flwrlabs/fed-legal huggingface dataset:
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: funds that is required for the imposition of the statutory trust. Cucinotti next contends that the trial court erred in holding him personally liable. He points out that Reliance rested its theory of personal liability on several grounds, each of which was essentially abandoned in favor of the participation theory as articulated by the Supreme Court in its decision in Saltiel v. GSI Consultants, Inc., 170 N.J. 297, 788 A.2d 268 (2002), a decision released while the Reliance summary judgment motion was pending. While there are other reported decisions that hold that corporate officers who participate in fraud or conversion can be held personally liable for the losses occasioned thereby, see, e.g., Charles Bloom & Co. v. Echo Jewelers, 279 N.J.Super. 372, 382, 652 A.2d 1238 (App.Div.l995)(<HOLDING>); Robsac Indus., Inc. v. Chartpak, 204 Options: A. holding defendants personally liable for alleged conversion even when acting in corporate capacity B. holding that a state officer sued in his individual capacity may be held personally liable for damages under 42 usc 1983 based upon actions taken in his official capacity C. holding that a corporate officer signing a contract in his corporate capacity is generally not liable for damages under the contract D. holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to discovery to determine whether the defendant intended to be bound in his personal andor corporate capacity where the agreement contained certain personal guarantees by the defendant but where the defendant signed the agreement only in a corporate capacity with no signature blocks provided for signing in a personally capacity E. holding that state officials may be personally liable for actions taken in their official capacity

assistant: The best answer is A. holding defendants personally liable for alleged conversion even when acting in corporate capacity
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: in addition , you warrant that you are 18 years of age or older , that you possess the legal authority to enter into this agreement and use instant booking and this site in accordance with these terms and conditions , and that all information you supply is true and accurate .

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Loan Party and each of its Subsidiaries own, or hold licenses in, or otherwise has the rights to use, all material trademarks, trade names, copyrights, patents, and licenses that are necessary to the conduct of its business as currently conducted.

assistant: Intellectual Property
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.Bankr.R. 7056(c); Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The summary judgment procedure is appropriate in an action to review the record of an administrative agency because the reviewing court is generally limited to determining matters of law, i.e. sufficiency of record, statutory authority of agency, etc., and if there is no material issue of fact and only a question of law, summary judgment is appropriate. 6-Pt. 2 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶56.17[3], 56-362 — 56-364 (2d ed. 1993) (citing Milton v. Harris, 616 F.2d 968 (7th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>)). A. The Negotiated Rates Act of 1993 On Options: A. holding that a probable cause determination is appropriate for summary judgment where there are no genuine issues of material fact and no credibility issues B. holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact C. holding that when a contract is ambiguous and the parties suggest different interpretations summary judgment is inappropriate because an issue of fact exists D. holding that summary judgment is appropriate when no issue of material fact exists and the court is reviewing administrative record for sufficiency of evidence E. holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that summary judgment is appropriate when no issue of material fact exists and the court is reviewing administrative record for sufficiency of evidence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Other than as set forth in Schedule 4.5 , except for the Company Entities, the Company does not, directly or indirectly, own any equity, membership or similar interest in, or any interest convertible into or exchangeable or exercisable for any equity, membership or similar interest in, any Subsidiary.

assistant: Subsidiaries
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that refusal may be admissible in a subsequent prosecution; (2) if the person refuses to submit to the taking of the specimen, the person’s license to operate a motor vehicle will be automatically suspended, whether or not the person is subsequently prosecuted as a result of the arrest, for not less than 180 days;.... The statute was later amended to also require a warning that "if the person refuses to submit to the taking of a specimen, the officer may apply for a warrant authorizing a specimen to be taken from the person.” Act of May 23, 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S. ch. 674 § 2011 Tex. Sess. Law serv. 1627 (West). 3 . The fact that Barker’s comments were in response to Appellant’s questions does not by itself render the trooper’s statements non-coercive. See, e.g., Hall, 649 S.W.2d 627 (<HOLDING>). It is, however, a factor to consider. Options: A. holding that the issue of the voluntariness of a settlement agreement is waived on appeal if not raised before the board B. holding that because of the factbound nature of the inquiry determination of voluntariness of consent to search is reviewed for clear error C. recognizing that the ultimate question of the voluntariness of consent is one of law D. holding that the evidence raised the issue of voluntariness of consent even though the officers comments were in response to an inquiry by the suspect E. recognizing that consent is an exception to the warrant requirement and that voluntariness of consent depends on the totality of the circumstances

