ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Dooley was a pitcher for the City Robins, a professional baseball team. While Dooley was throwing warm-up pitches on the sidelines during a game, he was continuously heckled by some spectators seated in the stands above the dugout behind a wire mesh fence. On several occasions, Dooley turned and looked directly at the hecklers with a scowl on his face, but the heckling continued. Dooley wound up as though he was preparing to pitch in the direction of his catcher; however, the ball traveled from his hand, at high speed, at a 90-degree angle from the line to the catcher and directly toward the hecklers in the stands. The ball passed through the wire mesh fence and struck Patricia, one of the hecklers. Patricia brought an action for damages against Dooley and the City Robins, based upon negligence and battery. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants on the battery count. The jury found for the defendants on the negligence count because the jury determined that Dooley could not foresee that the ball would pass through the wire mesh fence. Patricia has appealed the judgments on the battery counts, contending that the trial court erred in directing verdicts for Dooley and the City Robins."For this question only, assume that, on appeal, the court holds that the question of whether Dooley committed a battery is a jury issue. The judgment entered on the directed verdict in favor of the City Robins should then be
A. reversed and the case remanded, because a jury could find the City Robins vicariously liable for a battery committed by Dooley in the course of his employment. 
B. reversed and the case remanded, only if a jury could find negligence on the part of the Robins team management. 
C. affirmed, because an employer is not vicariously liable for an employee's battery. 
D. affirmed, if Dooley's act was a knowing violation of team rules.
Answer: A
Small retailers located in the state of Yellow are concerned about the loss of business to certain large retailers located nearby in bordering states. In an effort to deal with this concern, the legislature of Yellow enacted a statute requiring all manufacturers and wholesalers who sell goods to retailers in Yellow to do so at prices that are no higher than the lowest prices at which they sell them to retailers in any of the states that border Yellow. Several manufacturers and wholesalers who are located in states bordering Yellow and who sell their goods to retailers in those states and in Yellow bring an action in federal court to challenge the constitutionality of this statute. Which of the following arguments offered by these plaintiffs is likely to be most persuasive in light of applicable precedent? The state statute
A. deprives them of their property or liberty without due process of law.
B. imposes an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce
C. deprives them of a privilege or immunity of national citizenship.
D. denies them the equal protection of the laws
Answer: B
Smith is a new lawyer who has three clients, all of whom are indigent. To improve the appearance of his office, he decided to purchase some new furniture and to pay for it out of future earnings. Wearing an expensive suit borrowed from a friend, Smith went to a furniture store and asked to purchase on credit a desk and various other items of furniture. Smith told the store owner that he was a very able lawyer with a growing practice and that he expected to do very well in the future. The store owner agreed to sell him the items on credit, and Smith promised to make monthly payments of $800. Smith has never had an income from his practice of more than $150 a month. Smith's business did not improve, and he did not make any payments to the furniture store. After three months, the store owner repossessed the items. If Smith is charged with obtaining property by false pretenses, his best argument for being found NOT guilty would be that
A. even if he misled the store owner, he intended to pay for the items. 
B. he did not misrepresent any material fact.
C. the store owner got his property back and so suffered no harm.
D. the store owner could have asked for payment in full at the time of the purchase.
Answer: B
Which of the following items of evidence is LEAST likely to be admitted without a supporting witness?
A. In a libel action, a copy of a newspaper purporting to be published by Defendant Newspaper Publishing Company. 
B. In a case involving contaminated food, a can label purporting to identify the canner as Defendant Company. 
C. In a defamation case, a document purporting to be a memorandum from the Defendant Company president to "All Personnel," printed on Defendant Company's letterhead. 
D. In a case involving injury to a pedestrian, a pamphlet on stopping distances issued by the State Highway Departmen
Answer: C
A federally owned and operated office building in the state of West Dakota is heated with a new pollution-free heating system. However, in the coldest season of the year, this new system is sometimes insufficient to supply adequate heat to the building. The appropriation statute providing the money for construction of the new heating system permitted use of the old pollution-generating system when necessary to supply additional heat. When the old heating system operates (only about two days in any year), the smokestack of the building emits smoke that exceeds the state of West Dakota's pollution-control standards. May the operators of the federal office building be prosecuted successfully by West Dakota authorities for violating that state's pollutioncontrol standards?
A. Yes, because the regulation of pollution is a legitimate state police power concern. 
B. Yes, because the regulation of pollution is a joint concern of the federal government and the state and, therefore, both of them may regulate conduct causing pollution. 
C. No, because the operations of the federal government are immune from state regulation in the absence of federal consent. 
D. No, because the violations of the state pollution-control standards involved here are so deminimized that they are beyond the legitimate reach of state law.
