ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Miller was indicted in a state court in January 1985 for a robbery and murder that occurred in December 1982. He retained counsel, who filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Miller had been prejudiced by a 25-month delay in obtaining the indictment. Thereafter, Miller, with his counsel, appeared in court for arraignment and stated that he wished to plead guilty. The presiding judge asked Miller whether he understood the nature of the charges, possible defenses, and maximum allowable sentences. Miller replied that he did, and the judge reviewed all of those matters with him. He then asked Miller whether he understood that he did not have to plead guilty. When Miller responded that he knew that, the judge accepted the plea and sentenced Miller to 25 years. Six months later, Miller filed a motion to set aside his guilty plea on each of the following grounds. Which of these grounds provides a constitutional basis for relief?
A. The judge did not rule on his motion to dismiss before accepting the guilty plea.
B. The judge did not determine that Miller had robbed and killed the victim.
C. The judge did not determine whether Miller understood that he had a right to jury trial.
D. The judge did not determine whether the prosecutor's file contained any undisclosed exculpatory material.
Answer: C
Paul sued Dyer for personal injuries sustained when Dyer's car hit Paul, a pedestrian. Immediately after the accident, Dyer got out of his car, raced over to Paul, and said, "Don't worry I'll pay your hospital bill." Paul's testimony concerning Dyer's statement is
A. admissible, because it is an admission of liability by a party opponent. 
B. admissible, because it is within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. 
C. inadmissible to prove liability, because it is an offer to pay medical expenses. 
D. inadmissible, provided that Dyer kept his promise to pay Paul's medical expenses
Answer: C
As a result of an accident at the NPP nuclear power plant, a quantity of radioactive vapor escaped from the facility, and two members of the public were exposed to excessive doses of radiation. According to qualified medical opinion, that exposure will double the chance that these two persons will ultimately develop cancer. However, any cancer that might be caused by this exposure will not be detectable for at least 10 years. If the two exposed persons do develop cancer, it will not be possible to determine whether it was caused by this exposure or would have developed in any event. If the exposed persons assert a claim for damages against NPP shortly after the escape of the radiation, which of the following questions will NOT present a substantial issue?
A. Will the court recognize that the plaintiffs have suffered a present legal injury?
B. Can the plaintiffs prove the amount of their damages?
C. Can the plaintiffs prove that any harm they may suffer was caused by this exposure?
D. Can the plaintiffs prevail without presenting evidence of specific negligence on the part of NPP
Answer: D
Pam and Dora own adjoining lots in the central portion of a city. Each of their lots had an office building. Dora decided to raze the existing building on her lot and to erect a building of greater height, and she received all governmental approvals required to pursue her project. There is no applicable statute or ordinance (other than those dealing with various approvals for zoning, building, etc.)"After Dora had torn down the existing building, she proceeded to excavate deeper. Dora used shoring that met all local, state, and federal safety regulations, and the shoring was placed in accordance with those standards. Pam notified Dora that cracks were developing in the building situated on Pam's lot. Dora took the view that any subsidence suffered by Pam was due to the weight of Pam's building, and correctly asserted that none would have occurred had Pam's soil been in its natural state. Dora continued to excavate. The building on Pam's lot suffered extensive damage, requiring the expenditure of $750,000 to remedy the defects. Which of the following is the best comment concerning Pam's action to recover damages from Dora?
A. Dora is liable, because she removed necessary support for Pam's lot. 
B. Dora cannot be held liable simply upon proof that support was removed, but may be held liable if negligence is proved. 
C. Once land is improved with a building, the owner cannot invoke the common law right of lateral support. 
D. Dora's only obligation was to satisfy all local, state, and federal safety regulation
Answer: B
Pam and Dora own adjoining lots in the central portion of a city. Each of their lots had an office building. Dora decided to raze the existing building on her lot and to erect a building of greater height, and she received all governmental approvals required to pursue her project. There is no applicable statute or ordinance (other than those dealing with various approvals for zoning, building, etc.)"Assume that no problems with subsidence or other misadventures occurred during construction of Dora's new building. However, when it was completed, Pam discovered that the shadow created by the new higher building placed her building in such deep shade that her ability to lease space was diminished and that the rent she could charge and the occupancy rate were substantially lower. Assume that these facts are proved in an appropriate action Pam instituted against Dora for all and any relief available. Which of the following is the most appropriate comment concerning this lawsuit?
A. Pam is entitled to a mandatory injunction requiring Dora to restore conditions to those existing with the prior building insofar as the shadow is concerned.
