ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Twenty-five years ago, Seller conveyed Blackacre to Buyer by a warranty deed. Seller at that time also executed and delivered an instrument in the proper form of a deed, purporting to convey Whiteacre to Buyer. Seller thought she had title to Whiteacre but did not; therefore, no title passed by virtue of the Whiteacre deed. Whiteacre consisted of three acres of brushland adjoining the west boundary of Blackacre. Buyer has occasionally hunted rabbits on Whiteacre, but less often than annually. No one else came on Whiteacre except occasional rabbit hunters. Twenty years ago, Buyer planted a row of evergreens in the vicinity of the opposite (east) boundary of Blackacre and erected a fence just beyond the evergreens to the east. In fact both the trees and the fence were placed on Greenacre, owned by Neighbor, which bordered the east boundary of Blackacre. Buyer was unsure of the exact boundary, and placed the trees and the fence in order to establish his rights up to the fence. The fence is located ten feet within Greenacre. Now, Buyer has had his property surveyed and the title checked and has learned the facts. The period of time to acquire title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 15 years. Buyer consulted his lawyer, who properly advised that, in an appropriate action, Buyer would probably obtain title to 
A. Whiteacre but not to the ten-foot strip of Greenacre.
B. the ten-foot strip of Greenacre but not to Whiteacre.
C. both Whiteacre and the ten-foot strip of Greenacre.
D. neither Whiteacre nor the ten-foot strip of Greenacre.
Answer: B
Elda, the aged mother of Alice and Barry, both adults, wished to employ a live-in companion so that she might continue to live in her own home. Elda, however, had only enough income to pay one-half of the companion's $2,000 monthly salary. Learning of their mother's plight, Alice and Barry agreed with each other in a signed writing that on the last day of January and each succeeding month during their mother's lifetime, each would give Elda $500. Elda then hired the companion. Alice and Barry made the agreed payments in January, February, and March. In April, however, Barry refused to make any payment and notified Alice and Elda that he would make no further payments. 64. Will Elda succeed in an action for $500 brought against Barry after April 30? 
A. Yes, because by making his first three payments, Barry confirmed his intent to contract. 
B. Yes, because Elda is an intended beneficiary of a contract between Alice and Barry. 
C. No, because a parent cannot sue her child for breach of a promise for support. 
D. No, because Alice and Barry intended their payments to Elda to be gifts. 
Answer: B
Elda, the aged mother of Alice and Barry, both adults, wished to employ a live-in companion so that she might continue to live in her own home. Elda, however, had only enough income to pay one-half of the companion's $2,000 monthly salary. Learning of their mother's plight, Alice and Barry agreed with each other in a signed writing that on the last day of January and each succeeding month during their mother's lifetime, each would give Elda $500. Elda then hired the companion. Alice and Barry made the agreed payments in January, February, and March. In April, however, Barry refused to make any payment and notified Alice and Elda that he would make no further payments. For this question only, assume that there is a valid contract between Alice and Barry and that Elda has declined to sue Barry. Will Alice succeed in an action against Barry in which she asks the court to order Barry to continue to make his payments to Elda under the terms of the Alice-Barry contract? 
A. Yes, because Alice's remedy at law is inadequate. 
B. Yes, because Alice's burden of supporting her mother will be increased if Barry does not contribute his share. 
C. No, because a court will not grant specific performance of a promise to pay money. 
D. No, because Barry's breach of contract has caused no economic harm to Alice. 
Answer: A
Mom owned Blackacre, a two-family apartment house on a small city lot not suitable for partition-in-kind. Upon Mom's death, her will devised Blackacre to "my sons, Joe and John." A week ago, Ken obtained a money judgment against Joe, and properly filed the judgment in the county where Blackacre is located. 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. Joe needed cash, but John did not wish to sell Blackacre. Joe commenced a partition action against John and Ken. Assume that the court properly ordered a partition by judicial sale. After the sale, Ken's judgment will be a lien on 
A. all of Blackacre.
B. only a one-half interest in Blackacre.
C. all of the proceeds of sale of Blackacre.
D. only the portion of the proceeds of sale due Joe.
Answer: D
Dora, who was eight years old, went to the grocery store with her mother. Dora pushed the grocery cart while her mother put items into it. Dora's mother remained near Dora at all times. Peterson, another customer in the store, noticed Dora pushing the cart in a manner that caused Peterson no concern. A short time later, the cart Dora was pushing struck Peterson in the knee, inflicting serious injury. If Peterson brings an action, based on negligence, against the grocery store, the store's best defense will be that 
A. a store owes no duty to its customers to control the use of its shopping carts.
B. a store owes no duty to its customers to control the conduct of other customers.
C. any negligence of the store was not the proximate cause of Peterson's injury.
D. a supervised child pushing a cart does not pose an unreasonable risk to other customers.
Answer: D
Dora, who was eight years old, went to the grocery store with her mother. Dora pushed the grocery cart while her mother put items into it. Dora's mother remained near Dora at all times. Peterson, another customer in the store, noticed Dora pushing the cart in a manner that caused Peterson no concern. A short time later, the cart Dora was pushing struck Peterson in the knee, inflicting serious injury. If Peterson brings an action, based on negligence, against Dora's mother, will Peterson prevail? 