Answer: C
Dieter parked her car in violation of a city ordinance that prohibits parking within 10 feet of a fire hydrant. Because Grove was driving negligently, his car sideswiped Dieter's parked car. Plaintiff, a passenger in Grove's car, was injured in the collision. If Plaintiff asserts a claim against Dieter to recover damages for his injuries, basing his claim on Dieter's violation of the parking ordinance, will Plaintiff prevail?
A. Yes, because Dieter was guilty of negligence per se. 
B. Yes, if Plaintiff would not have been injured had Dieter's car not been parked where it was. 
C. No, because Dieter's parked car was not an active or efficient cause of Plaintiff's injury. 
D. No, if prevention of traffic accidents was not a purpose of the ordinance.
Answer: D
On July 15, in a writing signed by both parties, Fixtures, Inc., agreed to deliver to Druggist on August 15 five storage cabinets from inventory for a total price of $5,000 to be paid on delivery. On August 1, the two parties orally agreed to postpone the delivery date to August 20. On August 20, Fixtures tendered the cabinets to Druggist, who refused to accept or pay for them on the ground that they were not tendered on August 15, even though they otherwise met the contract specifications. Assuming that all appropriate defenses are seasonably raised, will Fixtures succeed in an action against Druggist for breach of contract? 
A. Yes, because neither the July 15 agreement nor the August 1 agreement was required to be in writing. 
B. Yes, because the August 1 agreement operated as a waiver of the August 15 delivery term. 
C. No, because there was no consideration to support the August 1 agreement. 
D. No, because the parol evidence rule will prevent proof of the August 1 agreement.
Answer: B
Beth wanted to make some money, so she decided to sell cocaine. She asked Albert, who was reputed to have access to illegal drugs, to supply her with cocaine so she could resell it. Albert agreed and sold Beth a bag of white powder. Beth then repackaged the white powder into smaller containers and sold one to Carol, an undercover police officer, who promptly arrested Beth. Beth immediately confessed and said that Albert was her supplier. Upon examination, the white powder was found not to be cocaine or any type of illegal substance. If Albert knew the white powder was not cocaine but Beth believed it was, which of the following is correct? 
A. Both Albert and Beth are guilty of attempting to sell cocaine.
B. Neither Albert nor Beth is guilty of attempting to sell cocaine.
C. Albert is guilty of attempting to sell cocaine, but Beth is not. 
D. Albert is not guilty of attempting to sell cocaine, but Beth is.
Answer: D
Neighbor, who lived next door to Homeowner, went into Homeowner's garage without permission and borrowed Homeowner's chain saw. Neighbor used the saw to clear broken branches from the trees on Neighbor's own property. After he had finished, Neighbor noticed several broken branches on Homeowner's trees that were in danger of falling on Homeowner's roof. While Neighbor was cutting Homeowner's branches, the saw broke. In a suit for conversion by Homeowner against Neighbor, will Homeowner recover? 
A. Yes, for the actual damage to the saw. 
B. Yes, for the value of the saw before Neighbor borrowed it. 
C. No, because when the saw broke Neighbor was using it to benefit Homeowner. 
D. No, because Neighbor did not intend to keep the saw.
Answer: B
Homeowner hired Arsonist to set fire to Homeowner's house so that Homeowner could collect the insurance proceeds from the fire. After pouring gasoline around the house, Arsonist lit the fire with his cigarette lighter and then put the lighter in his pocket. As Arsonist was standing back admiring his work, the lighter exploded in his pocket. Arsonist suffered severe burns to his leg. Arsonist brought an action against the manufacturer of the lighter based on strict product liability. Under applicable law, the rules of pure comparative fault apply in such actions. Will Arsonist prevail? 
A. Yes, if the lighter exploded because of a defect caused by a manufacturing error. 
B. Yes, if Arsonist can establish that the lighter was the proximate cause of his injury. 
C. No, because the lighter was not being used for an intended or reasonably foreseeable purpose. 
D. No, because Arsonist was injured in the course of committing a felony by the device used to perpetrate the felony.
Answer: A
Susan owned Goldacre, a tract of land, in fee simple. By warranty deed, she conveyed Goldacre in fee simple to Ted for a recited consideration of "$10 and other valuable consideration." The deed was promptly and properly recorded. One week later, Susan and Ted executed a written document that stated that the conveyance of Goldacre was for the purpose of establishing a trust for the benefit of Benton, a child of Susan's. Ted expressly accepted the trust and signed the document with Susan. This written agreement was not authenticated to be eligible for recordation and there never was an attempt to record it. Ted entered into possession of Goldacre and distributed the net income from Goldacre to Benton at appropriate intervals. Five years later, Ted conveyed Goldacre in fee simple to Patricia by warranty deed. Patricia paid the fair market value of Goldacre, had no knowledge of the written agreement between Susan and Ted, and entered into possession of Goldacre. Benton made demand upon Patricia for distribution of income at the next usual time Ted would have distributed. Patricia refused. Benton brought an appropriate action against Patricia for a decree requiring her to perform the trust Ted had theretofore recognized. In such action, judgment should be for 