B. The court should award permanent damages, in lieu of an injunction, equal to the present value of all rents lost and loss on rents for the reasonable life of the building. 
C. The court should award damages for losses suffered to the date of trial and leave open recovery of future damages.
D. Judgment should be for Dora, because Pam has no cause of action.
Answer: D
A city ordinance makes the city building inspector responsible for ensuring that all buildings in that city are kept up to building code standards and requires the inspector to refer for prosecution all known building code violations. Another ordinance provides that the city building inspector may be discharged for "good cause." The building inspector took a newspaper reporter through a number of run-down buildings in a slum neighborhood. After using various epithets and slurs to describe the occupants of these buildings, the building inspector stated to the reporter: "I do not even try to get these buildings up to code or to have their owners prosecuted for code violations because if these buildings are repaired, the people who live in them will just wreck them again." The reporter published these statements in a story in the local newspaper. The building inspector admitted he made the statements. On the basis of these statements, the city council discharged the building inspector. Is the action of the city council constitutional?
A. Yes, because the statements demonstrate that the building inspector has an attitude toward a certain class of persons that interferes with the proper performance of the obligations of his job. 
B. Yes, because the building inspector is a government employee and a person holding such a position may not make public comments inconsistent with current governmental policy. 
C. No, because the statements were lawful comments on a matter of public concern. 
D. No, because the statements were published in a newspaper that is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments
Answer: A
John asked Doris to spend a weekend with him at his apartment and promised her that they would get married on the following Monday. Doris agreed and also promised John that she would not tell anyone of their plans. Unknown to Doris, John had no intention of marrying her. After Doris came to his apartment, John told Doris he was going for cigarettes. He called Doris's father and told him that he had his daughter and would kill her if he did not receive $100,000. John was arrested on Sunday afternoon when he went to pick up the $100,000. Doris was still at the apartment and knew nothing of John's attempt to get the money. John is guilty of
A. kidnapping.
B. attempted kidnapping.
C. kidnapping or attempted kidnapping but not both.
D. neither kidnapping nor attempted kidnapping
Answer: D
In a civil action for personal injury, Payne alleges that he was beaten up by Dabney during an altercation in a crowded bar. Dabney's defense is that he was not the person who hit Payne. To corroborate his testimony about the cause of his injuries, Payne seeks to introduce, through the hospital records custodian, a notation in a regular medical record made by an emergency room doctor at the hospital where Payne was treated for his injuries. The notation is: "Patient says he was attacked by Dabney." The notation is
A. inadmissible, unless the doctor who made the record is present at trial and available for cross-examination. 
B. inadmissible as hearsay, not within any exception. 
C. admissible as hearsay, within the exception for records of regularly conducted activity. 
D. admissible as a statement made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment
Answer: B
After extensive negotiations, Tune Corporation, a radio manufacturer, and Bill's Comex, Inc., a retailer, entered into a final written agreement in which Tune agreed to sell and Bill's agreed to buy all of its requirements of radios, estimated at 20 units per month, during the period January 1, 1988, through December 31, 1990, at a price of $50 per unit. A dispute arose in late December 1990, when Bill's returned 25 undefective radios to Tune for full credit after Tune had refused to extend the contract for a second three-year period. In an action by Tune against Bill's for damages due to return of the 25 radios, Tune introduces the written agreement, which expressly permitted the buyer to return defective radios for credit but was silent as to return of undefective radios for credit. Bill's seeks to introduce evidence that during the three years of the agreement it had returned, for various reasons, 125 undefective radios, for which Tune had granted full credit. Tune objects to the admissibility of this evidence. "The trial court will probably rule that the evidence proffered by Bill's is
A. inadmissible, because the evidence is barred by the parol evidence rule. 
B. inadmissible, because the express terms of the agreement control when those terms are inconsistent with the course of performance. 
C. admissible, because the evidence supports an agreement that is not within the relevant statute of frauds 
D. admissible, because course-of-performance evidence, when available, is considered the best indication of what the parties intended the writing to mean.
