ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
The warden of State Prison prohibits the photographing of the face of any prisoner without the prisoner's consent. Photographer, a news photographer, wanted to photograph Mobster, a notorious organized crime figure incarcerated at State Prison. To circumvent the warden's prohibition, Photographer flew over the prison exercise yard and photographed Mobster. Prisoner, who was imprisoned for a technical violation of a regulatory statute, happened to be standing next to Mobster when the photograph was taken. When the picture appeared in the press, Prisoner suffered severe emotional distress because he believed that his business associates and friends would think he was consorting with gangsters. Prisoner suffered no physical harm as the result of his emotional distress. Prisoner brought an action against Photographer for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress. What is the best argument that Photographer can make in support of a motion for summary judgment? 
A. No reasonable person could conclude that Photographer intended to photograph Prisoner.
B. Prisoner did not suffer any physical injury arising from the emotional distress.
C. As a news photographer, Photographer was privileged to take photographs that others could not. 
D. No reasonable person could conclude that Photographer's conduct was extreme and outrageous as to Prisoner.
Answer: D
The vaccination of children against childhood contagious diseases (such as measles, diphtheria and whooping cough) has traditionally been a function of private doctors and local and state health departments. Because vaccination rates have declined in recent years, especially in urban areas, the President proposes to appoint a Presidential Advisory Commission on Vaccination which would be charged with conducting a national publicity campaign to encourage vaccination as a public health measure. No federal statute authorizes or prohibits this action by the President. The activities of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Vaccination would be financed entirely from funds appropriated by Congress to the Office of the President for "such other purposes as the President may think appropriate." May the President constitutionally create such a commission for this purpose? 
A. Yes, because the President has plenary authority to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the United States. 
B. Yes, because this action is within the scope of executive authority vested in the President by the Constitution, and no federal statute prohibits it. 
C. No, because the protection of children against common diseases by vaccination is a traditional state function and, therefore, is reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment. 
D. No, because Congress has not specifically authorized the creation and support of such a new federal agency. 
Answer: B
Defendant is on trial for extorting $10,000 from Victim. An issue is the identification of the person who made a telephone call to Victim. Victim is prepared to testify that the caller had a distinctive accent like Defendant's, but that he cannot positively identify the voice as Defendant's. Victim recorded the call but has not brought the tape to court, although its existence is known to Defendant. Victim's testimony is 
A. inadmissible, because Victim cannot sufficiently identify the caller. 
B. inadmissible, because the tape recording of the conversation is the best evidence. 
C. admissible, because Defendant waived the "best evidence" rule by failing to subpoena the tape. 
D. admissible, because Victim's lack of certainty goes to the weight to be given Victim's testimony, not to its admissibility. 
Answer: D
Owner owned Greenacre, a tract of land, in fee simple. Owner executed an instrument in the proper form of a deed, purporting to convey Greenacre to Purchaser in fee simple. The instrument recited that the conveyance was in consideration of "$5 cash in hand paid and for other good and valuable consideration." Owner handed the instrument to Purchaser and Purchaser promptly and properly recorded it. Two months later, Owner brought an appropriate action against Purchaser to cancel the instrument and to quiet title. In support, Owner proved that no money in fact had been paid by Purchaser, notwithstanding the recitation, and that no other consideration of any kind had been supplied by Purchaser. In such action, Owner should 
A. lose, because any remedy Owner might have had was lost when the instrument was recorded. 
B. lose, because the validity of conveyance of land does not depend upon consideration being paid, whether recited or not. 
C. prevail, because the recitation of consideration paid may be contradicted by parol evidence. 
D. prevail, because recordation does not make a void instrument effective. 
Answer: B
Vintner is the owner of a large vineyard and offers balloon rides to visitors who wish to tour the grounds from the air. During one of the rides, Vintner was forced to make a crash landing on his own property. Without Vintner's knowledge or consent, Trespasser had entered the vineyard to camp for a couple of days. Trespasser was injured when he was hit by the basket of the descending balloon. If Trespasser sues Vintner to recover damages for his injuries, will Trespasser prevail? 
