ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
The state of Champlain enacts the Young Adult Marriage Counseling Act, which provides that, before any persons less than 30 years of age may be issued a marriage license, they must receive at least five hours of marriage counseling from a statelicensed social worker. This counseling is designed to assure that applicants for marriage licenses know their legal rights and duties in relation to marriage and parenthood, understand the "true nature" of the marriage relationship, and understand the procedures for obtaining divorces.Pine, aged 25, contemplated marrying Ross, aged 25. Both are residents of the state of Champlain. Pine has not yet proposed to Ross because he is offended by the counseling requirement. Pine sues in court seeking a declaratory judgment that the Young Adult Marriage Counseling Act is unconstitutional. Which of the following is the clearest ground for dismissal of this action by the court?
A. Pine and Ross are residents of the same state.
B. No substantial federal question is presented.
C. The suit presents a nonjustifiable political question.
D. The suit is unripe
Answer: D
The state of Champlain enacts the Young Adult Marriage Counseling Act, which provides that, before any persons less than 30 years of age may be issued a marriage license, they must receive at least five hours of marriage counseling from a statelicensed social worker. This counseling is designed to assure that applicants for marriage licenses know their legal rights and duties in relation to marriage and parenthood, understand the "true nature" of the marriage relationship, and understand the procedures for obtaining divorces.In a case in which the constitutionality of the Young Adult Marriage Counseling Act is in 80 issue, the burden of persuasion will probably be on the
A. person challenging the law, because there is a strong presumption that elected state legislators acted properly. 
B. person challenging the law, because the Tenth Amendment authorizes states to determine the conditions on which they issue marriage licenses. 
C. state, because there is a substantial impact on the right to marry, and that right is fundamental. 
D. state, because there is a substantial impact on the discrete and insular class of young adults.
Answer: C
Ogden was the fee simple owner of three adjoining vacant lots fronting on a common street in a primarily residential section of a city which had no zoning laws. The lots were identified as Lots 1, 2, and 3. Ogden conveyed Lot 1 to Akers and Lot 2 to Bell. Ogden retained Lot 3, which consisted of three acres of woodland. Bell, whose lot was between the other two, built a house on his lot. Bell's house included a large window on the side facing Lot 3. The window provided a beautiful view from Bell's living room, thereby adding value to Bell's house. Akers erected a house on his lot. Ogden made no complaint to either Akers or Bell concerning the houses they built. After both Akers and Bell had completed their houses, the two of them agreed to and did build a common driveway running from the street to the rear of their respective lots. The driveway was built on the line between the two houses so that one-half of the way was located on each lot. Akers and Bell exchanged right-of-way deeds by which each of them conveyed to the other, his heirs and assigns, an easement to continue the right of way. Both deeds were properly recorded. After Akers and Bell had lived in their respective houses for 30 years, a new public street was built bordering on the rear of Lots 1, 2, and 3. Akers informed Bell that, since the new street removed the need for their common driveway, he considered the right-of-way terminated; therefore, he intended to discontinue its use and expected Bell to do the same. At about the same time, Ogden began the erection of a six-story apartment house on Lot 3. If the apartment house is completed, it will block the view from Bell's window and will substantially reduce the value of Bell's lot."In an action brought by Bell to enjoin Akers from interfering with Bell's continued use of the common driveway between the two lots, the decision should be for
A. Akers, because the termination of the necessity for the easement terminated the easement. 
B. Akers, because the continuation of the easement after the change of circumstances would adversely affect the marketability of both lots without adding any commensurate value to either. 