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the evidence raised the issue of voluntariness of consent even though the officers comments were in response to an inquiry by the suspect
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Optionee expressly agrees that the Company will be irreparably damaged if the provisions of this Option Agreement and the Plan are not specifically enforced. Upon a breach or threatened breach of the terms, covenants and/or conditions of this Option Agreement or the Plan by the Optionee, the Company will, in addition to all other remedies, be entitled to a temporary or permanent injunction, without showing any actual damage, and/or decree for specific performance, in accordance with the provisions hereof and thereof. The Administrator has the power to determine what constitutes a breach or threatened breach of this Option Agreement or the Plan. The Administrator’s determinations will be final and conclusive and binding upon the Optionee.

assistant: Specific Performance
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the Effective Date, neither API nor the Borrower has any Subsidiaries other than those specifically disclosed in Schedule 5.01(o) and all Equity Interests owned by API or any other Loan Party are owned free and clear of all security interests of any Person except (i) those created under the Collateral Documents or under any documentation governing Permitted Pari Passu Secured Refinancing Debt or Permitted Junior Lien Refinancing Debt (or any permitted secured Permitted Refinancing of any of the foregoing) (which Liens shall be subject to a First Lien Intercreditor Agreement or a Second Lien Intercreditor Agreement, as applicable) and (ii) any nonconsensual Lien that is permitted under Section 7.02(b) . As of the Effective Date, Schedule 5.01(o) (a) sets forth the name and jurisdiction of organization of each Subsidiary, (b) sets forth the ownership interest of API, the Borrower and any other Subsidiary in each Subsidiary, including the percentage of such ownership and (c) identifies each Subsidiary that is a Subsidiary the Equity Interests of which are required to be pledged on the Effective Date pursuant to the Collateral and Guarantee Requirement.

assistant: Subsidiaries
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower will, and will cause each of its Subsidiaries to, (a) keep and maintain all property material to the conduct of its business in good working order and condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted and casualty and condemnation excepted, and (b) maintain, with financially sound and reputable insurance companies or through self-insurance, insurance in such amounts and against such risks as are customarily maintained by companies engaged in the same or similar businesses operating in the same or similar locations, except in the case of clause (a) , to the extent that the failure to do so could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Insurances
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the remedies previously available to insureds in certain scenarios involving bad-faith conduct by their insurers, inter alia, by authorizing punitive-damages awards. See generally Birth Center v. St. Paul Cos. Inc., 567 Pa. 386, 402, 787 A.2d 376, 386 (2001). Allstate removed the litigation to a federal district court. During pretrial proceedings, Wolfe filed an amended complaint and Allstate pursued summary relief, asserting that, as a third party to the Allstate/Zierle insurance policy, Wolfe lacked standing to pursue damages under Section 8371. This position was grounded on two main premises. First, Allstate explained, under Ash v. Continental Insurance Co., 593 Pa. 523, 932 A.2d 877 (2007), Section 8371 created a form of an unliquidated tort claim. See id. at 536, 932 A.2d at 885 (<HOLDING>). Second, per longstanding Pennsylvania law, Options: A. holding that an action for consequential damages to property whether the action is brought in contract or in tort is an action for injury to property within the threeyear statute of limitations B. holding the twoyear period for filing a particular tort action such as assault and battery controls over the more general threeyear statute of limitations for tort actions C. holding that connecticuts threeyear limitations period for tort suits set forth in conn genstat 52577 is the appropriate limitations period for civil rights actions under 1983 D. holding in determining the appropriate limitations period that an action under 8371 is a statutorilycreated tort action E. holding that an employees action against her employer for negligent supervision lies not in tort but with an action for breach of contract

