ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
John Doe, the owner of a milk container manufacturing firm, sought to focus public attention on the milk packaging law of the State of Clinton in order to have it repealed. On a weekday at 12 noon, he delivered an excited, animated, and loud harangue on the steps of the State Capitol in front of the main entryway. An audience of 200 onlookers, who gathered on the steps, heckled him and laughed as he delivered his tirade. Doe repeatedly stated, gesturing expressively and making faces, that "the g ddamned milk packaging law is stupid," and that "I will strangle every one of those g ddamned legislators I can get hold of because this law they created proves they are all too dumb to live." After about 15 minutes, Doe stopped speaking, and the amused crowd dispersed. There are three relevant statutes of the State of Clinton. The first statute prohibits "all speech making, picketing, and public gatherings of every sort on the Capitol steps in front of the main entryway during the hours of 7:45 a.m. 8:15 a.m., 11:45 a.m. 12:15 p.m., 12:45 p.m. 1:15 p.m., and 4:45 p.m. 5:15 p.m. on Capitol working days."". The "Capitol steps" statute is probably
A. constitutional both on its face and as applied to Doe.
B. constitutional on its face, but unconstitutional as applied to Doe. 
C. unconstitutional on its face, because it applies to all working days. 
D. unconstitutional on its face, because it concerns the State Capito
Answer: A
John Doe, the owner of a milk container manufacturing firm, sought to focus public attention on the milk packaging law of the State of Clinton in order to have it repealed. On a weekday at 12 noon, he delivered an excited, animated, and loud harangue on the steps of the State Capitol in front of the main entryway. An audience of 200 onlookers, who gathered on the steps, heckled him and laughed as he delivered his tirade. Doe repeatedly stated, gesturing expressively and making faces, that "the g ddamned milk packaging law is stupid," and that "I will strangle every one of those g ddamned legislators I can get hold of because this law they created proves they are all too dumb to live." After about 15 minutes, Doe stopped speaking, and the amused crowd dispersed. There are three relevant statutes of the State of Clinton. The first statute prohibits "all speech making, picketing, and public gatherings of every sort on the Capitol steps in front of the main entryway during the hours of 7:45 a.m. 8:15 a.m., 11:45 a.m. 12:15 p.m., 12:45 p.m. 1:15 p.m., and 4:45 p.m. 5:15 p.m. on Capitol working days.""A second state statute punishes "any person who shall intentionally threaten the life or safety of any public official for any act which he performed as part of his public office." Which of the following statements is correct concerning the possible punishment of Doe under the second statute?
A. The statute is unconstitutional on its face.
B. The statute is constitutional on its face, but Doe could not constitutionally be punished under it for this speech. 
C. Doe could constitutionally be punished under the statute for his speech.
D. Doe could constitutionally be punished under the statute for his speech, but only if one or more legislators were actually present when he delivered it
Answer: B
John Doe, the owner of a milk container manufacturing firm, sought to focus public attention on the milk packaging law of the State of Clinton in order to have it repealed. On a weekday at 12 noon, he delivered an excited, animated, and loud harangue on the steps of the State Capitol in front of the main entryway. An audience of 200 onlookers, who gathered on the steps, heckled him and laughed as he delivered his tirade. Doe repeatedly stated, gesturing expressively and making faces, that "the g ddamned milk packaging law is stupid," and that "I will strangle every one of those g ddamned legislators I can get hold of because this law they created proves they are all too dumb to live." After about 15 minutes, Doe stopped speaking, and the amused crowd dispersed. There are three relevant statutes of the State of Clinton. The first statute prohibits "all speech making, picketing, and public gatherings of every sort on the Capitol steps in front of the main entryway during the hours of 7:45 a.m. 8:15 a.m., 11:45 a.m. 12:15 p.m., 12:45 p.m. 1:15 p.m., and 4:45 p.m. 5:15 p.m. on Capitol working days.""A third state statute, enacted in 1880, makes criminal "the utterance in any public place of any blasphemy or sacrilege." Assume that there have been only a few recorded prosecutions under the 1880 statute. Doe is charged with violating its proscriptions. The charge is based wholly on the speech he delivered on the steps of the Clinton State Capitol. Which of the following constitutional defenses to this prosecution under the 1880 statute would be the LEAST likely to succeed?
