ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Company wanted to expand the size of the building it owned that housed Company's supermarket by adding space for a coffeehouse. Company's building was located in the center of five acres of land owned by Company and devoted wholly to parking for its supermarket customers. City officials refused to grant a required building permit for the coffeehouse addition unless Company established in its store a child care center that would take up space at least equal to the size of the proposed coffeehouse addition, which was to be 20% of the existing building. This action of City officials was authorized by provisions of the applicable zoning ordinance. In a suit filed in state court against appropriate officials of City, Company challenged this child care center requirement solely on constitutional grounds. The lower court upheld the requirement even though City officials presented no evidence and made no findings to justify it other than a general assertion that there was a shortage of child care facilities in City. Company appealed. The court hearing the appeal should hold that the requirement imposed by City on the issuance of this building permit is 
A. constitutional, because the burden was on Company to demonstrate that there was no rational relationship between this requirement and a legitimate governmental interest, and Company could not do so because the requirement is reasonably related to improving the lives of families and children residing in City. 
B. constitutional, because the burden was on Company to demonstrate that this requirement was not necessary to vindicate a compelling governmental interest, and Company could not do so on these facts. 
C. unconstitutional, because the burden was on City to demonstrate that this requirement was necessary to vindicate a compelling governmental interest, and City failed to meet its burden under that standard. 
D. unconstitutional, because the burden was on City to demonstrate a rough proportionality between this requirement and the impact of Company's proposed action on the community, and City failed to do so.
Answer: D
Ollie owned a large tract of land known as Peterhill. During Ollie's lifetime, Ollie conveyed the easterly half (East Peterhill), situated in the municipality of Hawthorn, to Abel, and the westerly half (West Peterhill), situated in the municipality of Sycamore, to Betty. Each of the conveyances, which were promptly and properly recorded, contained the following language: The parties agree for themselves and their heirs and assigns that the premises herein conveyed shall be used only for residential purposes; that each lot created within the premises herein conveyed shall contain not less than five acres; and that each lot shall have not more than one single-family dwelling. This agreement shall bind all successor owners of all or any portion of Peterhill and any owner of any part of Peterhill may enforce this covenant. After Ollie's death, Abel desired to build houses on one-half acre lots in the East Peterhill tract as authorized by current applicable zoning and building codes in Hawthorn. The area surrounding East Peterhill in Hawthorn was developed as a residential community with homes built on one-half acre lots. West Peterhill was in a residential area covered by the Sycamore zoning code, which allowed residential development only on five-acre tracts of land. In an appropriate action brought by Betty to enjoin Abel's proposed construction on onehalf acre lots, the court will find the quoted restriction to be 
A. invalid, because of the change of circumstance in the neighborhood. 
B. invalid, because it conflicts with the applicable zoning code. 
C. valid, but only so long as the original grantees from Ollie own their respective tracts of Peterhill. 
D. valid, because the provision imposed an equitable servitude. 
Answer: D
At Defendant's murder trial, Defendant calls Witness as his first witness to testify that Defendant has a reputation in their community as a peaceable and truthful person. The prosecutor objects on the ground that Witness's testimony would constitute improper character evidence. The court should 
A. admit the testimony as to peaceableness, but exclude the testimony as to truthfulness. 
B. admit the testimony as to truthfulness, but exclude the testimony as to peaceableness. 
C. admit the testimony as to both character traits.
D. exclude the testimony as to both character traits.
Answer: A
The governor of the state of Green proposes to place a Christmas nativity scene, the components of which would be permanently donated to the state by private citizens, in the Green Capitol Building rotunda where the Green Legislature meets annually. The governor further proposes to display this stateowned nativity scene annually from December 1 to December 31, next to permanent displays that depict the various products manufactured in Green. The governor's proposal is supported by all members of both houses of the legislature. If challenged in a lawsuit on establishment clause grounds, the proposed nativity scene display would be held 
A. unconstitutional, because the components of the nativity scene would be owned by the state rather than by private persons. 
B. unconstitutional, because the nativity scene would not be displayed in a context that appeared to depict and commemorate the Christmas season as a primarily secular holiday. 
C. constitutional, because the components of the nativity scene would be donated to the state by private citizens rather than purchased with state funds. 
D. constitutional, because the nativity scene would be displayed alongside an exhibit of various products manufactured in Green. 