assistant: The best answer is D. holding in determining the appropriate limitations period that an action under 8371 is a statutorilycreated tort action
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: incidences [of NCB making loans in the United States] ... do not demonstrate the requisite continuity and degree of permanence necessary to support a finding that NCB is doing business in the United States for purposes of general jurisdiction.” In re Terrorist Attacks IV, 718 F.Supp.2d at 476-78. We find no error&emdash;let alone clear error&emdash;in these factual findings. See Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 673 F.3d 50, 59 (2d Cir.2012). Furthermore, we conclude that the alleged use of correspondent bank accounts and the maintenance of a website that allows account holders to manage their accounts are insufficient to support the exercise of general personal jurisdiction over NCB. See, e.g., Tamam v. Fransabank SAL, 677 F.Supp.2d 720, 731-32 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (<HOLDING>); Northrop Grumman Overseas Serv. Corp. v. Options: A. holding that the mere maintenance of a correspondent account in new york is insufficient to establish minimum contacts with the united states B. holding that mere ownership of property in north carolina is not sufficient to establish the necessary minimum contacts for purposes of general jurisdiction C. holding one phone call by itself insufficient to find minimum contacts D. holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states E. holding that a correspondent relationship with a florida bank where the bank merely facilitates the international transfer of monies under a letter of credit is insufficient to meet the minimum contacts requirement

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the mere maintenance of a correspondent account in new york is insufficient to establish minimum contacts with the united states
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 7 . The Supreme Court has affirmatively extended the filed-rate doctrine to the Telecommunications Act. See Central Office Tel., 524 U.S. at 222, 118 S.Ct. 1956. 8 . See Central Office Tel., 524 U.S. at 222, 118 S.Ct. 1956; Maislin Indus., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U.S. 116, 110 S.Ct. 2759, 111 L.Ed.2d 94 (1990); US Wats, Inc. v. American Tel. and Telegraph Co., 1994 WL 116009 at *3 (E.D.Pa. April 5, 1994). AT & T incorrectly asserts that the Central Office Telephone decision overruled US Wats. First, Central Office Telephone made no mention of the US Wats decision. Second and more significantly, Central Office Telephone reaffirmed the prominence of the anti-discrimination principle in the filed-rate doctrine. See Central Office Tel., 524 U.S. at 226, 118 S.Ct. 1956 (<HOLDING>). 9 . See Central Office Tel., 524 U.S. at 222, Options: A. holding that because respondent asks for privileges not included in the tariff its statelaw claims are barred B. holding that a district court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs statelaw claims after dismissing the plaintiffs federal claims and did not abuse its discretion by declining to remand the case to state court C. holding that suits against longdistance companies for unreasonable rates were barred if the defendant had filed a rate tariff with the fcc D. holding that the statelaw protecting employees from retaliatory discharge was independent from the cba because the statelaw claim could be resolved without interpreting the agreement itself E. holding that the respondents statelaw claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that because respondent asks for privileges not included in the tariff its statelaw claims are barred
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: period of continuous physical presence,” NACARA exempts the alien from application of IIRIRA’s stop-time rule “regardless of whether the alien is in exclusion or deportation proceedings before [April 1, 1997].” IIRIRA § 309(c)(5)(C)(i), as amended by NACARA § 203. Focusing upon this language, Simeonov argues that NACARA § 203 allows him to apply for pre-IIRIRA suspension of deportation despite his final order of deportation entered well before April 1, 1997, and that the BIA therefore erred in refusing to address the merits of his application. One fundamental problem with this argument is that IIRIRA and the transitional rules are inapplicable to Simeonov because his exclusion order became final years before IIRIRA’s effective date of April 1, 1997. See Marquez, 346 F.3d at 900-01 (<HOLDING>). Thus, if Simeonov is entitled to apply for Options: A. holding that the procedural aspects of iirira 309c apply only to ongoing exclusion or deportation proceedings and are irrelevant in cases involving aliens whose orders of deportation or exclusion were final on the effective date B. holding that language found in 8 usc 1105aa 1961 giving circuit courts of appeal exclusive jurisdiction to review final orders was expressly limited to orders made in the course of deportation proceedings or to direct challenges of the deportation order itself and stating that in all other cases an aliens remedies would lie first in an action brought in an appropriate district court C. holding that an iirira provision on reinstatement of orders of removal did not apply to aliens who reentered prior to the iiriras effective date D. recognizing that aliens whose proceedings are commenced with a notice to appear on or after april 1 1997 are subject to removal proceedings under iirira while aliens whose proceedings were commenced with an order to show cause before april 1 1997 were subject to deportation proceedings under prior law E. holding that nacara suspension of deportation does not apply to an alien placed in exclusion proceedings before the effective date of the law

