ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Ted frequently visited Janet, his next-door neighbor. Janet was separated from her husband, Howard. Howard resided with his mother but jointly owned the house in which Janet resided. Late one night, Ted and Janet were sitting on the bed in Janet's bedroom drinking when Howard burst through the door and told Ted, "Get out." When Ted refused, Howard challenged him to go outside and "fight it out." Ted again refused. Howard then pulled a knife from his pocket and lunged at Ted. Ted grabbed a lamp, struck Howard on the head, and killed him. Ted is charged with murder. On a charge of murder, Ted should be found
A. not guilty, because Ted had as much right as Howard to be in the house. 
B. not guilty, because Howard attacked Ted with a deadly weapon. 
C. guilty, because Ted's presence in Janet's bedroom prompted Howard's attack. 
D. guilty, because Ted's failure to obey Howard's order to leave the house made him a trespasser
Answer: B
In 1970, Oscar, owner of a 100-acre tract, prepared and duly recorded a subdivision plan called Happy Acres. The plan showed 90 one-acre lots and a tenacre tract in the center that was designated "Future Public School." Oscar published and distributed a brochure promoting Happy Acres which emphasized the proximity of the lots to the school property and indicated potential tax savings "because the school district will not have to expend tax money to acquire this property." There is no specific statute concerning the dedication of school sites. Oscar sold 50 of the lots to individual purchasers. Each deed referred to the recorded plan and also contained the following clause: "No mobile home shall be erected on any lot within Happy Acres." Sarah was one of the original purchasers from Oscar. In 1976, Oscar sold the remaining 40 lots and the 10-acre tract to Max by a deed which referred to the plan and contained the restriction relating to mobile homes. Max sold the 40 lots to individual purchasers and the 10-acre tract to Pete. None of the deeds from Max referred to the plan or contained any reference to mobile homes."Assume for this question only that Pete has announced his intention of erecting a fast-food restaurant on the 10-acre tract and that Sarah has filed an action to enjoin Pete. If Sarah wins, it will be because
A. Sarah has an equitable servitude concerning the use of the tract.
B. Sarah, as a taxpayer, has legal interest in the use of the tract. 
C. Sarah is a creditor beneficiary of Oscar's promise with respect to the tract.
D. Pete is not a bona fide purchaser
Answer: A
In 1970, Oscar, owner of a 100-acre tract, prepared and duly recorded a subdivision plan called Happy Acres. The plan showed 90 one-acre lots and a tenacre tract in the center that was designated "Future Public School." Oscar published and distributed a brochure promoting Happy Acres which emphasized the proximity of the lots to the school property and indicated potential tax savings "because the school district will not have to expend tax money to acquire this property." There is no specific statute concerning the dedication of school sites. Oscar sold 50 of the lots to individual purchasers. Each deed referred to the recorded plan and also contained the following clause: "No mobile home shall be erected on any lot within Happy Acres." Sarah was one of the original purchasers from Oscar. In 1976, Oscar sold the remaining 40 lots and the 10-acre tract to Max by a deed which referred to the plan and contained the restriction relating to mobile homes. Max sold the 40 lots to individual purchasers and the 10-acre tract to Pete. None of the deeds from Max referred to the plan or contained any reference to mobile homes.""Assume for this question only that Joe, who purchased his lot from Max, has placed a mobile home on it and that Sarah brings an action against Joe to force him to remove it. The result of this action will be in favor of