A. Yes, if Dora was negligent. 
B. Yes, because Dora's mother is responsible for any harm caused by Dora. 
C. Yes, because Dora's mother assumed the risk of her child's actions. 
D. Yes, if Dora's mother did not adequately supervise Dora's actions. 
Answer: D
Dora, who was eight years old, went to the grocery store with her mother. Dora pushed the grocery cart while her mother put items into it. Dora's mother remained near Dora at all times. Peterson, another customer in the store, noticed Dora pushing the cart in a manner that caused Peterson no concern. A short time later, the cart Dora was pushing struck Peterson in the knee, inflicting serious injury. If Peterson brings an action, based on negligence, against Dora, Dora's best argument in defense would be that 
A. Dora exercised care commensurate with her age, intelligence, and experience. 
B. Dora is not subject to tort liability.
C. Dora was subject to parental supervision.
D. Peterson assumed the risk that Dora might hit Peterson with the cart.
Answer: A
Adam entered into a valid written contract to sell Blackacre, a large tract of land, to Betsy. At that time, Blackacre was owned by Adam's father, Fred; Adam had no title to Blackacre and was not the agent of Fred. After the contract was executed and before the scheduled closing date, Fred died intestate, leaving Adam as his sole heir. Shortly thereafter, Adam received an offer for Blackacre that was substantially higher than the purchase price in the contract with Betsy. Adam refused to close with Betsy although she was ready, willing, and able to close pursuant to the contract. Betsy brought an appropriate action for specific performance against Adam. In that action, Betsy should be awarded 
A. nothing, because Adam had no authority to enter into the contract with Betsy. 
B. nothing, because the doctrine of afteracquired title does not apply to executory contracts. 
C. judgment for specific performance, because Adam acquired title prior to the scheduled closing. 
D. judgment for specific performance, to prevent unjust enrichment of Adam. 
Answer: C
Dayton operates a collection agency. He was trying to collect a $400 bill for medical services rendered to Pratt by Doctor. Dayton went to Pratt's house and when Martina, Pratt's mother, answered the door, Dayton told Martina he was there to collect a bill owed by Pratt. Martina told Dayton that because of her illness, Pratt had been unemployed for six months, that she was still ill and unable to work, and that she would pay the bill as soon as she could. Dayton, in a loud voice, demanded to see Pratt and said that if he did not receive payment immediately, he would file a criminal complaint charging her with fraud. Pratt, hearing the conversation, came to the door. Dayton, in a loud voice, repeated his demand for immediate payment and his threat to use criminal process. If Pratt asserts a claim against Dayton, based on infliction of emotional distress, will Pratt prevail? 
A. Yes, if Pratt suffered severe emotional distress as a result of Dayton's conduct. 
B. Yes, unless the bill for medical services was valid and past due. 
C. No, unless Pratt suffered physical harm as a result of Dayton's conduct. 
D. No, if Dayton's conduct created no risk of physical harm to Pratt. 
Answer: A
Public schools in the state of Green are financed, in large part, by revenue derived from real estate taxes imposed by each school district on the taxable real property located in that district. Public schools also receive other revenue from private gifts, federal grants, student fees, and local sales taxes. For many years, Green has distributed additional funds, which come from the state treasury, to local school districts in order to equalize the funds available on a per-student basis for each public school district. These additional funds are distributed on the basis of a state statutory formula that considers only the number of students in each public school district and the real estate tax revenue raised by that district. The formula does not consider other revenue received by a school district from different sources. The school boards of two school districts, together with parents and schoolchildren in those districts, bring suit in federal court to enjoin the state from allocating the additional funds from the state treasury to individual districts pursuant to this formula. They allege that the failure of the state, in allocating this additional money, to take into account a school district's sources of revenue other than revenue derived from taxes levied on real estate located there violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The complaint does not allege that the allocation of the additional state funds based on the current statutory formula has resulted in a failure to provide minimally adequate education to any child. Which of the following best describes the appropriate standard by which the court should review the constitutionality of the state statutory funding formula? 
A. Because classifications based on wealth are inherently suspect, the state must demonstrate that the statutory formula is necessary to vindicate a compelling state interest. 