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the procedural aspects of iirira 309c apply only to ongoing exclusion or deportation proceedings and are irrelevant in cases involving aliens whose orders of deportation or exclusion were final on the effective date
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to Section 6.3 and the other limitations and exceptions set forth herein and in the Credit Agreement, each Pledgor shall take such further actions, and execute and/or deliver to the Collateral Agent such additional financing statements, amendments, assignments, agreements, supplements, powers and instruments, as the Collateral Agent may in its reasonable judgment request and deem necessary or appropriate in order to create, perfect, preserve and protect the security interest in the Pledged Collateral as provided herein and the rights and interests granted to the Collateral Agent hereunder, to carry into effect the purposes hereof or better to assure and confirm the validity, enforceability and priority of the Collateral Agent’s security interest in the Pledged Collateral or permit the Collateral Agent to exercise and enforce its rights, powers and remedies hereunder with respect to any Pledged Collateral, including the filing of financing statements, continuation statements and other documents (including this Agreement) under the Uniform Commercial Code (or other similar laws) in effect in any jurisdiction in the United States with respect to the security interest created hereby, all in form reasonably satisfactory to the Collateral Agent and in such offices in the United States (including the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the United States Copyright Office) wherever required by law to perfect, continue and maintain the validity, enforceability and priority of the security interest in the Pledged Collateral as provided herein and to preserve the other rights and interests granted to the Collateral Agent hereunder, as against third parties, with respect to the Pledged Collateral. If an Event of Default has occurred and is continuing, the Collateral Agent may institute and maintain, in its own name or in the name of any Pledgor, such suits and proceedings as the Collateral Agent may be advised by counsel shall be necessary or expedient to prevent any impairment of the security interest in or the perfection thereof in the Pledged Collateral. All of the foregoing shall be at the sole cost and reasonable expense of the Pledgors.

assistant: Further Assurances
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH BORROWER AND EACH OTHER LOAN PARTY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY SUBMITS, FOR ITSELF AND ITS PROPERTY, TO THE NONEXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK SITTING IN NEW YORK CITY AND OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, AND ANY APPELLATE COURT FROM ANY THEREOF, IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT, OR FOR RECOGNITION OR ENFORCEMENT OF ANY JUDGMENT, AND EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY AGREES THAT ALL CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING MAY BE HEARD AND DETERMINED IN SUCH NEW YORK STATE COURT OR, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN SUCH FEDERAL COURT. EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO AGREES THAT A FINAL JUDGMENT IN ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE AND MAY BE ENFORCED IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS BY SUIT ON THE JUDGMENT OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW. NOTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT OR IN ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT SHALL AFFECT ANY RIGHT THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT, ANY LENDER OR ANY L/C ISSUER MAY OTHERWISE HAVE TO BRING ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT AGAINST ANY BORROWER OR ANY OTHER LOAN PARTY OR ITS PROPERTIES IN THE COURTS OF ANY JURISDICTION.

