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: until after the interview ended. Defendants therefore contend that we should ignore contrary testimony by Whalen and Connelly. On summary judgment, however, we do not merely accept the plaintiff's contentions as true. Instead, we must draw all justifiable inferences in the nonmovanfs favor. There is no requirement that inferences favorable to the plaintiff may only be based on evidence that she has submitted to us. Here, the justifiable inference favorable to plaintiff is that a question of fact exists regarding this issue. 6 . The Supreme Court’s plurality decision in Al-bright casts some doubt on whether a plaintiff may state a claim for coercion of a confession under both the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. See Albright,-U.S. at-,-,-, -, 114 S.Ct. at 813, 814, 817, 820-21 (<HOLDING>). The Second Circuit has stated that Albright Options: A. holding that false arrest supports a claim against state police under 1983 because it violates the fourth amendment B. recognizing 1983 substantive due process claim C. holding that when a prisoners deliberate indifference claim is covered by the eighth amendment the substantive due process claims are duplicative and thus the substantive due process claims should be dismissed D. holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment E. holding in five separate opinions that 1983 claim based on persons arrest cannot be brought under substantive due process where more specific constitutional provision fourth amendment applies

assistant: The best answer is E. holding in five separate opinions that 1983 claim based on persons arrest cannot be brought under substantive due process where more specific constitutional provision fourth amendment applies
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: From and after the date this Agreement was first provided to Employee, Employee shall not take any action or make any statements to past, present or potential clients of Company, professionals, regulatory agencies or others that might be injurious to the reputation or goodwill of Company or which in any manner may interfere with the business affairs or business relations of Company.

assistant: Non-Disparagement
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: Except as set forth on Schedule 3.6 as of the Closing Date, and except as hereafter disclosed to Agent in writing, there is no Litigation, material actions, suits or proceedings by or before any arbitrator or Governmental Authority pending against or, to the knowledge of any Credit Party, threatened in writing against or affecting any Credit Party, except with respect to any matters that would not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Litigations
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 a habeas proceeding. Hill v. Norris, 2010 Ark. 287, 2010 WL 2210926 (per curiam). The State is entitled to amend a felony information before the case has been submitted to the jury, provided the amendment does not change the nature or degree of the crime charged or create an unfair surprise for the defendant. See Green v. State, 2012 Ark. 19, 386 S.W.3d 413; Glaze v. State, 2011 Ark. 464, 385 S.W.3d 203. Although appellant asserts that the amendments |Bhere changed the nature of the crime charged in that he was charged with felony capital murder but convicted of premeditated capital murder, the changes made in this case did not change the nature of the crime charged. See Terry v. State, 371 Ark. 50, 263 S.W.3d 528 (2007) (citing Nance v. State, 323 Ark. 583, 918 S.W.2d 114 (1996)) (<HOLDING>). Here, the nature of the offense remained the Options: A. holding premeditated murder and felony murder are the same crime with various means of commission B. holding that whether amendment to capital felonymurder information to add the charge of premeditated and deliberate murder was improper turned on whether there was prejudice or surprise C. holding intoxication to a degree that made specific intent impossible was a valid defense to a charge of willful premeditated firstdegree murder D. recognizing that the necessary inquiry is not whether there was a warrant or whether there was time to get one but whether there was probable cause for the arrest E. holding that states pretrial amendment of the original indictment charging defendant with willful and deliberate first degree murder to add an alternative murder theory of depraved mind murder did not add a different offense and therefore did not prejudice the defendant

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that whether amendment to capital felonymurder information to add the charge of premeditated and deliberate murder was improper turned on whether there was prejudice or surprise
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: Notices under this Agreement shall be deemed sufficient and effective if (i) in writing and (ii) either (A) when delivered in person or by facsimile, telecopier, telegraph or other electronic means capable of being embodied in written form or (B) forty-eight (48) hours after deposit thereof in the U.S. mails by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to each party at such party’s address first set forth above and, in the case of Bank, to the attention of the Chairman of the Board, or to such other notice address as the party to be notified may have designated by written notice to the sending party.