A. No, unless the crash landing was made necessary by negligence on Vintner's part. 
B. No, unless Vintner could have prevented the injury to Trespasser after becoming aware of Trespasser's presence. 
C. Yes, because even a trespasser may recover for injuries caused by an abnormally dangerous activity. 
D. Yes, if the accident occurred at a place which Vintner knew was frequented by intruders.
Answer: B
Matt and his friend Fred were watching a football game at Matt's home when they began to argue. Fred became abusive, and Matt asked him to leave. Fred refused, walked into the kitchen, picked up a knife, and said he would cut Matt's heart out. Matt pulled a gun from under the sofa, walked to his front door, opened it, and again told Fred to leave. Fred again refused. Instead, he walked slowly toward Matt, brandishing the knife in a threatening manner. Matt, rather than running out the door himself, shot in Fred's direction, intending only to scare him. However, the bullet struck Fred, killing him instantly. Charged with murder, Matt should be 
A. convicted, because the use of deadly force was unreasonable under the circumstances. 
B. convicted, because he had a clear opportunity and duty to retreat. 
C. acquitted, because he did not intend to kill Fred. 
D. acquitted, because he was acting in self- defense and had no duty to retreat. 
Answer: D
Central City in the state of Green is a center for businesses that assemble personal computers. Components for these computers are manufactured elsewhere in Green and in other states, then shipped to Central City, where the computers are assembled. An ordinance of Central City imposes a special license tax on all of the many companies engaged in the business of assembling computers in that city. The tax payable by each such company is a percentage of the company's gross receipts. The Green statute that authorizes municipalities to impose this license tax has a "Green content" provision. To comply with this provision of state law, the Central City license tax ordinance provides that the tax paid by any assembler of computers subject to this tax ordinance will be reduced by a percentage equal to the proportion of computer components manufactured in Green. Assembler is a company that assembles computers in Central City and sells them from its offices in Central City to buyers throughout the United States. All of the components of its computers come from outside the state of Green. Therefore, Assembler must pay the Central City license tax in full without receiving any refund. Other Central City computer assemblers use components manufactured in Green in varying proportions and, therefore, are entitled to partial reductions of their Central City license tax payments. Following prescribed procedure, Assembler brings an action in a proper court asking to have Central City's special license tax declared unconstitutional on the ground that it is inconsistent with the negative implications of the commerce clause. In this case, the court should rule 
A. against Assembler, because the tax falls only on companies resident in Central City and, therefore, does not discriminate against or otherwise adversely affect interstate commerce. 
B. against Assembler, because the commerce clause does not interfere with the right of a state to foster and support businesses located within its borders by encouraging its residents to purchase the products of those businesses. 
C. for Assembler, because any tax on a company engaged in interstate commerce, measured in whole or in part by its gross receipts, is a per se violation of the negative implications of the commerce clause. 
D. for Assembler, because the tax improperly discriminates against interstate commerce by treating in-state products more favorably than out-ofstate products.
Answer: D
Hannah, who was homeless, broke into the basement of a hotel and fell asleep. She was awakened by a security guard, who demanded that she leave. As Hannah was leaving, she cursed the security guard. Angered, the guard began to beat Hannah on her head with his flashlight. After the second blow, Hannah grabbed a fire extinguisher and sprayed the guard in his face, causing him to lose his sight in one eye. The jurisdiction defines aggravated assault as assault with intent to cause serious bodily injury. The most serious crime for which Hannah could properly be convicted is 
A. aggravated assault.
B. burglary.
C. assault.
D. trespass.
Answer: D
On March 1, Mechanic contracted to repair Textiles' knitting machine and to complete the job by March 6. On March 2, Textiles contracted to manufacture and deliver specified cloth to Knitwear on March 15. Textiles knew that it would have to use the machine then under repair to perform this contract. Because the Knitwear order was for a rush job, Knitwear and Textiles included in their contract a liquidated damages clause, providing that Textiles would pay $5,000 for each day's delay in delivery after March 15. Mechanic was inexcusably five days late in repairing the machine, and, as a result, Textiles was five days late in delivering the cloth to Knitwear. Textiles paid $25,000 to Knitwear as liquidated damages and now sues Mechanic for $25,000. Both Mechanic and Textiles knew when making their contract on March 1 that under ordinary circumstances Textiles would sustain little or no damages of any kind as a result of a five-day delay in the machine repair. Assuming that the $5,000 liquidated damages clause in the Knitwear-Textiles contract is valid, which of the following arguments will serve as Mechanic's best defense to Textiles' action? 
A. Time was not of the essence in the Mechanic-Textiles contract.
B. Mechanic had no reason to foresee on March 1 that Knitwear would suffer consequential damages in the amount of $25,000. 
C. By entering into the Knitwear contract while knowing that its knitting machine was being repaired, Textiles assumed the risk of any delay loss to Knitwear. 
D. In all probability, the liquidated damages paid by Textiles to Knitwear are not the same amount as the actual damages sustained by Knitwear in consequence of Textiles' late delivery of the cloth.