A. This statute is vague and therefore violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
B. This statute is an establishment of religion and therefore violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. Application of this statute to Doe denies him equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
D. Application of this statute to Doe denies him freedom of speech in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
Answer: C
Peri sued Denucci for a libelous letter received by Investigator. The authenticity and contents of the letter are disputed.Peri's attorney asks Investigator to testify that, a week before receiving the libelous letter, he had written to Denucci inquiring about Peri. The testimony is
A. admissible provided that this inquiry was made in the regular course of Investigator's business.
B. admissible without production of the inquiry letter or the showing of its unavailability.
C. inadmissible unless Peri's attorney has  given Denucci notice of Investigator's intended testimony.
D. inadmissible unless the inquiry letter itself is shown to be unavailable.
Answer: B
Peri sued Denucci for a libelous letter received by Investigator. The authenticity and contents of the letter are disputed.Investigator, if permitted, will testify that "I received a letter that I cannot now find, which read:  Dear Investigator, You inquired about Peri. We fired him last month when we discovered that he had been stealing from the stockroom. Denucci'." The testimony should be admitted in evidence only if the
A. jury finds that Investigator has quoted the letter precisely.
B. jury is satisfied that the original letter is unavailable.
C. judge is satisfied that Investigator has quoted the letter precisely.
D. judge finds that the original letter is unavailable
Answer: D
Photo, a freelance photographer, took a picture of Player in front of Shoe Store. Player was a nationally known amateur basketball star who had received much publicity in the press. At the time, the window display in Shoe Store featured "Jumpers," a well-known make of basketball shoes. Photo sold the picture, greatly enlarged, to Shoe Store and told Shoe Store that Photo had Player's approval to do so and that Player had consented to Shoe Store's showing the enlarged picture in the window. Shoe Store made no effort to ascertain whether Player had given his consent to Photo. In fact, Player did not even know that Photo had taken the picture. Shoe Store put the enlarged picture in the window with the display of "Jumpers" shoes. The college that Player attended believed that Player had intentionally endorsed Shoe Store and "Jumpers" shoes, and the college cancelled his athletic scholarship."If Player asserts a claim based on defamation against Shoe Store, will Player prevail?
A. Yes, if Shoe Store was reckless in accepting Photo's statement that Photo had Player's approval. 
B. Yes, because the defamatory material was in printed form. 
C. No, if Shoe Store believed Photo's statement that Photo had Player's approval. 
D. No, because the picture of Player was not defamatory per se
Answer: A
Photo, a freelance photographer, took a picture of Player in front of Shoe Store. Player was a nationally known amateur basketball star who had received much publicity in the press. At the time, the window display in Shoe Store featured "Jumpers," a well-known make of basketball shoes. Photo sold the picture, greatly enlarged, to Shoe Store and told Shoe Store that Photo had Player's approval to do so and that Player had consented to Shoe Store's showing the enlarged picture in the window. Shoe Store made no effort to ascertain whether Player had given his consent to Photo. In fact, Player did not even know that Photo had taken the picture. Shoe Store put the enlarged picture in the window with the display of "Jumpers" shoes. The college that Player attended believed that Player had intentionally endorsed Shoe Store and "Jumpers" shoes, and the college cancelled his athletic scholarship."If Player asserts a claim based on invasion of privacy against Shoe Store, will Player prevail?
A. Yes, because Photo had no right to take Player's picture. 
B. Yes, because Shoe Store, without Player's permission, used Player's picture for profit. 
C. No, because Player was already a basketball star who had received much publicity in the press. 
D. No, because Shoe Store believed it had permission to put the picture in the window
Answer: B
Landover, the owner in fee simple of Highacre, an apartment house property, entered into an enforceable written agreement with VanMeer to sell Highacre to VanMeer. The agreement provided that a good and marketable title was to be conveyed free and clear of all encumbrances. However, the agreement was silent as to the risk of fire prior to closing, and there is no applicable statute in the state where the land is located. The premises were not insured. The day before the scheduled closing date, Highacre was wholly destroyed by fire. When VanMeer refused to close, Landover brought an action for specific performance. If Landover prevails, the most likely reason will be that
A. the failure of VanMeer to insure his interest as the purchaser of Highacre precludes any relief for him.
B. the remedy at law is inadequate in actions concerning real estate contracts and either party is entitled to specific performance.