A. Sarah, because the restrictive covenant in her deed runs with the land. 
B. Sarah, because the presence of the mobile home may adversely affect the market value of her land. 
C. Joe, because his deed did not contain the restrictive covenant. 
D. Joe, because he is not a direct but a remote grantee of Oscar
Answer: A
In 1970, Oscar, owner of a 100-acre tract, prepared and duly recorded a subdivision plan called Happy Acres. The plan showed 90 one-acre lots and a tenacre tract in the center that was designated "Future Public School." Oscar published and distributed a brochure promoting Happy Acres which emphasized the proximity of the lots to the school property and indicated potential tax savings "because the school district will not have to expend tax money to acquire this property." There is no specific statute concerning the dedication of school sites. Oscar sold 50 of the lots to individual purchasers. Each deed referred to the recorded plan and also contained the following clause: "No mobile home shall be erected on any lot within Happy Acres." Sarah was one of the original purchasers from Oscar. In 1976, Oscar sold the remaining 40 lots and the 10-acre tract to Max by a deed which referred to the plan and contained the restriction relating to mobile homes. Max sold the 40 lots to individual purchasers and the 10-acre tract to Pete. None of the deeds from Max referred to the plan or contained any reference to mobile homes."Assume for this question only that in 1977 the school board of the district in which Happy Acres is situated has voted to erect a new school on the 10-acre tract. In an appropriate action between the school board and Pete to determine title, the result will be in favor of
A. Pete, because the school board has been guilty of laches. 
B. Pete, because his deed did not refer to the subdivision plan. 
C. the school board, because Pete had constructive notice of the proposed use of the tract. 
D. the school board, because there has been a dedication and acceptance of the tract.
Answer: D
House owns his home in City. On the lawn in front of his home and within five feet of the public sidewalk there was a large tree. The roots of the tree caused the sidewalk to buckle severely and become dangerous. An ordinance of City requires adjacent landowners to keep sidewalks in safe condition. House engaged Contractor to repair the sidewalk, leaving it to Contractor to decide how the repair should be made. Contractor dug up the sidewalk, cut back the roots of the tree, and laid a new sidewalk. Two days after House had paid Contractor the agreed price of the repair, the tree fell over onto the street and damaged a parked car belonging to Driver. Driver has asserted claims against House and Contractor, and both defendants admit that cutting the roots caused the tree to fall.The theory on which Driver is most likely to prevail against House is that House is
A. strictly liable, because the tree was on his property. 
B. liable for Contractor's negligence if, to House's knowledge, Contractor was engaged in hazardous activity. 
C. liable, because he assumed responsibility when he paid Contractor for the repair. 
D. liable on the basis of respondeat superior
Answer: B
House owns his home in City. On the lawn in front of his home and within five feet of the public sidewalk there was a large tree. The roots of the tree caused the sidewalk to buckle severely and become dangerous. An ordinance of City requires adjacent landowners to keep sidewalks in safe condition. House engaged Contractor to repair the sidewalk, leaving it to Contractor to decide how the repair should be made. Contractor dug up the sidewalk, cut back the roots of the tree, and laid a new sidewalk. Two days after House had paid Contractor the agreed price of the repair, the tree fell over onto the street and damaged a parked car belonging to Driver. Driver has asserted claims against House and Contractor, and both defendants admit that cutting the roots caused the tree to fall.In the claim of Driver against Contractor, the best defense of Contractor is that
A. the tree was on the property of House.
B. he repaired the sidewalk at the direction of House.
C. he could not reasonably foresee that the tree would fall.
D. he was relieved of liability when House paid for the repair
Answer: C
House owns his home in City. On the lawn in front of his home and within five feet of the public sidewalk there was a large tree. The roots of the tree caused the sidewalk to buckle severely and become dangerous. An ordinance of City requires adjacent landowners to keep sidewalks in safe condition. House engaged Contractor to repair the sidewalk, leaving it to Contractor to decide how the repair should be made. Contractor dug up the sidewalk, cut back the roots of the tree, and laid a new sidewalk. Two days after House had paid Contractor the agreed price of the repair, the tree fell over onto the street and damaged a parked car belonging to Driver. Driver has asserted claims against House and Contractor, and both defendants admit that cutting the roots caused the tree to fall.If Driver recovers a judgment against House, does House have any recourse against Contractor?