Answer: B
Plaintiff sued Defendant for personal injuries suffered in a train-automobile collision. Plaintiff called an eyewitness, who testified that the train was going 20 miles per hour. Defendant then offers the testimony of an experienced police accident investigator that, based on his training and experience and on his examination of the physical evidence, it is his opinion that the train was going between 5 and 10 miles per hour. Testimony by the investigator is 
A. improper, because there cannot be both lay and expert opinion on the same issue. 
B. improper, because the investigator is unable to establish the speed with a sufficient degree of scientific certainty. 
C. proper, because a police accident investigator has sufficient expertise to express an opinion on speed. 
D. proper, because Plaintiff first introduced opinion evidence as to speed. 
Answer: C
Ven owned Goldacre, a tract of land, in fee simple. Ven and Pur entered into a written agreement under which Pur agreed to buy Goldacre for $100,000, its fair market value. The agreement contained all the essential terms of a real estate contract to sell and buy, including a date for closing. The required $50,000 down payment was made. The contract provided that in the event of Pur's breach, Ven could retain the $50,000 deposit as liquidated damages. Before the date set for the closing in the contract, Pur died. On the day that Addy was duly qualified as administratrix of the estate of Pur, which was after the closing date, Addy made demand for return of the $50,000 deposit. Ven responded by stating that he took such demand to be a declaration that Addy did not intend to complete the contract and that Ven considered the contract at an end. Ven further asserted that Ven was entitled to retain, as liquidated damages, the $50,000. The reasonable market value of Goldacre had increased to $110,000 at that time. Addy brought an appropriate action against Ven to recover the $50,000. In answer, Ven made no affirmative claim but asserted that he was entitled to retain the $50,000 as liquidated damages as provided in the contract. In such lawsuit, judgment should be for 
A. Addy, because the provision relied upon by Ven is unenforceable. 
B. Addy, because the death of Pur terminated the contract as a matter of law. 
C. Ven, because the court should enforce the express agreement of the contracting parties. 
D. Ven, because the doctrine of equitable conversion prevents termination of the contract upon the death of a party.
Answer: A
An ordinance of Central City requires every operator of a taxicab in the city to have a license and permits revocation of that license only for "good cause." The Central City taxicab operator's licensing ordinance conditions the issuance of such a license on an agreement by the licensee that the licensee "not display in or on his or her vehicle any bumper sticker or other placard or sign favoring a particular candidate for any elected municipal office." The ordinance also states that it imposes this condition in order to prevent the possible imputation to the city council of the views of its taxicab licensees and that any licensee who violates this condition shall have his or her license revoked. Driver, the holder of a Central City taxicab operator's license, decorates his cab with bumper stickers and other signs favoring specified candidates in a forthcoming election for municipal offices. A proceeding is initiated against him to revoke his taxicab operator's license on the sole basis of that admitted conduct. In this proceeding, does Driver have a meritorious defense based on the United States Constitution? 
A. No, because he accepted the license with knowledge of the condition and, therefore, has no standing to contest it. 
B. No, because a taxicab operator's license is a privilege and not a right and, therefore, is not protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 
C. Yes, because such a proceeding threatens Driver with a taking of property, his license, without just compensation. 
D. Yes, because the condition imposed on taxicab operators' licenses restricts political speech based wholly on its content, without any adequate governmental justification. 
Answer: D
Pat had been under the care of a cardiologist for three years prior to submitting to an elective operation that was performed by Surgeon. Two days thereafter, Pat suffered a stroke, resulting in a coma, caused by a blood clot that lodged in her brain. When it appeared that she had entered a permanent vegetative state, with no hope of recovery, the artificial life-support system that had been provided was withdrawn, and she died a few hours later. The withdrawal of artificial life support had been requested by her family, and duly approved by a court. Surgeon was not involved in that decision, or in its execution. The administrator of Pat's estate thereafter filed a wrongful death action against Surgeon, claiming that Surgeon was negligent in having failed to consult a cardiologist prior to the operation. At the trial the plaintiff offered evidence that accepted medical practice would require examination of the patient by a cardiologist prior to the type of operation that Surgeon performed. In this action, the plaintiff should 
A. prevail, if Surgeon was negligent in failing to have Pat examined by a cardiologist prior to the operation. 
B. prevail, if the blood clot that caused Pat's death was caused by the operation which Surgeon performed. 
C. not prevail, absent evidence that a cardiologist, had one examined Pat before the operation, would probably have provided advice that would have changed the outcome. 
D. not prevail, because Surgeon had nothing to do with the withdrawal of artificial life support, which was the cause of Pat's death.