Answer: D
After extensive negotiations, Tune Corporation, a radio manufacturer, and Bill's Comex, Inc., a retailer, entered into a final written agreement in which Tune agreed to sell and Bill's agreed to buy all of its requirements of radios, estimated at 20 units per month, during the period January 1, 1988, through December 31, 1990, at a price of $50 per unit. A dispute arose in late December 1990, when Bill's returned 25 undefective radios to Tune for full credit after Tune had refused to extend the contract for a second three-year period. In an action by Tune against Bill's for damages due to return of the 25 radios, Tune introduces the written agreement, which expressly permitted the buyer to return defective radios for credit but was silent as to return of undefective radios for credit. Bill's seeks to introduce evidence that during the three years of the agreement it had returned, for various reasons, 125 undefective radios, for which Tune had granted full credit. Tune objects to the admissibility of this evidence. "For this question only, assume the following facts. When Bill's returned the 25 radios in question, it included with the shipment a check payable to Tune for the balance admittedly due on all other merchandise sold and delivered to Bill's. The check was conspicuously marked, "Payment in full for all goods sold to Bill's to date." Tune's credit manager, reading this check notation and knowing that Bill's had also returned the 25 radios for full credit, deposited the check without protest in Tune's local bank account. The canceled check was returned to Bill's a week later. Which of the following defenses would best serve Bill's?
A. Tune's deposit of the check and its return to Bill's after payment estopped Tune thereafter to assert that Bill's owed any additional amount.
B. By depositing the check without protest and with knowledge of its wording, Tune discharged any remaining duty to pay on the part of Bill's. 
C. By depositing the check without protest and with knowledge of its wording, Tune entered into a novation discharging any remaining duty to pay on the part of Bill's. 
D. The parties' good-faith dispute over return of the radios suspended the duty of Bill's, if any, to pay any balance due.
Answer: B
While driving at a speed in excess of the statutory limit, Dant negligently collided with another car, and the disabled vehicles blocked two of the highway's three northbound lanes. When Page approached the scene two minutes later, he slowed his car to see if he could help those involved in the collision. As he slowed, he was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Thomas. Page, who sustained damage to his car and was seriously injured, brought an action against Dant to recover damages. The jurisdiction adheres to the traditional common law rules pertaining to contributory negligence. If Dant moves to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, should the motion be granted?
A. Yes, because it was Thomas, not Dant who collided with Page's car and caused Page's injuries. 
B. Yes, if Page could have safely passed the disabled vehicles in the traffic lane that remained open. 
C. No, because a jury could find that Page's injury arose from a risk that was a continuing consequence of Dant's negligence. 
D. No, because Dant was driving in excess of the statutory limit when he negligently caused the first accident.
Answer: C
Owen owned Greenacre in fee simple. The small house on Greenacre was occupied, with Owen's oral permission, rent-free, by Able, Owen's son, and Baker, a college classmate of Able. Able was then 21 years old. Owen, by properly executed instrument, conveyed Greenacre to "my beloved son, Able, his heirs and assigns, upon the condition precedent that he earn a college degree by the time he reaches the age of 30. If, for any reason, he does not meet this condition, then Greenacre shall become the sole property of my beloved daughter, Anna, her heirs and assigns." At the time of the conveyance, Able and Baker attended a college located several blocks from Greenacre. Neither had earned a college degree. One week after the delivery of the deed to Able, Able recorded the deed and immediately told Baker that he, Able, was going to begin charging Baker rent since "I am now your landlord." There is no applicable statute. Able and Baker did not reach agreement, and Able served the appropriate notice to terminate whatever tenancy Baker had. Able then sought, in an appropriate action, to oust Baker. Who should prevail?
A. Able, because the conveyance created a fee simple subject to divestment in Able. 
B. Able, because Owen's conveyance terminated Baker's tenancy. 
C. Baker, because Owen's permission to occupy preceded Owen's conveyance to Able. 
D. Baker, because Baker is a tenant of Owen, not of Able
Answer: D
Testator, whose nephew Bypast was his only heir, died leaving a will that gave his entire estate to charity. Bypast, knowing full well that Testator was of sound mind all of his life, and having no evidence to the contrary, nevertheless filed a suit contesting Testator's will on the ground that Testator was incompetent when the will was signed. Craven, Testator's executor, offered Bypast $5,000 to settle the suit, and Bypast agreed. If Craven then repudiates the agreement and the foregoing facts are proved or admitted in Bypast's suit against Craven for breach of contract, is Bypast entitled to recover under the prevailing view?
A. Yes, because the Bypast-Craven agreement was a bargained-for exchange. 
B. Yes, because the law encourages the settlement of disputed claims. 
C. No, because Bypast did not bring the will contest in good faith. 
D. No, because an agreement to oust the court of its jurisdiction to decide a will contest is contrary to public policy
Answer: C
The National AIDS Prevention and Control Act is a new comprehensive federal statute that was enacted to deal with the public health crisis caused by the AIDS virus. Congress and the President were concerned that inconsistent lower court rulings with respect to the constitutionality, interpretation, and application of the statute might adversely affect or delay its enforcement and, thereby, jeopardize the public health. As a result, they included a provision in the statute providing that all legal challenges concerning those matters were to be initiated only by filing suit directly in the United States Supreme Court. The provision authorizing direct review of the constitutionality, interpretation, or application of this statute only in the United States Supreme Court is
A. constitutional, because it is authorized by the Article I power of Congress to enact all laws that are "necessary and proper" to implement the general welfare. 