A. No, if payment by House was an acceptance of the work. 
B. No, because House selected Contractor to do the work. 
C. Yes, if the judgment against House was based on vicarious liability. 
D. Yes, because House's conduct was not a factual cause of the harm.
Answer: C
The State of Rio Grande entered into a contract with Roads, Inc., for construction of a fourlane turnpike. Prior to commencement of construction, the legislature, in order to provide funds for parks, repealed the statute authorizing the turnpike and cancelled the agreement with Roads, Inc. Roads, Inc., sued the state to enforce its original agreement. In ruling on this case, a court should hold that the state statute cancelling the agreement is
A. valid, because constitutionally the sovereign is not liable except with its own consent. 
B. valid, because the legislature is vested with constitutional authority to repeal laws it has enacted. 
C. invalid, because a state is equitably estopped to disclaim a valid bid once accepted by it. 
D. invalid, because of the constitutional prohibition against impairment of contracts.
Answer: D
The strongest constitutional basis for the enactment of a federal statute requiring colleges and universities receiving federal funds to offer student aid solely on the basis of need is the
A. police power.
B. war and defense power.
C. power to tax and spend for the general welfare.
D. power to enforce the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Answer: C
In 1930, Owens, the owner in fee simple of Barrenacres, a large, undeveloped tract of land, granted an easement to the Water District "to install, inspect, repair, maintain, and replace pipes" within a properly delineated strip of land 20 feet wide across Barrenacres. The easement permitted the Water District to enter Barrenacres for only the stated purposes. The Water District promptly and properly recorded the deed. In 1931, the Water District installed a water main which crossed Barrenacres within the described strip; the Water District has not since entered Barrenacres. In 1935, Owens sold Barrenacres to Peterson, but the deed, which was promptly and properly recorded, failed to refer to the Water District easement. Peterson built his home on Barrenacres in 1935, and since that time he has planted and maintained, at great expense in money, time, and effort, a formal garden area which covers, among other areas, the surface of the 20-foot easement strip. In 1976, the Water District proposed to excavate the entire length of its main in order to inspect, repair, and replace the main, to the extent necessary. At a public meeting, at which Peterson was present, the Water District announced its plans and declared its intent to do as little damage as possible to any property involved. Peterson objected to the Water District plans."Peterson asked his attorney to secure an injunction against the Water District and its proposed entry upon his property. The best advice that the attorney can give is that Peterson's attempt to secure injunctive relief will be likely to
A. succeed, because Peterson's deed from Owens did not mention the easement. 
B. succeed, because more than 40 years have passed since the Water District last entered Barrenacres. 
C. fail, because the Water District's plan is within its rights. 11 
D. fail, because the Water District's plan is fair and equitable
Answer: C
In 1930, Owens, the owner in fee simple of Barrenacres, a large, undeveloped tract of land, granted an easement to the Water District "to install, inspect, repair, maintain, and replace pipes" within a properly delineated strip of land 20 feet wide across Barrenacres. The easement permitted the Water District to enter Barrenacres for only the stated purposes. The Water District promptly and properly recorded the deed. In 1931, the Water District installed a water main which crossed Barrenacres within the described strip; the Water District has not since entered Barrenacres. In 1935, Owens sold Barrenacres to Peterson, but the deed, which was promptly and properly recorded, failed to refer to the Water District easement. Peterson built his home on Barrenacres in 1935, and since that time he has planted and maintained, at great expense in money, time, and effort, a formal garden area which covers, among other areas, the surface of the 20-foot easement strip. In 1976, the Water District proposed to excavate the entire length of its main in order to inspect, repair, and replace the main, to the extent necessary. At a public meeting, at which Peterson was present, the Water District announced its plans and declared its intent to do as little damage as possible to any property involved. Peterson objected to the Water District plans."Assume that Peterson reserved his rights and after the Water District completed its work sued for the $5,000 in damages he suffered by reason of the Water District entry. Peterson's attempt to secure damages probably will
A. succeed, because his deed from Owens did not mention the easement. 
B. succeed, because of an implied obligation imposed on the Water District to restore the surface to its condition prior to entry. 