C. equity does not permit consideration of surrounding circumstances in actions concerning real estate contracts.
D. the doctrine of equitable conversion applie
Answer: D
Realco Realtors acquired a large tract of land upon which Realco developed a mobile home subdivision. The tract was divided into 60 lots, appropriate utilities were installed, and a plat of the entire tract, including a Declaration of Restrictions, was properly drawn and recorded. The Declaration of Restrictions included the following: "3. Ownership and/or occupancy are restricted to persons 21 years of age or over, one family per lot." As the separate lots were sold, the deed to each lot included the following provision: "As shown on recorded plat [properly identified by page and plat book reference] and subject to the restrictions therein contained." One of the lots was purchased by Dawson, who now resides in a mobile home on the lot together with his wife and two children, aged 11 and 13. Other lot owners in the subdivision brought action against Dawson to enjoin further occupancy by the children under 21 years of age. If judgment is for Dawson, the issue that most likely will determine the case will be whether 
A. the mobile home is treated as personalty or realty.
B. the restriction constitutes an unlawful restraint on alienation.
C. enforcement of the restriction is considered a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
D. the terms of the restriction are expressly repeated verbatim in Dawson's dee
Answer: C
Defendant became intoxicated at a bar. He got into his car and drove away. Within a few blocks, craving another drink, he stopped his car in the middle of the street, picked up a brick, and broke the display window of a liquor store. As he was reaching for a bottle, the night watchman arrived. Startled, Defendant turned and struck the watchman on the head with the bottle, killing him. Only vaguely aware of what was happening, Defendant returned to his car, consumed more liquor, and then drove off at a high speed. He ran a red light and struck and killed a pedestrian who was crossing the street. Relevant statutes define burglary to include "breaking and entering a building not used as a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime therein." Manslaughter is defined as the "killing of a human being in a criminally reckless manner." Criminal recklessness is "consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk resulting from the actor's conduct." Murder is defined as "the premeditated and intentional killing of another or the killing of another in the commission of committing rape, robbery, burglary, or arson." Another statute provides that intoxication is not a defense to crime unless it negates an element of the offense. Defendant was charged with the murder of the watchman and manslaughter in the death of the pedestrian. Assume that he is tried separately on each charge "At Defendant's trial for the murder of the watchman, the court should in substance charge the jury on the issue of the defense of intoxication that
A. intoxication is a defense to the underlying crime of burglary if Defendant, due to drunkenness, did not form an intent to commit a crime within the building, in which case there can be no conviction for murder unless Defendant intentionally and with premeditation killed the watchman. 
B. voluntary intoxication is not a defense to the crime of murder.
C. Defendant is guilty of murder despite his intoxication only if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing of the watchman was premeditated and intentional.
D. voluntary intoxication is a defense to the crime of murder if Defendant would not have killed the watchman but for his intoxication
Answer: A
Defendant became intoxicated at a bar. He got into his car and drove away. Within a few blocks, craving another drink, he stopped his car in the middle of the street, picked up a brick, and broke the display window of a liquor store. As he was reaching for a bottle, the night watchman arrived. Startled, Defendant turned and struck the watchman on the head with the bottle, killing him. Only vaguely aware of what was happening, Defendant returned to his car, consumed more liquor, and then drove off at a high speed. He ran a red light and struck and killed a pedestrian who was crossing the street. Relevant statutes define burglary to include "breaking and entering a building not used as a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime therein." Manslaughter is defined as the "killing of a human being in a criminally reckless manner." Criminal recklessness is "consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk resulting from the actor's conduct." Murder is defined as "the premeditated and intentional killing of another or the killing of another in the commission of committing rape, robbery, burglary, or arson." Another statute provides that intoxication is not a defense to crime unless it negates an element of the offense. Defendant was charged with the murder of the watchman and manslaughter in the death of the pedestrian. Assume that he is tried separately on each charge "At Defendant's trial on the charge of manslaughter in the death of the pedestrian, his best argument would be that
A. he was too intoxicated to realize that he was creating a substantial and unjustifiable risk in the manner in which he was operating his car.
B. when he got into the car, his acts were not voluntary because he was too intoxicated to know where he was or what he was doing. 
C. the pedestrian was contributorily negligent in failing to see Defendant's car approaching.
D. he was too intoxicated to form any intent to voluntarily operate the automobil
Answer: A
Defendant became intoxicated at a bar. He got into his car and drove away. Within a few blocks, craving another drink, he stopped his car in the middle of the street, picked up a brick, and broke the display window of a liquor store. As he was reaching for a bottle, the night watchman arrived. Startled, Defendant turned and struck the watchman on the head with the bottle, killing him. Only vaguely aware of what was happening, Defendant returned to his car, consumed more liquor, and then drove off at a high speed. He ran a red light and struck and killed a pedestrian who was crossing the street. Relevant statutes define burglary to include "breaking and entering a building not used as a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime therein." Manslaughter is defined as the "killing of a human being in a criminally reckless manner." Criminal recklessness is "consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk resulting from the actor's conduct." Murder is defined as "the premeditated and intentional killing of another or the killing of another in the commission of committing rape, robbery, burglary, or arson." Another statute provides that intoxication is not a defense to crime unless it negates an element of the offense. Defendant was charged with the murder of the watchman and manslaughter in the death of the pedestrian. Assume that he is tried separately on each charge "The state's best argument to counter Defendant's argument in Question 137 on the intoxication issue in the manslaughter death of the pedestrian is that
A. intoxication is no defense to the crime charged, because manslaughter is historically a general intent crime. 
B. intoxication is a defense only to a specific intent crime, and no specific intent is involved in the definition of the crime of manslaughter. 