assistant: Submission To Jurisdiction
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The term of this Agreement shall automatically renew for successive annual terms from and after the Execution Date; provided, however , that Freddie Mac reserves the right, at its discretion, to terminate this Agreement upon at least thirty (30) calendar days’ prior written notice to Servicer, Depositor, Assignee, Administrative Agent, and Indenture Trustee, it being understood that a termination under this Section 17 shall only apply to Reimbursement Rights arising after the date of such termination such that this Agreement shall remain effective as to any Reimbursement Rights subject to the Transaction Documents prior to the expiration of the term of this Agreement.

assistant: Terms
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in effect, deny those with the least financial resources access to CERCLA’s benefits. While we recognize a potential for .inequality within the CERCLA private cost-recovery scheme, we believe our holding today interprets the statute correctly and also promotes prompt and efficient responses to environmental hazards. Moreover, no one is entirely excluded from CERCLA’s benefits because state and federal environmental agencies are also empowered to carry out its statutory goals. 16 . Plaintiffs brought their common law claims under both Nebraska law and Iowa law because there are members of the plaintiff class residing in each state. We hold that only Nebraska law applies. See International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 493-500, 107 S.Ct. 805, 93 L.Ed.2d 883 (1987) (Ouellette ) (<HOLDING>). In Ouellette, the Supreme Court reasoned: Options: A. holding that the law to be applied in determining the validity of an outofstate marriage is the law of the state in which the marriage occurred B. holding that landowners common law nuisance claim against operator of outofstate paper mill was governed by law of source state in light of clean water acts comprehensive regulatory system which applied to paper mill C. holding that the rights and duties of the united states on commercial paper which it issues are governed by federal law and that in the absence of an applicable act of congress it is for the federal courts to fashion the governing rule of law according to their own standards D. holding that state common law claims were preempted by frustration of purpose conflict with the federal clean water act and noting it would be extraordinary for congress after devising an elaborate permit system that sets clear effluent discharge standards to tolerate common law suits that have the potential to undermine the regulatory system E. holding that ejxcept in matters governed by the federal constitution or by acts of congress the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that landowners common law nuisance claim against operator of outofstate paper mill was governed by law of source state in light of clean water acts comprehensive regulatory system which applied to paper mill
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: claim and lost all others and, as a result, neither party was entitled to attorney fees. We do not find that decision to be irra tional or unreasonable. Likewise, we do not find that the arbitrator committed an error of law. We find the Washington Court of Appeals’ decision in Morrell v. Wedbush Morgan Sec., 143 Wash. App. 473, 486, 178 P.3d 387 (2008), to be persuasive and provide guidance in this case. In Mor-rell, the court recognized that “where both parties to an action are afforded some measure of relief, neither party may be entitled to attorney fees” under a prevailing party provision. 143 Wash. App. at 486. Likewise, we find this statement to be consistent with cases from jurisdictions across the United States. See Taylor v. Moutrie-Pelham, 246 P.3d 927, 929-30 (Alaska 2011) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. Mitton, 140 Idaho 893, 903, 104 P.3d Options: A. holding neither party was prevailing party where appeal and crossappeal were dismissed B. recognizing that there can be compelling circumstances in which a trial court can determine that neither party prevailed in a contract case C. holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees D. holding that prevailing party has no standing to appeal E. holding in landlordtenant case that the court has discretion to characterize neither party as prevailing where each party prevailed on a main issue