B. Because the statutory funding formula burdens the fundamental right to education, the state must demonstrate that the formula is necessary to vindicate a compelling state interest. 
C. Because no fundamental right or suspect classification is implicated in this case, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the funding allocation formula bears no rational relationship to any legitimate state interest. 
D. Because the funding formula inevitably leads to disparities among the school districts in their levels of total funding, the plaintiffs must only demonstrate that the funding formula is not substantially related to the furtherance of an important state interest. 
Answer: C
A car driven by Dan entered land owned by and in the possession of Peter, without Peter's permission. Which, if any, of the following allegations, without additional facts, would provide a sufficient basis for a claim by Peter against Dan? I. Dan intentionally drove his car onto Peter's land. II. Dan negligently drove his car onto Peter's land. III. Dan's car damaged Peter's land. 
A. I only.
B. III only.
C. I, II, or III. 
D. Neither I, nor II, nor III. 
Answer: A
In which of the following cases is Morrow most likely to be convicted if she is charged with receiving stolen property?
A. Morrow bought a car from Aster, who operates a used car lot. Before the purchase, Aster told Morrow that the car had been stolen, which was true. Unknown to Morrow, Aster is an undercover police agent who is operating the lot in cooperation with the police in exchange for leniency in connection with criminal charges pending against him. 
B. Morrow bought a car from Ball. Before the purchase, Ball told Morrow that the car was stolen. Ball had stolen the car with the help of Eames, who, unknown to Morrow or Ball, was an undercover police agent who feigned cooperation with Ball in the theft of the car. 
C. Morrow bought a car from Cooper. Before the purchase, Cooper told Morrow that the car was stolen. Unknown to Morrow, Cooper had stolen the car from a parking lot and had been caught by the police as he was driving it away. He agreed to cooperate with the police and carry through with his prearranged sale of the car to Morrow. 
D. Morrow bought a car from Dixon. Before the purchase, Dixon told Morrow that the car was stolen. Unknown to Morrow, Dixon was in fact the owner of the car but had reported it to the police as stolen and had collected on a fraudulent claim of its theft from his insurance company. 
Answer: B
The constitution of State X authorizes a fivemember state reapportionment board to redraw state legislative districts every ten years. In the last state legislative reapportionment, the board, by a unanimous vote, divided the greater Green metropolitan area, composed of Green City and several contiguous townships, into three equally populated state legislative districts. The result of that districting was that 40% of the area's total black population resided in one of those districts, 45% of the area's total black population resided in the second of those districts, and 15% resided in the third district. Jones is black, is a registered voter, and is a resident of Green City. Jones brings suit in an appropriate court against the members of the state reapportionment board, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that would require the boundary lines of the state legislative districts in the greater Green metropolitan area to be redrawn. His only claim is that the current apportionment violates the Fifteenth Amendment and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it improperly dilutes the voting power of the blacks who reside in that area. If no federal statute is applicable, which of the following facts, if proven, would most strongly support the validity of the action of the state reapportionment board? 
A. In drawing the current district lines, the reapportionment board precisely complied with state constitutional requirements that state legislative districts be compact and follow political subdivision boundaries to the maximum extent feasible. 
B. The reapportionment board was composed of three white members and two black members and both of the board's black members were satisfied that its plan did not improperly dilute the voting power of the blacks who reside in that area.
C. Although the rate of voter registration among blacks is below that of voter registration among whites in the greater Green metropolitan area, two black legislators have been elected from that area during the last 15 years. 
D. The total black population of the greater Green metropolitan area amounts to only 15% of the population that is required to comprise a single legislative district.
Answer: A
Paulsen Corporation sued Dorr for ten fuel oil deliveries not paid for. Dorr denied that the deliveries were made. At trial, Paulsen calls its office manager, Wicks, to testify that Paulsen employees always record each delivery in duplicate, give one copy to the customer, and place the other copy in Paulsen's files; that he (Wicks) is the custodian of those files; and that his examination of the files before coming to court revealed that the ten deliveries were made. Wicks's testimony that the invoices show ten deliveries is 
A. admissible, because it is based on regularly kept business records. 
B. admissible, because Wicks has first- hand knowledge of the contents of the records. 
C. inadmissible, because the records must be produced in order to prove their contents. 
D. inadmissible, because the records are self-serving. 
Answer: C
Dan entered the police station and announced that he wanted to confess to a murder. The police advised Dan of the Miranda warnings, and Dan signed a written waiver. Dan described the murder in detail and pinpointed the location where a murder victim had been found a few weeks before. Later, a courtappointed psychiatrist determined that Dan was suffering from a serious mental illness that interfered with his ability to make rational choices and to understand his rights and that the psychosis had induced his confession. Dan's confession is 