C. fail, because of the public interest in maintaining a continuous water supply. 
D. fail, because the Water District acted within its rights
Answer: D
In 1960, Omar, the owner in fee simple absolute, conveyed Stoneacre, a five-acre tract of land. The relevant, operative words of the deed conveyed to "Church [a duly organized religious body having power to hold property] for the life of my son, Carl, and from and after the death of my said son, Carl, to all of my grandchildren and their heirs and assigns in equal shares; provided that Church shall use the premises for church purposes only." In an existing building on Stoneacre, Church immediately began to conduct religious services and other activities normally associated with a church. In 1975, Church granted to Darin a right to remove sand and gravel from a one-half-acre portion of Stoneacre upon the payment of a royalty. Darin has regularly removed sand and gravel since 1975 and paid the royalty to Church. Church has continued to conduct religious services and other church activities on Stoneacre All four of the living grandchildren of Omar, joined by a guardian ad litem to represent unborn grandchildren, instituted suit against Church and Darin seeking damages for the removal of sand and gravel and an injunction preventing further acts of removal. There is no applicable statute. Which of the following best describes the likely disposition of this lawsuit?
A. The plaintiffs should succeed, because the interest of Church terminated with the first removal of sand and gravel 
B. Church and Darin should be enjoined, and damages should be recovered but impounded for future distribution. 
C. The injunction should be granted, but damages should be denied, because Omar and Carl are not parties to the action. 
D. Damages should be awarded, but the injunction should be denied.
Answer: B
In which of the following cases is a conviction of the named defendant for robbery LEAST likely to be upheld?
A. Johnson forced his way into a woman's home, bound her, and compelled her to tell him that her jewelry was in an adjoining room. Johnson went to the room, took the jewelry, and fled. 
B. A confederate of Brown pushed a man in order to cause him to lose his balance and drop his briefcase. Brown picked up the briefcase and ran off with it.
C. Having induced a woman to enter his hotel room, Ritter forced her to telephone her maid to tell the maid to bring certain jewelry to the hotel. Ritter locked the woman in the bathroom while he accepted the jewelry from the maid when she arrived. 
D. Hayes unbuttoned the vest of a man too drunk to notice and removed his wallet. A minute later, the victim missed his wallet and accused Hayes of taking it. Hayes pretended to be insulted, slapped the victim, and went off with the wallet.
Answer: D
Green is cited for contempt of the House of Representatives after she refuses to answer certain questions posed by a House Committee concerning her acts while serving as a United States Ambassador. A federal statute authorizes the Attorney General to prosecute contempts of Congress. Pursuant to this law, the House directs the Attorney General to begin criminal proceedings against Green. A federal grand jury indicts Green, but the Attorney General refuses to sign the indictment."Which of the following best describes the constitutionality of the Attorney General's action?
A. Illegal, because the Attorney General must prosecute if the House of Representatives directs.  
B. Illegal, because the Attorney General must prosecute those who violate federal law. 
C. Legal, because ambassadors are immune from prosecution for acts committed in the course of their duties. 
D. Legal, because the decision to prosecute is an exclusively executive act
Answer: D
Green is cited for contempt of the House of Representatives after she refuses to answer certain questions posed by a House Committee concerning her acts while serving as a United States Ambassador. A federal statute authorizes the Attorney General to prosecute contempts of Congress. Pursuant to this law, the House directs the Attorney General to begin criminal proceedings against Green. A federal grand jury indicts Green, but the Attorney General refuses to sign the indictment."If the Attorney General signs the indictment, the strongest argument Green could urge as a defense is that
A. Green may refuse to answer the questions if she can demonstrate that they are unrelated to matters upon which Congress may legislate.
