benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU-Pro / 1461 / A state highway runs through the center of a city's business district. As the…

Problem

Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.

question

A state highway runs through the center of a city's business district. As the highway passes through this business district, there is a stretch where the highway is too narrow to satisfS' the safety standards for state roadways. Along this narrow stretch and on opposite sides of the street are located two businesses. Situated on the east side of the street is a bar and grill; directly across the street on the west side is a lounge. In order to comply with state highway regulations, the state highway department, acting pursuant to state statute, ordered the city to prohibit parking on one side of the highway within the business district. The city council convened a special meeting to determine whether parking should be prohibited on the east or west side of the street. During the meeting, the council was unable to resolve the issue. Finally, the city council president decided the only fair way to resolve the matter was to flip a coin. After the coin flip, the city prohibited parking at all times on the west side of the highway. On account of this decision, parking in front of the lounge was permanently prohibited. This caused the lounge to suffer a substantial decline in business because of the unavailability of on-street parking. As a consequence, the owner of the lounge brought suit for declarative relief against the city alleging that the parking ban on his side of the street was unconstitutional. In all likelihood, will the plaintiff be successful in this cause of action?

category

law

options

  1. No, because as a governmental entity, the city enjoys immunity from such suits under the Eleventh Amendment.
  2. No, because the city was acting in accordance with state highway safety regulations.
  3. Yes, because the action of the city violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  4. No, because the city's action was reasonable.
  5. Yes, because the city council failed to consider the economic impact of their decision on the lounge.
  6. No, because the city council president's decision to flip a coin was arbitrary and capricious.
  7. No, because the state highway department's order supersedes any claim by the lounge owner.
  8. Yes, because the prohibition of parking constitutes a taking of property without just compensation.
  9. Yes, because the city council's decision unfairly targeted businesses on the west side of the street.

src

ori_mmlu-professional_law

Discussion

Discussion

No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

See answer Answer published by the source

Artifacts

Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.

No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

Source and history

upstream_id / Original problem ID
1461
task_id
e7983c34-abb0-5156-9dba-a567b3cff695
task_key
default--test--1461
task_revision_id
1
config / split
default / test

Official source

initial import