assistant: Notices
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: at 1242. Finally, the government has a high interest in not conducting pre-deprivation hearings. These hearings would lead to additional administrative expense; would delay defendant’s ability to enforce her valid regulations, promulgated pursuant to the Medicare Act to the detriment of the public;, and would lead to additional expenses, incurred in the form of reimbursements paid as Medicare benefits to plaintiff. Thus, on balance, the factors weigh heavily against plaintiff, and it cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits of its procedural due process claim. In addition, in the specific context of this case, courts typically have held that pre-deprivation hearings are not required to satisfy procedural due process. See Varandani v. Bowen, 824 F.2d 307, 309-10 (4th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); see also Cathedral Rock of N. College Hill, Options: A. holding similar new mexico physician license revocation procedures satisfied due process notwithstanding absence of a probable cause hearing prior to institution of proceedings against physician B. holding that a nursing home participating in the medicaid program is not entitled to a pretermination hearing C. holding that a physician is not entitled to a formal hearing before being suspended from the medicare program under eldridge D. holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required prior to the termination of social security disability benefits E. holding physician not entitled to hearing prior to termination in a medicare program under eldridge

assistant: The best answer is E. holding physician not entitled to hearing prior to termination in a medicare program under eldridge
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 and any claim, controversy or dispute arising under or related to this Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of North Carolina applicable to agreements made and to be performed in such state.

assistant: Governing Laws
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: evidence of impairment of ability to drive due to the influence of alcohol. Alternatively, if chemical testing was performed in accordance with the statute, the crime may be proved by forensic evidence that the defendant’s alcohol concentration exceeded the statutory percentage. Idaho v. Andrus, 118 Idaho 711, 800 P.2d 107, 109 (1990). Here, neither Loader nor Ojeda were subjected to any chemical testing to determine their blood alcohol content at the time of the accident. As a result, Wood must prove Loader was intoxicated for purposes of the Idaho statute by “evidence showing consumption of alcohol and some discernible impairment related to the motorist’s ability to drive.” State v. Bronnenberg, 124 Idaho 67, 856 P.2d 104, 107 (Idaho App.1993); Andrus, 800 P.2d at 110-11 (<HOLDING>). Only Loader and Browning testified in person Options: A. holding that medical expenses must be proven to be both reasonable and necessary B. holding that reliance must be proven by some evidence C. holding that uncharged conduct may be considered at sentencing when that conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence D. holding that impairment must be noticeable or perceptible proven by observations of some type of ascertainable conduct or effect and relate to the ability to drive E. holding all exceptions to discharge under 523a must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that impairment must be noticeable or perceptible proven by observations of some type of ascertainable conduct or effect and relate to the ability to drive
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: Upon the occurrence of an Adeptus Put Event, THR (or THR’s legal representative) shall give written notice of the Adeptus Put Event (the “ Adeptus Put Notice ”) to Adeptus within ten (10) days after the occurrence of such Adeptus Put Event.

assistant: Notices
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: for standing are that the plaintiff have suffered an injury in fact, that the injury be fairly traceable to the challenged action, and that the injury be fairly redressable by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1991). In seeking mandamus, the injury Appellant is trying to cure is the failure of the territorial auditor to audit the legislature. He is not seeking the return of the property he alleges has been taken — i.e., his income tax. As was stated above, Appellant has shown no property interest in the audit itself. There are innumerable cases in which the plaintiff, although having standing to bring a due process challenge, is ultimately found to have no property interest. See, e.g., O’Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center, 447 U.S. 773 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Christie, 805 F.2d 874, Options: A. holding that claim against nursing home regarding patients death from spider bite fell within the statutory definition of a health care liability claim B. holding that the medicaid statute as amended by the federal nursing home reform amendments did not create a private cause of action for nursing home residents against nursing homes C. holding that nursing home patients did not have a property interest in receiving care at a particular facility D. recognizing that a patients choice of a health care facility does not render the facility a beneficiary under 502a1b E. holding that an assisted living facility licensed to provide personal care was not licensed to engage primarily in providing nursing care

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that nursing home patients did not have a property interest in receiving care at a particular facility
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: No waiver by either party of any breach by the other party of any condition or provision of this Agreement to be performed by such other party shall be deemed a waiver of any other provision or condition at the time or at any prior or subsequent time. This Agreement and the provisions contained in it shall not be construed or interpreted for or against either party because that party drafted or caused that party’s legal representative to draft any of its provisions.