C. Bell, because an incorporeal hereditament lies in grant and cannot be terminated without a writing. 
D. Bell, because the removal of the need for the easement created by express grant does not affect the right to the easement
Answer: D
Ogden was the fee simple owner of three adjoining vacant lots fronting on a common street in a primarily residential section of a city which had no zoning laws. The lots were identified as Lots 1, 2, and 3. Ogden conveyed Lot 1 to Akers and Lot 2 to Bell. Ogden retained Lot 3, which consisted of three acres of woodland. Bell, whose lot was between the other two, built a house on his lot. Bell's house included a large window on the side facing Lot 3. The window provided a beautiful view from Bell's living room, thereby adding value to Bell's house. Akers erected a house on his lot. Ogden made no complaint to either Akers or Bell concerning the houses they built. After both Akers and Bell had completed their houses, the two of them agreed to and did build a common driveway running from the street to the rear of their respective lots. The driveway was built on the line between the two houses so that one-half of the way was located on each lot. Akers and Bell exchanged right-of-way deeds by which each of them conveyed to the other, his heirs and assigns, an easement to continue the right of way. Both deeds were properly recorded. After Akers and Bell had lived in their respective houses for 30 years, a new public street was built bordering on the rear of Lots 1, 2, and 3. Akers informed Bell that, since the new street removed the need for their common driveway, he considered the right-of-way terminated; therefore, he intended to discontinue its use and expected Bell to do the same. At about the same time, Ogden began the erection of a six-story apartment house on Lot 3. If the apartment house is completed, it will block the view from Bell's window and will substantially reduce the value of Bell's lot."In an action brought by Bell to enjoin Ogden from erecting the apartment building in such a way as to obstruct the view from Bell's living room window, the decision should be for
A. Bell, because Ogden's proposed building would be an obstruction of Bell's natural right to an easement for light and air. 
B. Bell, because Bell was misled by Ogden's failure to complain when Bell was building his house. 
C. Ogden if, but only if, it can be shown that Ogden's intention to erect such a building was made known to Bell at or prior to the time of Ogden's conveyance to Bell. 
D. Ogden, because Bell has no easement for light, air, or view.
Answer: D
Dever was indicted for the murder of Vickers by poison. At trial, the prosecutor calls the county coroner, Dr. Wolfe, who is a boardcertified pathologist, to testify that, in accord with good practice in her specialty, she has studied microphotographic slides, made under her supervision by medical assistants, of tissue taken from Vickers' corpse and that it is Wolfe's opinion, based on that study, that Vickers died of poisoning. The slides have not been offered in evidence. Dr. Wolfe's opinion should be
A. excluded, because the cause of death is a critical issue to be decided by the trier of fact. 81 
B. excluded, because her opinion is based on facts not in evidence. 
C. admitted, because Wolfe followed accepted medical practice in arriving at her opinion 
D. admitted, because her opinion is based on matters observed pursuant to a duty imposed by law.
Answer: C
At the trial of Davis for a murder that occurred in Newtown, the prosecution called Waite, who testified that she saw Davis kill the victim. Davis believed that Waite was 600 miles away in Old Town, engaged in the illegal sale of narcotics, on the day in question. On cross-examination by Davis, Waite was asked whether she had in fact sold narcotics in Old Town on that date. Waite refused to answer on the ground of selfincrimination. The judge, over the prosecutor's objection, ordered that if Waite did not testify, her direct testimony should be stricken. The order to testify or have the testimony stricken can best be supported on the basis that
A. Waite had not been charged with any crime and, thus, could claim no privilege against self-incrimination. 
B. Waite's proper invocation of the privilege prevented adequate cross-examination.
C. the public interest in allowing an accused to defend himself or herself outweighs the interest of a nonparty witness in the privilege.
D. the trial record, independent of testimony, does not establish that Waite's answer could incriminate her.
Answer: B
A statute of the state of Tuscarora made it a misdemeanor to construct any building of more than five stories without an automatic fire sprinkler system. A local construction company built a 10-story federal office building in Tuscarora. It constructed the building according to the precise specifications of a federal contract authorized by federal statutes. Because the building was built without the automatic fire sprinkler system required by state law, Tuscarora decided to prosecute the private contractor. Which of the following is the company's strongest defense to that prosecution?