Answer: B
Two police officers in uniform were on foot patrol in a neighborhood frequented by drug sellers. They saw Sandra, who, when she saw them, turned around and started to walk quickly away. The police ran after her and shouted, "Stop and don't take another step, lady!" Sandra turned, looked at the police, and stopped. She put her arms up in the air. As the police approached, she threw a small object into nearby bushes. The police retrieved the object, which turned out to be a small bag of cocaine, and then arrested Sandra. Sandra is charged with possession of the cocaine. She moves pretrial to suppress its use as evidence on the ground that it was obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure. Her motion should be 
A. granted, because the police did not know the item was cocaine until after they had seized it. 
B. granted, because the police acquired the cocaine as the result of an unlawful seizure. 
C. denied, because the police had probable cause to seize the package. 
D. denied, because Sandra voluntarily discarded the contraband.
Answer: B
In a federal civil trial, Plaintiff wishes to establish that, in a state court, Defendant had been convicted of fraud, a fact that Defendant denies. Which mode of proof of the conviction is LEAST likely to be permitted? 
A. A certified copy of the judgment of conviction, offered as a selfauthenticating document. 
B. Testimony of Plaintiff, who was present at the time of the sentence. 
C. Testimony by a witness to whom Defendant made an oral admission that he had been convicted.
D. Judicial notice of the conviction, based on the court's telephone call to the clerk of the state court, whom the judge knows personally. 
Answer: D
Three years ago Adam conveyed Blackacre to Betty for $50,000 by a deed that provided: "By accepting this deed, Betty covenants for herself, her heirs and assigns, that the premises herein conveyed shall be used solely for residential purposes and, if the premises are used for nonresidential purposes, Adam, his heirs and assigns, shall have the right to repurchase the premises for the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000)." In order to pay the $50,000 purchase price for Blackacre, Betty obtained a $35,000 mortgage loan from the bank. Adam had full knowledge of the mortgage transaction. The deed and mortgage were promptly and properly recorded in proper sequence. The mortgage, however, made no reference to the quoted language in the deed. Two years ago Betty converted her use of Blackacre from residential to commercial without the knowledge or consent of Adam or of the bank. Betty's commercial venture failed, and Betty defaulted on her mortgage payments to the bank. Blackacre now has a fair market value of $25,000. The bank began appropriate foreclosure proceedings against Betty. Adam properly intervened, tendered $1,000, and sought judgment that Betty and the bank be ordered to convey Blackacre to Adam, free and clear of the mortgage. The common-law Rule Against Perpetuities is unmodified by statute. If the court rules against Adam, it will be because 
A. the provision quoted from the deed violates the Rule Against Perpetuities.
B. the Bank had no actual knowledge of, and did not consent to, the violation of the covenant. 
C. the rights reserved by Adam were subordinated, by necessary implication, to the rights of the bank as the lender of the purchase money. 
D. the consideration of $1,000 was inadequate.
Answer: A
Loyal, aged 60, who had no plans for early retirement, had worked for Mutate, Inc., for 20 years as a managerial employee-at-will when he had a conversation with the company's president, George Mutant, about Loyal's post- retirement goal of extensive travel around the United States. A month later, Mutant handed Loyal a written, signed resolution of the company's Board of Directors stating that when and if Loyal should decide to retire, at his option, the company, in recognition of his past service, would pay him a $2,000per-month lifetime pension. (The company had no regularized retirement plan for atwill employees.) Shortly thereafter, Loyal retired and immediately bought a $30,000 recreational vehicle for his planned travels. After receiving the promised $2,000 monthly pension from Mutate, Inc., for six months, Loyal, now unemployable elsewhere, received a letter from Mutate, Inc., advising him that the pension would cease immediately because of recessionary budget constraints affecting in varying degrees all managerial salaries and retirement pensions. In a suit against Mutate, Inc., for breach of contract, Loyal will probably 
A. win, because he retired from the company as bargained-for consideration for the Board's promise to him of a lifetime pension. 
B. win, because he timed his decision to retire and to buy the recreational vehicle in reasonable reliance on the Board's promise to him of a lifetime pension. 
C. lose, because the Board's promise to him of a lifetime pension was an unenforceable gift promise. 
D. lose, because he had been an employee- at-will throughout his active service with the company. 
Answer: B
Congress wishes to enact legislation prohibiting discrimination in the sale or rental of housing on the basis of the affectional preference or sexual orientation of the potential purchaser or renter. Congress wishes this statute to apply to all public and private vendors and lessors of residential property in this country, with a few narrowly drawn exceptions. The most credible argument for congressional authority to enact such a statute would be based upon the 
A. general welfare clause of Article I, Section 8, because the conduct the statute prohibits could reasonably be deemed to be harmful to the national interest. 
B. commerce clause of Article I, Section 8, because, in inseverable aggregates, the sale or rental of almost all housing in this country could reasonably be deemed to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. 
C. enforcement clause of the Thirteenth Amendment, because that amendment clearly prohibits discrimination against the class of persons protected by this statute. 
D. enforcement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because that amendment prohibits all public and private actors from engaging in irrational discrimination.