assistant: The best answer is E. holding in landlordtenant case that the court has discretion to characterize neither party as prevailing where each party prevailed on a main issue
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: I focus on the second step of the Katz test. 3 . Plaintiffs assert that in several instances, the City seized personal belongings packed neatly in carts and despite the protests of persons on the scene. Perhaps the City erred in determining that the property was unattended, and accordingly may face some liability, but this does not mean that the City may not seize and immediately dispose of materials it reasonably determines to be unattended. 4 . If the City, in searching unattended personal property on its sidewalks, discovered illegal drugs or other evidence of criminal activity, the owner of the property would not likely succeed in a motion to have the evidence suppressed in a criminal prosecution. Cf. California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 40, 108 S.Ct. 1625, 100 L.Ed.2d 30 (1988) (<HOLDING>). 5 . The majority does not really argue that a Options: A. holding warrantless searches of garbage bags left on curb for collection invalid under state constitution B. holding that defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage located outside curtilage of home C. holding that defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of plastic bags placed in or near his open garbage cans and that the police did not violate his fourth amendment rights in seizing and searching the bags where they were able to do so without trespassing on the defendants property D. holding that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street E. holding no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage placed in trash cans

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of way were ballast and that this ballast was put on the right of way by the railroad. Thus, the ballast retained its nature as personalty and could be conveyed to AVLT by the railroad and Plaintiffs have not shown an issue of fact in support of their federal claim regarding the ballast. Thus, the only remaining issue to be resolved is the ownership of the property itself, which is an issue that remains only under the state law doctrine of abandonment. Il.Jurisdiction Over State Law Claims The District Court concluded that because Plaintiffs had not raised an issue of fact regarding a federal claim, its original jurisdiction was extinguished, and the case should be remanded to the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (1995)(<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs argue that the District Court Options: A. holding that the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related statelaw claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction B. holding that when original jurisdiction claims are dismissed before trial the district court must decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state claims unless there is an affirmative justification for doing so C. holding that federal district court retains substantial discretion when deciding whether to retain jurisdiction over pendent state claims after the linchpin federal claims are dismissed D. holding that when all federal claims have been dismissed the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims E. holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial the state claims should be dismissed as well

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that when original jurisdiction claims are dismissed before trial the district court must decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state claims unless there is an affirmative justification for doing so
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Fogarty, 128 N.J. 59, 607 A.2d 624 (1992), a New Jersey case on which the State relies, does not support the State’s position. Fogarty equivocates on the legal question here raised and finds instead, as a factual matter, that the defendant failed to present sufficient evidence to establish duress. See id. at 629-30 (finding it unnecessary to reach the question of whether duress was available in DWI cases as “defendant has failed to establish that he acted under duress in this case”). {14} Other courts dealing head-on with this issue have explicitly held that, subject to strict evidentiary requirements, the defense of necessity is permissible. See Pena, 149 Cal.App.3d Supp. 14, 197 Cal.Rptr. at 271-72 (duress is a defense to DWI); Toops v. State, 643 N.E.2d 387, 389-90 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (<HOLDING>); State v. Shotton, 142 Vt. 558, 458 A.2d 1105, Options: A. holding that fair use is an affirmative defense B. holding if defendant meets evidentiary threshold in assertion of affirmative defense he is entitled to a jury instruction on necessity in dui ease C. holding that the defendant could not appeal a jury instruction where he did not object to the challenged instruction but in fact requested it and stated he was satisfied with it D. holding that laches is an affirmative defense E. holding that unless an affirmative defense is established as matter of law defendant bears burden of obtaining jury findings necessary to support defense

assistant: The best answer is B. holding if defendant meets evidentiary threshold in assertion of affirmative defense he is entitled to a jury instruction on necessity in dui ease
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which may be deemed an original, and all of such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same Agreement. This Agreement may be executed by each Party and Escrow Agent upon a separate copy and attached to another copy in order to form on or more counterparts.