A. The state sprinkler requirement denies the company property or liberty without due process.
B. The state sprinkler requirement denies the company equal protection of the laws
C. As applied, the state sprinkler requirement violates the supremacy clause. 
D. As applied, the state sprinkler requirement violates the obligation of contracts clause.
Answer: C
On January 15, Carpenter agreed to repair Householder's house according to certain specifications and to have the work completed by April 1. On March 1, Householder's property was inundated by floodwaters which did not abate until March 15. Householder could not get the house into a condition which would permit Carpenter to begin the repairs until March 31. On that date Carpenter notified Householder that he would not repair the house. Which one of the following facts, if it was the only one true and known to both parties on January 15, would best serve Carpenter as the basis for a defense in an action brought against him by Householder for breach of contract?
A. Carpenter's busy schedule permitted him to work on Householder's house only during the month of March.
B. Any delay in making the repairs would not seriously affect Householder's use of the property.
C. The cost of making repairs was increasing at the rate of three percent a month.
D. The area around Householder's property was frequently flooded during the month of March.
Answer: A
In a telephone call on March 1, Adams, an unemployed, retired person, said to Dawes, "I will sell my automobile for $3,000 cash. I will hold this offer open through March 14." On March 12, Adams called Dawes and told her that he had sold the automobile to Clark. Adams in fact had not sold the automobile to anyone. On March 14, Dawes learned that Adams still owned the automobile, and on that date called Adams and said, "I'm coming over to your place with $3,000." Adams replied, "Don't bother. I won't deliver the automobile to you under any circumstances." Dawes protested, but made no further attempt to pay for or take delivery of the automobile. 82 In an action by Dawes against Adams for breach of contract, Dawes probably will
A. succeed, because Adams had assured her that the offer would remain open through March 14. 
B. succeed, because Adams had not in fact sold the automobile to Clark 
C. not succeed, because Dawes had not tendered the $3,000 to Adams on or before March 14. 
D. not succeed, because on March 12, Adams had told Dawes that he had sold the automobile to Clark.
Answer: D
Parents purchased a new mobile home from Seller. The mobile home was manufactured by Mobilco and had a ventilating system designed by Mobilco with both a heating unit and an air conditioner. Mobilco installed a furnace manufactured by Heatco and an air conditioning unit manufactured by Coolco. Each was controlled by an independent thermostat installed by Mobilco. Because of the manner in which Mobilco designed the ventilating system, the first time the ventilating system was operated by Parents, cold air was vented into Parents' bedroom to keep the temperature at 68Â°F (20Â°C). The cold air then activated the heater thermostat, and hot air was pumped into the bedroom of Child, the six-monthold child of Parents. The temperature in Child's room reached more than 170Â°F (77Â°C) before Child's mother became aware of the condition and shut the system off manually. As a result, Child suffered permanent physical injury. Claims have been asserted by Child, through a duly appointed guardian, against Mobilco, Seller, Heatco, and Coolco."If Child's claim against Seller is based on negligence, the minimum proof necessary to establish Seller's liability is that the ventilating system
A. was defective.
B. was defective and had not been inspected by Seller.
C. was defective and had been inspected by Seller, and the defect was not discovered. 
D. was defective, and the defect would have been discovered if Seller had exercised reasonable care in inspecting the system
Answer: D
Parents purchased a new mobile home from Seller. The mobile home was manufactured by Mobilco and had a ventilating system designed by Mobilco with both a heating unit and an air conditioner. Mobilco installed a furnace manufactured by Heatco and an air conditioning unit manufactured by Coolco. Each was controlled by an independent thermostat installed by Mobilco. Because of the manner in which Mobilco designed the ventilating system, the first time the ventilating system was operated by Parents, cold air was vented into Parents' bedroom to keep the temperature at 68Â°F (20Â°C). The cold air then activated the heater thermostat, and hot air was pumped into the bedroom of Child, the six-monthold child of Parents. The temperature in Child's room reached more than 170Â°F (77Â°C) before Child's mother became aware of the condition and shut the system off manually. As a result, Child suffered permanent physical injury. Claims have been asserted by Child, through a duly appointed guardian, against Mobilco, Seller, Heatco, and Coolco."If Child's claims against Mobilco, Heatco, and Coolco are based on strict liability in tort, Child will probably recover against
A. Mobilco only, because the ventilating system was defectively designed by Mobilco. 
B. Heatco only, because it was the excessive heat from the furnace that caused Child's injuries. 
C. Mobilco and Heatco only, because the combination of Mobilco's design and Heatco's furnace caused Child's injuries. 
D. Mobilco, Heatco, and Coolco, because the combination of Mobilco's design, Heatco's furnace, and Coolco's air conditioning unit caused Child's injuries.