assistant: Waivers
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: 01-26153 and 337 days for time served in case number 01-25640. Borroto, however, also claims that the time he served in each of these cases also should be applied to a 1982 conviction, which appears to be the basis for his current incarceration due to a parole violation. As Borroto claims that the Department of Corrections has failed to award him a credit for time served in this case, he is required to seek redress administratively with the Department of Corrections. After exhausting his administrative remedies, if Borroto is unsatisfied with the outcome, he may seek judicial relief by filing a petition for writ of mandamus under the 1982 case number, with the Second Judicial Circuit Court in and for Leon County, Florida. See Cordova v. State, 855 So.2d 216, 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)(<HOLDING>); Barber v. State, 661 So.2d 355, 356 (Fla. 3d Options: A. holding that defendant seeking credit for time served must exhaust administrative remedies within the department of corrections prior to seeking judicial relief B. recognizing the general rule that parties must exhaust prescribed administrative remedies before seeking relief from federal courts C. holding that persons seeking restoration of federal firearms privileges need not exhaust administrative remedies to invoke the judicial review provision of section 925c D. holding that state prisoner seeking only monetary damages in 1983 suit need not exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 1997e if such remedies do not provide for the award of monetary relief E. holding that an alien must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking habeas relief from detention

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that defendant seeking credit for time served must exhaust administrative remedies within the department of corrections prior to seeking judicial relief
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 consideration for our commitments hereunder and our undertakings to arrange, manage, structure and syndicate the Facilities and arrange the Existing Credit Facility Amendment, you agree to pay to us the fees and fulfill the other obligations set forth in the Term Sheets and in the arranger fee letter among us and you dated the date hereof (the “ Arranger Fee Letter ”) and the administrative agent fee letter among you and Goldman Sachs dated the date hereof (the “ Administrative Agent Fee Letter ” and, together with the Arranger Fee Letter, the “ Fee Letters ”).

assistant: Fees
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: the provisions of this agreement and any additional terms which by their nature should survive your suspension or termination will survive , including the rights and licenses you grant to linden lab in this agreement , as well as to the indemnities , releases , disclaimers , and limitations on liability and the provisions regarding jurisdiction , choice of law , no class action and mandatory arbitration .

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: During the Term, Executive shall receive an aggregate annual base salary (“ Base Salary ”) at an initial rate of $800,000, payable in accordance with the Company’s applicable payroll practices. Base Salary shall be reviewed annually by the Board and increased (but not decreased) in the Board’s sole discretion. References in this Agreement to Base Salary shall be deemed to refer to the most recently effective annual base salary rate.

assistant: Base Salary
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: oculus reserves the right to change , suspend , remove , discontinue or disable access to the services or particular portions thereof , at any time and without notice .

assistant: Unilateral change, Unilateral termination
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: asserted or argued that he did not know the marshal was a federal employee attempting to arrest him or that he acted out of a reasonable belief that he was being attacked by a private citizen. Thus, the district court did not plainly err in failing to issue such an instruction. See Sellers, 926 F.2d at 417. Our conclusion is further supported by the fact that the district court used the pattern jury instruction in the instant case. See Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Criminal) § 2.09. By giving an instruction that tracked the pattern instruction and that was a correct statement of the law, the district court did not plainly err. See United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325, 354 (5th Cir.2009); United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 686, 95 S.Ct. 1255, 43 L.Ed.2d 541 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Leach finally contends that the district Options: A. holding that convictions under 111 require at least some form of assault B. holding that under 111 the defendants knowledge of the official status of the victim is generally irrelevant C. holding that the color of law element may be satisfied by the fact that an official gains access to the victim in the course of official duty D. holding that the race of the prosecutor is irrelevant E. holding that a defendant who alleges selfdefense can show through the testimony of another witness that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor a defendants prior knowledge of the victims reputation for violence is irrelevant because the evidence is offered to show the conduct of the victim rather than the defendants state of mind