assistant: Counterparts
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: information to the government in 2007, Koerber did not file his protective-order motion until February 2010, nearly nine months after the grand jury’s indictment. In addition, Koerber did not file his motion to suppress statements from the February 2009 interviews until April 2012. Moreover, Koerber did not file a motion to dismiss for an STA violation until April 2014-nearly five years after the grand jury returned its initial indictment. At the same time, Koerber filed his motion before trial when it was clear that there was an STA violation in this case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2) (“Failure of the defendant to move for dismissal prior to trial ... shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismissal under this section.”); United States v. Lugo, 170 F.3d 996, 1001 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). And Koerber did not simply acquiesce to Options: A. holding that the defendant waived any argument on the issue by failing to oppose a motion to dismiss B. holding that argument was not preserved where defendant did not file a pretrial motion to suppress and did not object or make a motion to exclude the evidence until his motion to dismiss at the close of all of the evidence C. holding that the defendant waived the right to dismissal under 3162a2 when he did not file a motion to dismiss before trial D. holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion E. holding that party sought affirmative relief by filing motion to dismiss and violated dueorderofhearing requirement by having motion to dismiss and motion to reconsider dismissal heard before special appearance

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the defendant waived the right to dismissal under 3162a2 when he did not file a motion to dismiss before trial
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: a waiver by duolingo or you of any provision of these terms and conditions or any breach thereof , in any one instance , will not waive such term or condition or any subsequent breach thereof .

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: appeals correctly examined the entire record for indications that Appellant was, or was not, aware of the consequences of his plea and whether he was misled or harmed by the trial court’s failure to admonish him. The court did not merely assume that Appellant was an immigrant, but relied on several circumstances found in the record, which it held would support such an inference. The State argues that the court of appeals erred in relying on information in a motion in limine because a motion in limine is not “evidence.” However, it is not a requirement that support for an inference regarding citizenship be direct evidence. Statements made by the attorneys are not “evidence” either, but they are references found in the record that can support an inference. See Burnett, 88 S.W.3d at 641 (<HOLDING>). Further, the court of appeals found Options: A. holding that consideration of a state jail felony to enhance punishment was not harmless even though the sentence actually assessed fell within the lawful range B. recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge C. holding that the trial judges failure to admonish the appellant regarding the range of punishment was harmless because the record was replete with statements by the parties concerning the punishment range and because there was nothing in the record to indicate that the appellant was unaware of the range of punishment D. holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion although the defendant had been admonished incorrectly on the punishment range E. holding that trial courts failure sua sponte to give reasonabledoubt in struction during punishment phase about pen packets offered during punishment was harmless error because sentence imposed was well within punishment range and prosecutor had asked for greater sentence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the trial judges failure to admonish the appellant regarding the range of punishment was harmless because the record was replete with statements by the parties concerning the punishment range and because there was nothing in the record to indicate that the appellant was unaware of the range of punishment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and the one at issue in this case is that the truth-in-sentencing provision is not even arguably ameliorative; no competent person would ever opt to be required to serve 85% of his prison term if he had the option of having to serve less time. 2 . The trial was ultimately continued until after July 1, 1994, although obviously not for the purpose of bringing West’s proceeding within the purview of the statute. 3 . Moreover, West waived his ex post facto claims in the very act of requesting that the amendment be applied to him, as well as the act of submitting several jury instructions to the court which invited the jury to return a sentence of life without parole, since a defendant cannot ordinarily appeal any error that he introduced. See, e.g., Carr v. State, 655 So.2d 824 (Miss.1995) (<HOLDING>). 4 . The state’s assertion of the pertinence Options: A. holding that parties waived any choice of law objection by not raising an objection B. holding that although the defendant had preserved his objection to the constitutionality of a mental state requirement he had not preserved another constitutional objection C. holding that party waived an objection to choice of law D. holding that appellant had waived any objection to an instruction that he had himself introduced and which was amended by the state without objection from appellant E. holding that appellant who properly filed an objection in accordance with the notice he received from the trial court had standing to appeal