B. constitutional, because Article III provides that the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court is subject to such exceptions and such regulations as Congress shall make. 
C. unconstitutional, because it denies persons who wish to challenge this statute the equal protection of the laws by requiring them to file suit in a court different from that in which persons who wish to challenge other statutes may file suit. 
D. unconstitutional, because it is inconsistent with the specification in Article III of the original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court. 
Answer: D
Morten was the general manager and chief executive officer of the Woolen Company, a knitting mill. Morten delegated all operational decision making to Grouse, the supervising manager of the mill. The child labor laws in the jurisdiction provide, "It is a violation of the law for one to employ a person under the age of 17 years for full-time labor." Without Morten's knowledge, Grouse hired a number of 15- and 16- year-olds to work at the mill full time. He did not ask their ages and they did not disclose them. Grouse could have discovered their ages easily by asking for identification, but he did not do so because he was not aware of the law and believed that company policy was to hire young people.If the statute is interpreted to create strict liability and Grouse is charged with violating it, Grouse is
A. guilty, because he should have inquired as to the ages of the children. 
B. guilty, because he hired the children. 
C. not guilty, because in law the Woolen Company, not Grouse, is the employer of the children. 
D. not guilty, because he believed he was following company policy and was not aware of the violation
Answer: B
Morten was the general manager and chief executive officer of the Woolen Company, a knitting mill. Morten delegated all operational decision making to Grouse, the supervising manager of the mill. The child labor laws in the jurisdiction provide, "It is a violation of the law for one to employ a person under the age of 17 years for full-time labor." Without Morten's knowledge, Grouse hired a number of 15- and 16- year-olds to work at the mill full time. He did not ask their ages and they did not disclose them. Grouse could have discovered their ages easily by asking for identification, but he did not do so because he was not aware of the law and believed that company policy was to hire young people.If the statute is interpreted to create strict liability and Morten is convicted of violating it, his contention that his conviction would violate the federal Constitution is
A. correct, because it is a violation of due process to punish without a voluntary act. 
B. correct, because criminal liability is personal and the Woolen Company is the employer of the children, not Morten. 
C. incorrect, because regulatory offenses are not subject to due process limitations. 
D. incorrect, because he was in a position to exercise control over the hiring of employees for the Woolen Company
Answer: D
Dexter is being tried for the homicide of a girl whose strangled body was found beside a remote logging road with her hands taped together. After Dexter has offered evidence of alibi, the state calls Wilma to testify that Dexter had taped her hands and tried to strangle her in the same location two days before the homicide but that she escaped. The evidence is
A. admissible as tending to show that Dexter is the killer.
B. admissible as tending to show Dexter's violent nature.
C. inadmissible, because it is improper character evidence. 
D. inadmissible, because it is unfairly prejudicial
Answer: A
Dooley was a pitcher for the City Robins, a professional baseball team. While Dooley was throwing warm-up pitches on the sidelines during a game, he was continuously heckled by some spectators seated in the stands above the dugout behind a wire mesh fence. On several occasions, Dooley turned and looked directly at the hecklers with a scowl on his face, but the heckling continued. Dooley wound up as though he was preparing to pitch in the direction of his catcher; however, the ball traveled from his hand, at high speed, at a 90-degree angle from the line to the catcher and directly toward the hecklers in the stands. The ball passed through the wire mesh fence and struck Patricia, one of the hecklers. Patricia brought an action for damages against Dooley and the City Robins, based upon negligence and battery. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants on the battery count. The jury found for the defendants on the negligence count because the jury determined that Dooley could not foresee that the ball would pass through the wire mesh fence. Patricia has appealed the judgments on the battery counts, contending that the trial court erred in directing verdicts for Dooley and the City Robins.""On appeal, the judgment entered on the directed verdict in Dooley's favor on the battery claim should be
A. affirmed, because the jury found on the evidence that Dooley could not foresee that the ball would pass through the fence. 
B. affirmed, if there was evidence that Dooley was mentally ill and that his act was the product of his mental illness. 
C. reversed and the case remanded, if a jury could find on the evidence that Dooley intended to cause the hecklers to fear being hit. 
D. reversed and the case remanded, because a jury could find that Dooley's conduct was extreme and outrageous, and the cause of physical harm to Patricia.
Answer: C