B. the House may question Green on matters pertaining to the expenditures of funds appropriated by Congress.
C. only the Senate may question Green on matters that relate to the performance of her duties.
D. Congress may not ask questions relating to the performance of duties executed by an officer of the executive branch
Answer: A
Harry met Bill, who was known to him to be a burglar, in a bar. Harry told Bill that he needed money. He promised to pay Bill $500 if Bill would go to Harry's house the following night and take some silverware. Harry explained to Bill that, although the silverware was legally his, his wife would object to his selling it. Harry pointed out his home, one of a group of similar tract houses. He drew a floor plan of the house that showed the location of the silverware. Harry said that his wife usually took several sleeping pills before retiring, and that he would make sure that she took them the next night. He promised to leave a window unlocked. Everything went according to the plan except that Bill, deceived by the similarity of the tract houses, went to the wrong house. He found a window unlocked, climbed in, and found silver where Harry had indicated. He took the silver to the cocktail lounge where the payoff was to take place. At that point police arrested the two men."If Harry were charged with burglary, his best argument for acquittal would be that
A. there was no breaking
B. he consented to the entry.
C. no overt act was committed by him.
D. there was no intent to commit a felony.
Answer: D
Harry met Bill, who was known to him to be a burglar, in a bar. Harry told Bill that he needed money. He promised to pay Bill $500 if Bill would go to Harry's house the following night and take some silverware. Harry explained to Bill that, although the silverware was legally his, his wife would object to his selling it. Harry pointed out his home, one of a group of similar tract houses. He drew a floor plan of the house that showed the location of the silverware. Harry said that his wife usually took several sleeping pills before retiring, and that he would make sure that she took them the next night. He promised to leave a window unlocked. Everything went according to the plan except that Bill, deceived by the similarity of the tract houses, went to the wrong house. He found a window unlocked, climbed in, and found silver where Harry had indicated. He took the silver to the cocktail lounge where the payoff was to take place. At that point police arrested the two men."Bill's best argument for acquittal of burglary is that he
A. acted under a mistake of law.
B. had the consent of the owner.
C. reasonably thought he was in Harry's house.
D. found the window unlocked
Answer: C
Harry met Bill, who was known to him to be a burglar, in a bar. Harry told Bill that he needed money. He promised to pay Bill $500 if Bill would go to Harry's house the following night and take some silverware. Harry explained to Bill that, although the silverware was legally his, his wife would object to his selling it. Harry pointed out his home, one of a group of similar tract houses. He drew a floor plan of the house that showed the location of the silverware. Harry said that his wife usually took several sleeping pills before retiring, and that he would make sure that she took them the next night. He promised to leave a window unlocked. Everything went according to the plan except that Bill, deceived by the similarity of the tract houses, went to the wrong house. He found a window unlocked, climbed in, and found silver where Harry had indicated. He took the silver to the cocktail lounge where the payoff was to take place. At that point police arrested the two men."If Harry and Bill are charged with a conspiracy to commit burglary, their best argument for acquittal is that
A. Bill was the alter ego of Harry.
B. they did not intend to commit burglary.
C. there was no overt act.
D. there was no agreemen
Answer: B
Penn sued Duke's Bar for injuries suffered in an automobile accident caused by Chase, who had been a patron of Duke's Bar. Penn claimed that Chase was permitted to drink too much liquor at Duke's Bar before the accidentWood, a patron of Duke's Bar, testified that on the night of the accident Chase was drunk. Wood then proposed to testify that he remarked to his companion, "Chase is so drunk he can't even stand up." Wood's remark to his companion is
A. admissible as an excited utterance.
B. admissible as a prior consistent statement.
C. admissible as a statement by Wood regarding a condition he observed, made while he was observing it. 
D. inadmissible if there was no evidence that Wood had expertise in determining drunkenness.
Answer: C
Penn sued Duke's Bar for injuries suffered in an automobile accident caused by Chase, who had been a patron of Duke's Bar. Penn claimed that Chase was permitted to drink too much liquor at Duke's Bar before the accidentDuke's Bar called Chase to testify and expected him to say that he was sober when he left Duke's Bar; however, on direct examination Chase testified that he may have had a little too much to drink at Duke's Bar. Duke's Bar now seeks to confront Chase with his statement made on deposition that he was sober when he left Duke's Bar. Which of the following is true concerning this statement?
A. It may be used only to refresh Chase's recollection.
B. It is admissible for impeachment and as substantive evidence that Chase was sober.
C. It is inadmissible, because Duke's Bar cannot impeach its own witness. 
D. It is inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception
Answer: B