A. Benton, because a successor in title to the trustee takes title subject to the grantor's trust. 
B. Benton, because equitable interests are not subject to the recording act. 
C. Patricia, because, as a bona fide purchaser, she took free of the trust encumbering Ted's title. 
D. Patricia, because no trust was ever created since Susan had no title at the time of the purported creation. 
Answer: C
In a federal investigation of Defendant for tax fraud, the grand jury seeks to obtain a letter written January 15 by Defendant to her attorney in which she stated: "Please prepare a deed giving my ranch to University but, in order to get around the tax law, I want it back-dated to December 15." The attorney refuses to produce the letter on the ground of privilege. Production of the letter should be 
A. prohibited, because the statement is protected by the attorney-client privilege. 
B. prohibited, because the statement is protected by the client's privilege against self-incrimination. 
C. required, because the statement was in furtherance of crime or fraud. 
D. required, because the attorney-client privilege belongs to the client and can be claimed only by her. 
Answer: C
After being fired from his job, Mel drank almost a quart of vodka and decided to ride the bus home. While on the bus, he saw a briefcase he mistakenly thought was his own, and began struggling with the passenger carrying the briefcase. Mel knocked the passenger to the floor, took the briefcase, and fled. Mel was arrested and charged with robbery. Mel should be 
A. acquitted, because he used no threats and was intoxicated. 
B. acquitted, because his mistake negated the required specific intent. 
C. convicted, because his intoxication was voluntary. 
D. convicted, because mistake is no defense to robbery.
Answer: B
A generally applicable state statute requires an autopsy by the county coroner in all cases of death that are not obviously of natural causes. The purpose of this law is to ensure the discovery and prosecution of all illegal activity resulting in death. In the 50 years since its enactment, the statute has been consistently enforced. Mr. and Mrs. Long are sincere practicing members of a religion that maintains it is essential for a deceased person's body to be buried promptly and without any invasive procedures, including an autopsy. When the Longs' son died of mysterious causes and an autopsy was scheduled, the Longs filed an action in state court challenging the constitutionality of the state statute, and seeking an injunction prohibiting the county coroner from performing an autopsy on their son's body. In this action, the Longs claimed only that the application of this statute in the circumstances of their son's death would violate their right to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Assume that no federal statutes are applicable. As applied to the Longs' case, the court should rule that the state's autopsy statute is 
A. constitutional, because a dead individual is not a person protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 
B. constitutional, because it is a generally applicable statute and is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. 
C. unconstitutional, because it is not necessary to vindicate a compelling state interest. 
D. unconstitutional, because it is not substantially related to an important state interest. 
Answer: B
By the terms of a written contract signed by both parties on January 15, M.B. Ram, Inc., agreed to sell a specific ICB personal computer to Marilyn Materboard for $3,000, and Materboard agreed to pick up and pay for the computer at Ram's store on February 1. Materboard unjustifiably repudiated on February 1. Without notifying Materboard, Ram subsequently sold at private sale the same specific computer to Byte, who paid the same price ($3,000) in cash. The ICB is a popular product. Ram can buy from the manufacturer more units than it can sell at retail. If Ram sues Materboard for breach of contract, Ram will probably recover 
A. nothing, because it received a price on resale equal to the contract price that Materboard had agreed to pay. 
B. nothing, because Ram failed to give Materboard proper notice of Ram's intention to resell. 
C. Ram's anticipated profit on the sale to Materboard plus incidental damages, if any, because Ram lost that sale. 
D. $3,000 (the contract price), because Materboard intentionally breached the contract by repudiation.
Answer: C
Anna owned Blackacre, which was improved with a dwelling. Beth owned Whiteacre, an adjoining unimproved lot suitable for constructing a dwelling. Beth executed and delivered a deed granting to Anna an easement over the westerly 15 feet of Whiteacre for convenient ingress and egress to a public street, although Anna's lot did abut another public street. Anna did not then record Beth's deed. After Anna constructed and started using a driveway within the described 15-foot strip in a clearly visible manner, Beth borrowed $10,000 cash from Bank and gave Bank a mortgage on Whiteacre. The mortgage was promptly and properly recorded. Anna then recorded Beth's deed granting the easement. Beth subsequently defaulted on her loan payments to Bank. 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." In an appropriate foreclosure action as to Whiteacre, brought against Anna and Beth, Bank seeks, among other things, to have Anna's easement declared subordinate to Bank's mortgage, so that the easement will be terminated by completion of the foreclosure. If Anna's easement is NOT terminated, it will be because 