Answer: A
Cars driven by Pugh and Davidson collided, and Davidson was charged with driving while intoxicated in connection with the accident. She pleaded guilty and was merely fined, although under the statute the court could have sentenced her to two years in prison. Thereafter, Pugh, alleging that Davidson's intoxication had caused the collision, sued Davidson for damages. At trial, Pugh offers the properly authenticated record of Davidson's conviction. The record should be
A. admitted as proof of Davidson's character.
B. admitted as proof of Davidson's intoxication.
C. excluded, because the conviction was not the result of a trial. 
D. excluded, because it is hearsay, not within any exception.
Answer: B
Pitt sued Dow for damages for injuries that Pitt incurred when a badly rotted limb fell from a curbside tree in front of Dow's home and hit Pitt. Dow claimed that the tree was on city property and thus was the responsibility of the city. At trial, Pitt offered testimony that a week after the accident, Dow had cut the tree down with a chain saw. The offered evidence is
A. inadmissible, because there is a policy to encourage safety precautions. 
B. inadmissible, because it is irrelevant to the condition of the tree at the time of the accident. 
C. admissible to show that the tree was on Dow's property. 83
D. admissible to show that the tree was in a rotted condition
Answer: C
A state statute makes it a felony for any teacher at a state institution of higher education to accept anything of value from a student at the same institution. Monroe, a student at the state university, offered Professor Smith, his English teacher, $50 in exchange for a good grade in his English course. Smith agreed and took the money. Professor Smith and Monroe are tried jointly for violation of the state statute. Professor Smith is charged with violating the statute, and Monroe with aiding and abetting him. Monroe's best argument for a dismissal of the charge against him is that
A. a principal and an accessory cannot be tried together, since the principal must be convicted first. 
B. he cannot be an accessory, since he is the victim of the crime. 
C. the legislature did not intend to punish the person giving the thing of value.
D. he did not assist Professor Smith in violating the statute
Answer: C
In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be guilty of the crime charged?
A. Without the permission of Owner, Defendant takes Owner's car with the intention of driving it three miles to a grocery store and back. Defendant is charged with larceny. 
B. Defendant gets permission to borrow Owner's car for the evening by falsely promising to return it, although he does not intend to do so. Two days later, he changes his mind and returns the car. Defendant is charged with larceny by trick. 
C. Defendant gets permission to borrow Owner's car for the evening by misrepresenting his identity and falsely claiming he has a valid driver's license. He returns the car the next day. Defendant is charged with obtaining property by false pretenses.
D. With permission, Defendant, promising to return it by 9 p.m., borrows Owner's car. Later in the evening, Defendant decides to keep the car until the next morning and does so. Defendant is charged with embezzlement.
Answer: B
Carver is a chemical engineer. She has no interest in or connection with Chemco. Carver noticed that Chemco's most recent publicly issued financial statement listed, as part of Chemco's assets, a large inventory of a certain special chemical compound. This asset was listed at a cost of $100,000, but Carver knew that the ingredients of the compound were in short supply and that the current market value of the inventory was in excess of $1,000,000. There was no current public quotation of the price of Chemco stock. The book value of Chemco stock, according to the statement, was $5 a share; its actual value was $30 a share. Knowing these facts, Carver offered to purchase from Page at $6 a share the 1,000 shares of Chemco stock owned by Page. Page and Carver had not previously met. Page sold the stock to Carver for $6 a share. If Page asserts a claim based on misrepresentation against Carver, will Page prevail?