Answer: C
At Devlin's trial for burglary, Jaron supported Devlin's alibi that they were fishing together at the time of the crime. On cross-examination, Jaron was asked whether his statement on a credit card application that he had worked for his present employer for the last five years was false. Jaron denied that the statement was false. The prosecutor then calls Wilcox, the manager of the company for which Jaron works, to testify that although Jaron had been first employed five years earlier and is now employed by the company, there had been a three-year period during which he had not been so employed. The testimony of Wilcox is 
A. admissible, in the judge's discretion, because Jaron's credibility is a fact of major consequence to the case. 
B. admissible, as a matter of right, because Jaron "opened the door" by his denial on cross-examination. 
C. inadmissible, because whether Jaron lied in his application is a matter that cannot be proved by extrinsic evidence. 
D. inadmissible, because the misstatement by Jaron could have been caused by misunderstanding of the application form. 
Answer: C
Owen owned Blackacre in fee simple, as the land records showed, when he contracted to sell Blackacre to Bryer. Two weeks later, Bryer paid the agreed price and received a warranty deed. A week thereafter, when neither the contract nor the deed had been recorded and while Owen remained in possession of Blackacre, Cred properly filed her money judgment against Owen. She knew nothing of Bryer's interest. A statute in the jurisdiction provides: "Any judgment properly filed shall, for ten years from filing, be a lien on the real property then owned or subsequently acquired by any person against whom the judgment is rendered." 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." Cred brought an appropriate action to enforce her lien against Blackacre in Bryer's hands. If the court decides for Bryer, it will most probably be because 
A. the doctrine of equitable conversion applies.
B. the jurisdiction's recording act does not protect creditors.
C. Owen's possession gave Cred constructive notice of Bryer's interest.
D. Bryer was a purchaser without notice.
Answer: B
A written construction contract, under which Contractor agreed to build a new house for Owner at a fixed price of $200,000, contained the following provision: Prior to construction or during the course thereof, this contract may be modified by mutual agreement of the parties as to "extras" or other departures from the plans and specifications provided by Owner and attached hereto. Such modifications, however, may be authorized only in writing, signed by both parties. During construction, Contractor incorporated into the structure overhanging gargoyles and other "extras" orally requested by Owner for orally agreed prices in addition to the contract price. Owner subsequently refused to pay anything for such extras, aggregating $30,000 at the agreed prices, solely on the ground that no written, signed authorization for them was ever effected. If Contractor sues Owner on account of the "extras," which, if any, of the following will effectively support Owner's defense? I. The parol evidence rule. II. The preexisting duty rule. III. Failure of an express condition. IV. The statute of frauds. 
A. I and III only.
B. I and IV only.
C. II and IV only.
D. Neither I, II, III, nor IV. 
Answer: D
Scott held up a drugstore at 10:30 at night, and drove away. His car broke down in an isolated area just outside the small city in which the crime occurred. Scott walked to the nearest house and asked Henry, the homeowner, if he could stay until the next morning, explaining that he had been searching for his sister's home and had run out of gas. Henry agreed to let him sleep on a couch in the basement. During the course of the night, Henry began to doubt the story Scott had told him. Early the next morning, Henry called the police and said he was suspicious and frightened of a stranger whom he had allowed to stay the night. The police went immediately to the house to assist Henry and walked through the open front door. They found Scott and Henry drinking coffee in the kitchen. When they saw Scott, they realized he matched the description of the drugstore robber. They arrested Scott and in his jacket they found drugs taken during the robbery. Scott moves to suppress the evidence of the drugs. If the court finds that the police did not have probable cause to believe Scott was the robber until they saw him inside Henry's house and realized he matched the description, the court should 
A. grant the motion, because, as a guest, Scott has sufficient standing to contest the entry of the house without a warrant. 
B. grant the motion, because, as a guest, Scott has sufficient standing to contest the lack of probable cause at the time of the entry. 
C. deny the motion, because Scott had no ownership or other possessory interest in the premises. 
D. deny the motion, because the police had the permission of the owner to enter the house.
Answer: D
Susan entered a guilty plea to a charge of embezzlement. Her attorney hired a retired probation officer as a consultant to gather information for the preparation of a sentencing plan for Susan that would avoid jail. For that purpose, the consultant interviewed Susan for three hours. Thereafter, the prosecution undertook an investigation of Susan's possible involvement in other acts of embezzlement. The consultant was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. The consultant refused to answer any questions concerning her conversation with Susan. The prosecution has moved for an order requiring her to answer those questions. The motion should be 
A. denied, on the basis of the attorney-client privilege. 
B. denied, in the absence of probable cause to believe the interview developed evidence relevant to the grand jury's inquiry. 
C. granted, because the consultant is not an attorney. 
D. granted, because exclusionary evidentiary rules do not apply in grand jury proceedings. 
Answer: A