A. the recording of the deed granting the easement prior to the foreclosure action protects Anna's rights.
B. the easement provides access from Blackacre to a public street.
C. Anna's easement is appurtenant to Blackacre and thus cannot be separated from Blackacre.
D. visible use of the easement by Anna put Bank on notice of the easement.
Answer: D
A little more than five years ago, Len completed construction of a single-family home located on Homeacre, a lot that Len owned. Five years ago, Len and Tina entered into a valid five-year written lease of Homeacre that included the following language: "This house is rented as is, without certain necessary or useful items. The parties agree that Tina may acquire and install such items as she wishes at her expense, and that she may remove them if she wishes at the termination of this lease." Tina decided that the house needed, and she paid cash to have installed, standardsized combination screen/storm windows, a freestanding refrigerator to fit a kitchen alcove built for that purpose, a built-in electric stove and oven to fit a kitchen counter opening left for that purpose, and carpeting to cover the plywood living room floor. Last month, by legal description of the land, Len conveyed Homeacre to Pete for $100,000. Pete knew of Tina's soon-expiring tenancy, but did not examine the written lease. As the lease expiration date approached, Pete learned that Tina planned to vacate on schedule, and learned for the first time that Tina claimed and planned to remove all of the above-listed items that she had installed. Pete promptly brought an appropriate action to enjoin Tina from removing those items. The court should decide that Tina may remove 
A. none of the items.
B. only the refrigerator.
C. all items except the carpet.
D. all of the items.
Answer: D
The mineral alpha is added to bodies of fresh water to prevent the spread of certain freshwater parasites. The presence of those parasites threatens the health of the organisms living in rivers and streams throughout the country and imperils the freshwater commercial fishing industry. Alpha is currently mined only in the state of Blue. In order to raise needed revenue, Congress recently enacted a statute providing for the imposition of a $100 tax on each ton of alpha mined in the United States. Because it will raise the cost of alpha, this tax is likely to reduce the amount of alpha added to freshwater rivers and streams and, therefore, is likely to have an adverse effect on the interstate freshwater commercial fishing industry. The alpha producers in Blue have filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging this tax solely on constitutional grounds. Is this tax constitutional? 
A. No, because only producers in Blue will pay the tax and, therefore, it is not uniform among the states and denies alpha producers the equal protection of the laws. 
B. No, because it is likely to have an adverse effect on the freshwater commercial fishing industry and Congress has a responsibility under the clause to protect, foster, and advance such interstate industries. 
C. Yes, because the tax is a necessary and proper means of exercising federal authority over the navigable waters of the United States. 
D. Yes, because the power of Congress to impose taxes is plenary, this tax does not contain any provisions extraneous to tax needs or purposes, and it is not barred by any prohibitory language in the Constitution. 
Answer: D
Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of a commercial contract in which Defendant had agreed to sell Plaintiff all of Plaintiff's requirements for widgets. Plaintiff called Expert Witness to testify as to damages. Defendant seeks to show that Expert Witness had provided false testimony as a witness in his own divorce proceedings. This evidence should be
A. admitted only if elicited from Expert Witness on cross-examination.
B. admitted only if the false testimony is established by clear and convincing extrinsic evidence.
C. excluded, because it is impeachment on a collateral issue. 
D. excluded, because it is improper character evidence. 
Answer: A
Karen was crossing Main Street at a crosswalk. John, who was on the sidewalk nearby, saw a speeding automobile heading in Karen's direction. John ran into the street and pushed Karen out of the path of the car. Karen fell to the ground and broke her leg. In an action for battery brought by Karen against John, will Karen prevail? 
A. Yes, because John could have shouted a warning instead of pushing Karen out of the way. 
B. Yes, if Karen was not actually in danger and John should have realized it. 
C. No, because the driver of the car was responsible for Karen's injury. 
D. No, if John's intent was to save Karen, not to harm her.
Answer: B
Joe and Marty were coworkers. Joe admired Marty's wristwatch and frequently said how much he wished he had one like it. Marty decided to give Joe the watch for his birthday the following week. On the weekend before Joe's birthday, Joe and Marty attended a company picnic. Marty took his watch off and left it on a blanket when he went off to join in a touch football game. Joe strolled by, saw the watch on the blanket, and decided to steal it. He bent over and picked up the watch. Before he could pocket it, however, Marty returned. When he saw Joe holding the watch, he said, "Joe, I know how much you like that watch. I was planning to give it to you for your birthday. Go ahead and take it now." Joe kept the watch. Joe has committed 
A. larceny.
B. attempted larceny.
C. embezzlement.
D. no crime.
Answer: A