A. Yes, because Carver knew that the value of the stock was greater than the price she offered. 
B. Yes, if Carver did not inform Page of the true value of the inventory. 
C. No, unless Carver told Page that the stock was not worth more than $6 a share. 
D. No, if Chemco's financial statement was available to Page
Answer: C
Dean, charged with murder, was present with her attorney at a preliminary examination when White, who was the defendant in a separate prosecution for concealing the body of the murder victim, testified for the prosecution against Dean. When called to testify at Dean's trial, White refused to testify, though ordered to do so. The prosecution offers evidence of White's testimony at the preliminary examination. The evidence is
A. admissible as former testimony.
B. admissible as past recollection recorded.
C. inadmissible, because it would violate White's privilege against selfincrimination. 
D. inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception
Answer: A
Potts, a building contractor, sued Dennis for failure to pay on a small cost-plus construction 84 contract. At trial, Potts, who personally supervised all of the work, seeks to testify to what he remembers about the amount of pipe used, the number of workers used on the job, and the number of hours spent grading. Dennis objects on the ground that Potts had routinely recorded these facts in notebooks which are in Potts' possession. Potts' testimony is
A. admissible as a report of regularly conducted business activity.
B. admissible as based on first-hand knowledge.
C. inadmissible, because it violates the best evidence rule. 
D. inadmissible, because a summary of writings cannot be made unless the originals are available for examination
Answer: B
While testifying as a witness in a civil trial, Walters was asked on cross-examination if he had been convicted in the circuit court of Jasper County of stealing $200 from his employer on August 16, 1977. Walters said, "No, I have never been convicted of any crime." In fact, Walters had pleaded guilty to such a charge and had been placed on probation. Walters was then charged with perjury on the ground that his statement denying the conviction was false. A statute in the jurisdiction defines perjury as knowingly making a false statement while under oath. At trial, the state proved Walters' statement and the prior conviction. Walters testified that the attorney who represented him in the theft case had told him that, because he had been placed on probation, he had not been convicted of a crime. Walters had served his probationary period satisfactorily and been discharged from probation. The alleged advice of the attorney was incorrect. If the jury believes Walters, it should find him 
A. guilty, because his mistake was one of law. 
B. guilty, because reliance on the advice of an attorney is not a defense. 
C. not guilty if the jury also finds that his reliance on the attorney's advice was reasonable.
D. not guilty, because he lacked the necessary mental state
Answer: D
A grand jury was investigating a bank robbery. The only information known to the prosecutor was a rumor that Taylor might have been involved. The grand jury subpoenaed Taylor. He refused to answer questions about the robbery and was granted use immunity. He then testified that he and Simmons had robbed the bank. The grand jury indicted both Taylor and Simmons for the bank robbery. The prosecutor permitted Simmons to enter a plea to a lesser offense in exchange for Simmons' agreement to testify against Taylor. The prosecutor had no evidence as to the identity of the robbers except the testimony of Simmons and Taylor. At Taylor's trial, his objection to Simmons' being permitted to testify should be
A. sustained, because the prosecutor may not bargain away the rights of one codefendant in a deal with another. 
B. sustained, because Simmons' testimony was acquired as a result of Taylor's grand jury testimony. 
C. overruled, because the police suspected Taylor even before he testified in the grand jury hearing. 
D. overruled, because a witness cannot be precluded from testifying if his testimony is given voluntarily
Answer: B
A federal statute requires United States civil service employees to retire at age 75. However, that statute also states that civil service employees of the armed forces must retire at age 65. Prentis, a 65-year-old service employee of the Department of the Army, seeks a declaratory judgment that would forbid his mandatory retirement until age 75. The strongest argument that Prentis can make to invalidate the requirement that he retire at age 65 is that the law
A. denies him a privilege or immunity of national citizenship.
B. deprives him of a property right without just compensation.
C. is not within the scope of any of the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I, Â§8. 
D. invidiously discriminates against him on the basis of age in violation of the Fifth Amendmen
Answer: D