A. admissible, because there was no coercive police conduct in obtaining Dan's statement. 
B. admissible, because Dan was not in custody. 
C. inadmissible, because Dan's confession was a product of his mental illness and was therefore involuntary. 
D. inadmissible, because under these circumstances, there was no valid waiver of Miranda warnings. 
Answer: A
Leaseco owned Blackacre, a tract of 100 acres. Six years ago, Leaseco leased a one-acre parcel, Oneacre, located in the northeasterly corner of Blackacre, for a term of 30 years, to Eatco. Eatco intended to and did construct a fast-food restaurant on Oneacre. The lease provided that: 1. Eatco was to maintain Oneacre and improvements thereon, to maintain full insurance coverage on Oneacre, and to pay all taxes assessed against Oneacre. 2. Leaseco was to maintain the access roads and the parking lot areas platted on those portions of Blackacre that adjoined Oneacre and to permit the customers of Eatco to use them in common with the customers of the other commercial users of the remainder of Blackacre. 3. Eatco was to pay its share of the expenses for the off-site improvements according to a stated formula. Five years ago, Leaseco sold Oneacre to Jones, an investor; the conveyance was made subject to the lease to Eatco. However, Jones did not assume the obligations of the lease and Leaseco retained the remainder of Blackacre. Since that conveyance five years ago, Eatco has paid rent to Jones. Eatco refused to pay its formula share of the off-site improvement costs as provided in the lease. Leaseco brought an appropriate action against Eatco to recover such costs. The most likely outcome would be in favor of 
A. Leaseco, because the use of the improvements by the customers of Eatco imposes an implied obligation on Eatco. 
B. Leaseco, because the conveyance of Oneacre to Jones did not terminate Eatco's covenant to contribute. 
C. Eatco, because the conveyance of Oneacre to Jones terminated the privity of estate between Leaseco and Eatco. 
D. Eatco, because Jones, as Eatco's landlord, has the obligation to pay the maintenance costs by necessary implication. 
Answer: B
While Patty was riding her horse on what she thought was a public path, the owner of a house next to the path approached her, shaking a stick and shouting, "Get off my property." Unknown to Patty, the path on which she was riding crossed the private property of the shouting owner. When Patty explained that she thought the path was a public trail, the man cursed her, approached Patty's horse, and struck the horse with the stick. As a result of the blow, the horse reared, causing Patty to fear that she would fall. However, Patty managed to stay on the horse, and then departed. Neither Patty nor the horse suffered bodily harm. If Patty brings an action for damages against the property owner, the result should be for 
A. Patty, for trespass to her chattel property. 
B. Patty, for battery and assault. 
C. the defendant, because Patty suffered no physical harm. 
D. the defendant, because he was privileged to exclude trespassers from his property. 
Answer: B
In which of the following situations would a court applying common-law doctrine be most likely to convict Defendant of the crime charged, despite Defendant's mistake? 
A. Defendant was charged with bigamy. He married his neighbor four years after her husband was reported missing at sea. The rescued husband returns alive. A state statute provides that a person is presumed dead after five years of unexplained absence. Defendant believed the statutory period was three years.
B. Defendant was charged with murder after he shot and killed a man who had extorted money from him. Defendant mistakenly thought the victim had raised his hand to shoot, when, in fact, the victim was shaking his fist at Defendant to frighten him. 
C. Defendant was charged with assault with intent to rape a woman who he mistakenly believed had agreed to have sexual intercourse with him.
D. Defendant was charged with burglary. He had broken into an office where he once worked and had taken a typewriter that he erroneously believed had been given to him before he was fired.
Answer: A
Spender owed Midas $1,000, plus interest at 8% until paid, on a long-overdue promissory note, collection of which would become barred by the statute of limitations on June 30. On the preceding April 1, Spender and Midas both signed a writing in which Spender promised to pay the note in full on the following December 31, plus interest at 8% until that date, and Midas promised not to sue on the note in the meantime. Midas, having received some advice from his nonlawyer brother-in-law, became concerned about the legal effect of the April 1 agreement. On May 1, acting pro se as permitted by the rules of the local small claims court, he filed suit to collect the note. Assuming that there is no controlling statute, is the April 1 agreement an effective defense for Spender? 
A. Yes, because Spender's promise to pay interest until December 31 was consideration for Midas's promise not to sue. 
B. Yes, because the law creates a presumption that Spender relied on Midas's promise not to sue. 
C. No, because there was no consideration for Midas's promise not to sue, in that Spender was already obligated to pay $1,000 plus interest at 8% until the payment date. 
D. No, because Spender's April 1 promise is enforceable with or without consideration. 
Answer: A