Basher. The jurisdiction has adopted a pure comparative negligence rule in place of the traditional common-law rule of contributory negligence. In this action, will Mechanic obtain a judgment against Adam? 
A. No, because it was Mechanic's job to inspect the vehicle and repair whatever needed repair. 
B. No, unless Adam was aware of the risk that the gasoline leak represented. 
C. Yes, if a reasonable person in Adam's position would have warned Mechanic about the gasoline leak. 
D. Yes, because the car was unreasonably dangerous when Adam delivered it to Mechanic. 
Answer: C
At 11:00 p.m., John and Marsha were accosted in the entrance to their apartment building by Dirk, who was armed as well as masked. Dirk ordered the couple to take him into their apartment. After they entered the apartment, Dirk forced Marsha to bind and gag her husband John and then to open a safe which contained a diamond necklace. Dirk then tied her up and fled with the necklace. He was apprehended by apartment building security guards. Before the guards could return to the apartment, but after Dirk was arrested, John, straining to free himself, suffered a massive heart attack and died. Dirk is guilty of 
A. burglary, robbery, and murder. 
B. robbery and murder only.
C. burglary and robbery only.
D. robbery only.
Answer: A
Plaintiff sued Defendant for injuries suffered in a car accident allegedly caused by brakes that had been negligently repaired by Defendant. At a settlement conference, Plaintiff exhibited the brake shoe that caused the accident and pointed out the alleged defect to an expert, whom Defendant had brought to the conference. No settlement was reached. At trial, the brake shoe having disappeared, Plaintiff seeks to testify concerning the condition of the shoe. Plaintiff's testimony is 
A. admissible, because Defendant's expert had been able to examine the shoe carefully. 
B. admissible, because Plaintiff had personal knowledge of the shoe's condition. 
C. inadmissible, because the brake shoe was produced and examined as a part of settlement negotiations. 
D. inadmissible, unless Plaintiff establishes that the disappearance was not his fault.
Answer: B
Fixtures, Inc., in a signed writing, contracted with Apartments for the sale to Apartments of 50 identical sets of specified bathroom fixtures, 25 sets to be delivered on March 1, and the remaining 25 sets on April 1. The agreement did not specify the place of delivery, or the time or place of payment. Which of the following statements is correct? 
A. Fixtures must tender 25 sets to Apartments at Apartments' place of business on March 1, but does not have to turn them over to Apartments until Apartments pays the contract price for the 25 sets. 
B. Fixtures has no duty to deliver the 25 sets on March 1 at Fixtures' place of business unless Apartments tenders the contract price for the 25 sets on that date.
C. Fixtures must deliver 25 sets on March 1, and Apartments must pay the contract price for the 25 sets within a reasonable time after their delivery. 
D. Fixtures must deliver 25 sets on March 1, but Apartments' payment is due only upon the delivery of all 50 sets. 
Answer: B
Fixtures, Inc., in a signed writing, contracted with Apartments for the sale to Apartments of 50 identical sets of specified bathroom fixtures, 25 sets to be delivered on March 1, and the remaining 25 sets on April 1. The agreement did not specify the place of delivery, or the time or place of payment. Make the following assumptions. On March 1, Fixtures tendered 24 sets to Apartments and explained, "One of the 25 sets was damaged in transit from the manufacturer to us, but we will deliver a replacement within 5 days." Which of the following statements is correct? 
A. Apartments is entitled to accept any number of the 24 sets, reject the rest, and cancel the contract both as to any rejected sets and the lot due on April 1. 
B. Apartments is entitled to accept any number of the 24 sets and to reject the rest, but is not entitled to cancel the contract as to any rejected sets or the lot due on April 1. 
C. Apartments must accept the 24 sets but is entitled to cancel the rest of the contract.
D. Apartments must accept the 24 sets and is not entitled to cancel the rest of the contract.
Answer: D
Defendant is on trial for nighttime breaking and entering of a warehouse. The warehouse owner had set up a camera to take infrared pictures of any intruders. After an expert establishes the reliability of infrared photography, the prosecutor offers the authenticated infrared picture of the intruder to show the similarities to Defendant. The photograph is 
A. admissible, provided an expert witness points out to the jury the similarities between the person in the photograph and Defendant. 
B. admissible, allowing the jury to compare the person in the photograph and Defendant. 
C. inadmissible, because there was no eyewitness to the scene available to authenticate the photograph. 
D. inadmissible, because infrared photography deprives a defendant of the right to confront witnesses. 
Answer: B
Olivia owned Blackacre, her home. Her daughter, Dawn, lived with her and always referred to Blackacre as "my property." Two years ago, Dawn, for a valuable consideration, executed and delivered to Bruce an instrument in the proper form of a warranty deed purporting to convey Blackacre to Bruce in fee simple, reserving to herself an estate for two years in Blackacre. Bruce promptly and properly recorded his deed. One year ago, Olivia died and by will, duly admitted to probate, left her entire estate to Dawn. One month ago, Dawn, for a valuable consideration, executed and delivered to Carl an instrument in the proper form of a warranty deed purporting to convey Blackacre to Carl, who promptly and properly recorded the deed. Dawn was then in possession of Blackacre and Carl had no actual knowledge of the deed to Bruce. Immediately thereafter, Dawn gave possession to Carl. The recording act of the jurisdiction provides: "No conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice unless the same be recorded according to law." Last week, Dawn fled the jurisdiction. Upon learning the facts, Carl brought an appropriate action against Bruce to quiet title to Blackacre. If Carl wins, it will be because 
A. Dawn had nothing to convey to Bruce two years ago.
B. Dawn's deed to Bruce was not to take effect until after Dawn's deed to Carl.
C. Carl was first in possession.
D. Dawn's deed to Bruce was not in Carl's chain of title.
Answer: D
Grace, while baby-sitting one night, noticed that Sam, who lived next door, had left his house but that the door did not close completely behind him. Grace said to Roy, the 11-year-old boy she was baby-sitting with, "Let's play a game. You go next door and see if you can find my portable television set, which I lent to Sam, and bring it over here." Grace knew that Sam had a portable television set and Grace planned to keep the set for herself. Roy thought the set belonged to Grace, went next door, found the television set, and carried it out the front door. At that moment, Sam returned home and discovered Roy in his front yard with the television set. Roy explained the "game" he and Grace were playing. Sam took back his television set and called the police. Grace is 
A. not guilty of larceny or attempted larceny, because Roy did not commit any crime. 
B. not guilty of larceny but guilty of attempted larceny, because she never acquired possession of the television set. 
C. guilty of larceny as an accessory to Roy.
D. guilty of larceny by the use of an innocent agent.
Answer: D