Answer: B
Because of Farmer's default on his loan, the bank foreclosed on the farm and equipment that secured the loan. Among the items sold at the resulting auction was a new tractor recently delivered to Farmer by the retailer. Shortly after purchasing the tractor at the auction, Pratt was negligently operating the tractor on a hill when it rolled over due to a defect in the tractor's design. He was injured as a result. Pratt sued the auctioneer, alleging strict liability in tort. The jurisdiction has not adopted a comparative fault rule in strict liability cases. In this suit, the result should be for the 
A. plaintiff, because the defendant sold a defective product that injured the plaintiff. 
B. plaintiff, if the defendant failed to inspect the tractor for defects prior to sale. 
C. defendant, because he should not be considered a "seller" for purposes of strict liability in tort. 
D. defendant, because the accident was caused in part by Pratt's negligence. 
Answer: C
In exchange for a valid and sufficient consideration, Goodbar orally promised Walker, who had no car and wanted a minivan, "to pay to anyone from whom you buy a minivan within the next six months the full purchase-price thereof." Two months later, Walker bought a used minivan on credit from Minivanity Fair, Inc., for $8,000. At the time, Minivanity Fair was unaware of Goodbar's earlier promise to Walker, but learned of it shortly after the sale. Can Minivanity Fair enforce Goodbar's promise to Walker? 
A. Yes, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 
B. Yes, because Minivanity Fair is an intended beneficiary of the GoodbarWalker contract. 
C. No, because Goodbar's promise to Walker is unenforceable under the suretyship clause of the statute of frauds. 
D. No, because Minivanity Fair was neither identified when Goodbar's promise was made nor aware of it when the minivansale was made.
Answer: B
Plaintiff sued Defendant for injuries sustained in an automobile collision. During Plaintiff's hospital stay, Doctor, a staff physician, examined Plaintiff's X rays and said to Plaintiff, "You have a fracture of two vertebrae, C4 and C5." Intern, who was accompanying Doctor on her rounds, immediately wrote the diagnosis on Plaintiff's hospital record. At trial, the hospital records custodian testifies that Plaintiff's hospital record was made and kept in the ordinary course of the hospital's business. The entry reporting Doctor's diagnosis is 
A. inadmissible, because no foundation has been laid for Doctor's competence as an expert. 
B. inadmissible, because Doctor's opinion is based upon data that are not in evidence. 
C. admissible as a statement of then existing physical condition.
D. admissible as a record of regularly conducted business activity.
Answer: D
A city owns and operates a large public auditorium. It leases the auditorium to any group that wishes to use it for a meeting, lecture, concert, or contest. Each user must post a damage deposit and pay rent, which is calculated only for the actual time the building is used by the lessee. Reservations are made on a first-come, first-served basis. A private organization that permits only males to serve in its highest offices rented the auditorium for its national convention. The organization planned to install its new officers at that convention. It broadly publicized the event, inviting members of the general public to attend the installation ceremony at the city auditorium. No statute or administrative rule prohibits the organization from restricting its highest offices to men. An appropriate plaintiff sues the private organization seeking to enjoin it from using the city auditorium for the installation of its new officers. The sole claim of the plaintiff is that the use of this auditorium by the organization for the installation ceremony is unconstitutional because the organization disqualifies women from serving in its highest offices. Will the plaintiff prevail? 
A. Yes, because the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits such an organization from discriminating against women in any of its activities to which it has invited members of the general public. 
B. Yes, because the organization's use of the city auditorium for this purpose subjects its conduct to the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. 
C. No, because the freedom of association protected by the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the city from interfering in any way with the organization's use of city facilities. 
D. No, because this organization is not a state actor and, therefore, its activities are not subject to the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Answer: D
Adam owns Townacres in fee simple, and Bess owns the adjoining Greenacres in fee simple. Adam has kept the lawns and trees on Townacres trimmed and neat. Bess "lets nature take its course" at Greenacres. The result on Greenacres is a tangle of underbrush, fallen trees, and standing trees that are in danger of losing limbs. Many of the trees on Greenacres are near Townacres. In the past, debris and large limbs have been blown from Greenacres onto Townacres. By local standards Greenacres is an eyesore that depresses market values of real property in the vicinity, but the condition of Greenacres violates no applicable laws or ordinances. Adam demanded that Bess keep the trees near Townacres trimmed. Bess refused. Adam brought an appropriate action against Bess to require Bess to abate what Adam alleges to be a nuisance. In the lawsuit, the only issue is whether the condition of Greenacres constitutes a nuisance. The strongest argument that Adam can present is that the condition of Greenacres 
A. has an adverse impact on real estate values.
B. poses a danger to the occupants of Townacres.
C. violates community aesthetic standards.
D. cannot otherwise be challenged under any law or ordinance.
Answer: B
Breeder bought a two-month-old registered boar at auction from Pigstyle for $800. No express warranty was made. Fifteen months later, tests by experts proved conclusively that the boar had been born incurably sterile. If this had been known at the time of the sale, the boar would have been worth no more than $100. In an action by Breeder against Pigstyle to avoid the contract and recover the price paid, the parties stipulate that, as both were and had been aware, the minimum age at which the fertility of a boar can be determined is about 12 months. Which of the following will the court probably decide? 