C. conscious risk-taking refers to Defendant's entire course of conduct, including drinking with the knowledge that he might become intoxicated and seriously injure or kill someone while driving. 
D. whether Defendant was intoxicated or not is not the crucial issue here; the real issue is whether the manner in which Defendant was operating his car can be characterized under the facts as criminally reckless
Answer: C
The Federal Automobile Safety Act establishes certain safety and performance standards for all automobiles manufactured in the United States. The Act creates a five-member "Automobile Commission" to investigate automobile safety, to make recommendations to Congress for new laws, to make further rules establishing safety and performance standards, and to prosecute violations of the act. The chairman is appointed by the President, two members are selected by the President pro tempore of the Senate, and two members are selected by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Minicar, Inc., a minor United States car manufacturer, seeks to enjoin enforcement of the Commission's rules"The best argument that Minicar can make is that
A. legislative power may not be delegated by Congress to an agency in the absence of clear guidelines.
B. the commerce power does not extend to the manufacture of automobiles not used in interstate commerce.
C. Minicar is denied due process of law because it is not represented on the Commission.
D. the Commission lacks authority to enforce its standards because not all of its members were appointed by the President
Answer: D
The Federal Automobile Safety Act establishes certain safety and performance standards for all automobiles manufactured in the United States. The Act creates a five-member "Automobile Commission" to investigate automobile safety, to make recommendations to Congress for new laws, to make further rules establishing safety and performance standards, and to prosecute violations of the act. The chairman is appointed by the President, two members are selected by the President pro tempore of the Senate, and two members are selected by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Minicar, Inc., a minor United States car manufacturer, seeks to enjoin enforcement of the Commission's rules"The appropriate decision for the court is to
A. allow the Commission to continue investigating automobile safety and making recommendations to Congress.
B. allow the Commission to prosecute violations of the act but not allow it to issue rules.
C. forbid the Commission to take any action under the act.
D. order that all members of the Commission be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senat
Answer: A
Johnson wanted to purchase a used motor vehicle. The used car lot of Car Company, in a remote section away from town, was enclosed by a 10-foot chainlink fence. While Johnson and Sales Representative, an employee of Car Company, were in the used car lot looking at cars, a security guard locked the gate at 1:30 p.m., because it was Saturday and the lot was supposed to be closed after 1:00 p.m. Saturday until Monday morning. At 1:45 p.m., Johnson and Sales Representative discovered that they were locked in. There was no traffic in the vicinity and no way in which help could be summoned. After two hours, Johnson began to panic at the prospect of remaining undiscovered and without food and water until Monday morning. Sales Representative decided to wait in a car until help should come. Johnson tried to climb over the fence and, in doing so, fell and was injured. Johnson asserts a claim against Car Company for damages for his injuries."If Johnson's claim is based on negligence, is the defense of assumption of the risk applicable?
A. Yes, if a reasonable person would have recognized that there was some risk of falling while climbing the fence. 
B. Yes, because Sales Representative, as Car Company's agent, waited for help. 
C. No, if it appeared that there was no other practicable way of getting out of the lot before Monday. 
D. No, because Johnson was confined as the result of a volitional act
Answer: C
Johnson wanted to purchase a used motor vehicle. The used car lot of Car Company, in a remote section away from town, was enclosed by a 10-foot chainlink fence. While Johnson and Sales Representative, an employee of Car Company, were in the used car lot looking at cars, a security guard locked the gate at 1:30 p.m., because it was Saturday and the lot was supposed to be closed after 1:00 p.m. Saturday until Monday morning. At 1:45 p.m., Johnson and Sales Representative discovered that they were locked in. There was no traffic in the vicinity and no way in which help could be summoned. After two hours, Johnson began to panic at the prospect of remaining undiscovered and without food and water until Monday morning. Sales Representative decided to wait in a car until help should come. Johnson tried to climb over the fence and, in doing so, fell and was injured. Johnson asserts a claim against Car Company for damages for his injuries."If Johnson's claim is based on false imprisonment, will Johnson prevail?
A. Yes, because he was confined against his will. 
B. Yes, because he was harmed as a result of his confinement. 
C. No, unless the security guard was negligent in locking the gate. 
D. No, unless the security guard knew that someone was in the lot at the time the guard locked the gate
Answer: D