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that appellant had waived any objection to an instruction that he had himself introduced and which was amended by the state without objection from appellant
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their successors and permitted assigns. Neither Party may assign, delegate or otherwise transfer any of its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other Party, except that the Buyer may assign any of its rights or obligations hereunder without such consent to any Affiliate of the Buyer for purpose of having such Affiliate take ownership of all or a portion of the Purchased Units so long as (i) the Buyer remains jointly and severally obligated to satisfy all of the Buyer’s obligations under the terms of this Agreement, and (ii) such assignment is permissible under the terms of the applicable LLC Agreement. No assignment of this Agreement will in any way affect the assigning Party’s obligations or liabilities under this Agreement and any attempted assignment of this Agreement or any rights or obligations hereunder in violation of this Section 7.06 shall be deemed void ab initio . Except as expressly provided for herein, none of the provisions of this Agreement shall be for the benefit of or enforceable by any Person other than the Parties.

assistant: Assignments
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: (a) Appealable Orders. (1) The following orders may be appealed from dependency-neglect proceedings: (A) adjudication order; (B) disposition, review, no reunification, and permanency planning order if the court directs entry of a final judgment as to one or more of the issues or parties based upon the express determination by the court supported by factual findings that there is no just reason for delay of an appeal, in accordance with Ark. R. Civ. P. Rule 54(b); (C) termination of parental rights; and (D) denial of right to appointed counsel pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-316(h). In Posey v. Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services, 370 Ark. 1, 256 S.W.3d 504 (2007) (per curiam), this court explained that Rule 6-9 was a new rule adopted b Ark. 206, 644 S.W.2d 594 (1983) (<HOLDING>). As such, a party is not required to wait Options: A. holding that an appeal from a denial of a motion to intervene as a matter of right is allowed under rule 2a2 B. holding an appeal may be taken from an order denying a motion to compel arbitration C. holding an order denying a nonpartys motion to intervene is appealable because it effectively concludes the proceedings for intervention and prevents the movant from becoming a party to the original action D. holding that an order denying a motion to vacate a 1782 order and denying a motion to quash the subpoena was immediately appealable E. holding that pursuant to rule 2a2 a party may appeal an order denying a motion for permissive intervention

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that pursuant to rule 2a2 a party may appeal an order denying a motion for permissive intervention
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if you choose to unlink a linked account from a skype manager group , any allocated subscriptions , skype credit or skype numbers will not be retrievable and your content or material associated with the unlinked skype account will no longer be accessible by you .

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: would result in direct and immediate hardship and would entail more than possible financial loss. " Winter, 900 F.2d at 1325. The district court found DSC’s risk of additional seizures and injunction actions “too speculative to warrant judicial intervention.” DSC claims the district court erred in failing to distinguish between the potential risks of tentative FDA policy statements and the very real liabilities imposed by a final, announced enforcement position and actual seizures. Again, DSC’s position assumes that the FDA has made a final determination as to the general status of CoQlO. In light of our rejection of DSC’s finality argument, we hold the district court correctly found that DSC failed to show sufficient hardship to require bypassing final agency 86 n. 18 (D.C.Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). 2 . The cases are also distinguishable on the Options: A. holding fda seizure action did not constitute final agency action B. holding a rod to be final agency action C. holding that epa action initiating permitting proceedings was not final agency action D. holding a general prediction set forth in order does not constitute final agency action E. holding that epa regions policy statement does not constitute final agency action because it does not compel action

assistant: The best answer is A. holding fda seizure action did not constitute final agency action
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: At and after the Effective Time, the officers, managers and directors of the Surviving Entity shall be authorized to execute and deliver, in the name and behalf of the Company or Merger Sub, any deeds, bills of sale, assignments or assurances and to take and do, in the name and on behalf of the Company or Merger Sub, any other actions and things to vest, perfect or confirm of record or otherwise in the Surviving Entity any and all right, title and interest in, to and under any of the rights, properties or assets of the Company acquired or to be acquired by the Surviving Entity as a result of, or in connection with, the Merger.

assistant: Further Assurances