A. Breeder wins, because the parties were mutually mistaken as to the boar's fertility when they made the agreement. 
B. Breeder wins, because Pigstyle impliedly warranted that the boar was fit for breeding. 
C. Pigstyle wins, because Breeder assumed the risk of the boar's sterility. 
D. Pigstyle wins, because any mistake involved was unilateral, not mutual.
Answer: C
Homeowner owns a house on a lake. Neighbor owns a house across a driveway from Homeowner's property. Neighbor's house sits on a hill and Neighbor can see the lake from his living room window. Homeowner and Neighbor got into an argument and Homeowner erected a large spotlight on his property that automatically comes on at dusk and goes off at sunrise. The only reason Homeowner installed the light was to annoy Neighbor. The glare from the light severely detracts from Neighbor's view of the lake. In a suit by Neighbor against Homeowner, will Neighbor prevail? 
A. Yes, because Homeowner installed the light solely to annoy Neighbor. 
B. Yes, if, and only if, Neighbor's property value is adversely affected. 
C. No, because Neighbor's view of the lake is not always obstructed. 
D. No, if the spotlight provides added security to Homeowner's property. 
Answer: A
On May 1, 1987, a car driven by Debra struck Peggy, a pedestrian. On July 1, 1987, with regard to this incident, Debra pleaded guilty to reckless driving (a misdemeanor) and was sentenced to 30 days in jail and a fine of $1,000. She served the sentence and paid the fine. On April 1, 1988, Peggy died as a result of the injuries she suffered in the accident. On March 1, 1991, a grand jury indicted Debra on a charge of manslaughter of Peggy. On May 15, 1991, trial had not begun and Debra filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground of double jeopardy in that her conviction of reckless driving arose out of the same incident, and on the ground that the three-year statute of limitations for manslaughter had run. Debra's motion should be 
A. granted only on double jeopardy grounds.
B. granted only on statute of limitations grounds.
C. granted on either double jeopardy grounds or statute of limitations grounds.
D. denied on both grounds.
Answer: D
Defendant is on trial for participating in a drug sale. The prosecution calls Witness, an undercover officer, to testify that, when Seller sold the drugs to Witness, Seller introduced Defendant to Witness as "my partner in this" and Defendant shook hands with Witness but said nothing. Witness's testimony is 
A. inadmissible, because there is no evidence that Seller was authorized to speak for Defendant. 
B. inadmissible, because the statement of Seller is hearsay not within any exception. 
C. admissible as a statement against Defendant's penal interest.
D. admissible as Defendant's adoption of Seller's statement.
Answer: D
State Y has a state employee grievance system that requires any state employee who wishes to file a grievance against the state to submit that grievance for final resolution to a panel of three arbitrators chosen by the parties from a statewide board of 13 arbitrators. In any given case, the grievant and the state alternate in exercising the right of each party to eliminate five members of the board, leaving a panel of three members to decide their case. At the present time, the full board is composed of seven male arbitrators and six female arbitrators. Ellen, a female state employee, filed a sexual harassment grievance against her male supervisor and the state. Anne, the state's attorney, exercised all of her five strikes to eliminate five of the female arbitrators. At the time she did so, Anne stated that she struck the five female arbitrators solely because she believed women, as a group, would necessarily be biased in favor of another woman who was claiming sexual harassment. Counsel for Ellen eliminated four males and one female arbitrator, all solely on grounds of specific bias or conflicts of interest. As a result, the panel was all male. When the panel ruled against Ellen on the merits of her case, she filed an action in an appropriate state court, challenging the panel selection process as a gender-based denial of equal protection of the laws. In this case, the court should hold that the panel selection process is 
A. unconstitutional, because the gender classification used by the state's attorney in this case does not satisfy the requirements of intermediate scrutiny. 
B. unconstitutional, because the gender classification used by the state's attorney in this case denies the grievant the right to a jury made up of her peers. 
C. constitutional, because the gender classification used by the state's attorney in this case satisfies the requirements of the strict scrutiny test. 
D. constitutional, because the gender classification used by the state's attorney in this case satisfies the requirements of the rational basis test.
Answer: A