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that under 111 the defendants knowledge of the official status of the victim is generally irrelevant
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 PARTY ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT ANY CONTROVERSY THAT MAY ARISE PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT IS LIKELY TO INVOLVE COMPLICATED AND DIFFICULT ISSUES, AND THEREFORE EACH PARTY HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVES ANY RIGHT THAT SUCH PARTY MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN RESPECT OF ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING (WHETHER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORTIOUS CONDUCT OR OTHERWISE) DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY. EACH PARTY ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT (i) NO REPRESENTATIVE, AGENT OR ATTORNEY OF ANY OTHER PARTY HAS REPRESENTED, EXPRESSLY OR OTHERWISE, THAT SUCH OTHER PARTY WOULD NOT, IN THE EVENT OF LITIGATION, SEEK TO ENFORCE THE FOREGOING WAIVER; (ii) IT UNDERSTANDS AND HAS CONSIDERED THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS WAIVER; (iii) IT MAKES THIS WAIVER VOLUNTARILY; AND (iv) IT HAS BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATIONS IN THIS SECTION 10(c) .

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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 duties, responsibilities and powers of the GUC Trust Administrator will terminate when the GUC Trust is dissolved and terminated pursuant to Article IV hereof and the GUC Trust Administrator has performed all of its obligations under Section 4.3 , by an order of the Bankruptcy Court or by entry of a final decree closing the Debtors’ cases before the Bankruptcy Court; provided , however , that Sections 9.4 , 9.5 and 9.6 hereof shall survive such termination, dissolution and entry.

assistant: Terminations
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: for Offer of Proof and Request for In Camera Inquiry and Combined Incorporated Memorandum of Law.” 8 . On appeal, Smith assigns as error the district court's decision to deny an offer of proof. We do not reach that issue because we reverse and remand with instructions for other reasons. 9 . We note that our decision in Smitherman was not available to the district court when it ruled on the motion at issue in this appeal. 10 . In applying an earlier version of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, we recognized screens could be effective in mitigating imputed conflicts under certain circumstances. See Smitherman, 733 N.W.2d at 344, 348 (discussing the effective use of a "Chinese wall” by the public defender’s office); Doe v. Perry Cmty. Sch. Dist., 650 N.W.2d 594, 597-98 (Iowa 2002) (<HOLDING>). It should be noted, however, that under the Options: A. holding that a disqualification order in a criminal case is not appealable B. holding a motion is untimely if not filed after the party has knowledge to support disqualification and after the party suffers an adverse ruling C. holding disqualification was appropriate but referencing several aba formal opinions where screening prevented the disqualification of an entire firm D. holding that disqualification orders do not fall in the collateral order exception E. holding that the disqualification order is an issue completely independent of the merits of the action

assistant: The best answer is C. holding disqualification was appropriate but referencing several aba formal opinions where screening prevented the disqualification of an entire firm
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: U.S. at 695-96, 122 S.Ct. 1843 (footnote and citations omitted). The Bell Court specifically cited Brooks as an example. Id. at 696 n. 3, 122 S.Ct. 1843. Petitioner brought a valid Brooks claim. According to Cronic and its progeny, Brooks violations are structural errors, which require the presumption of prejudice and automatic reversal. For this reason, the magistrate judge erred in. applying a harmless error analysis, and this Court concludes that Petitioner’s claim requires automatic reversal. See, e.g., Frost v. Van Boening, 757 F.3d 910, No. 11-35114, 2014 WL 1677820 (9th Cir. Apr. 29, 2014) (reversing denial of habeas petition where Washington Supreme Court found a structural error, but then applied harmless error analysis); Musladin v. Lamarque, 555 F.3d 830, 838 (9th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Even if harmless error analysis applies, the Options: A. holding that posttrial motion for new trial is critical stage requiring counsel or valid waiver B. holding cronics rule requiring automatic reversal where a defendant was denied counsel at a critical stage is binding on this court and applies in proceedings governed by aedpa footnote omitted C. holding that sentencing is a critical stage of criminal proceedings and the offer of counsel must be renewed at each critical stage where the defendant appears without counsel D. holding that the filing of a motion for a new trial is a critical stage of the prosecution and that an indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel at that stage E. holding that the right to counsel applies in all critical stages of state and federal criminal proceedings

assistant: The best answer is B. holding cronics rule requiring automatic reversal where a defendant was denied counsel at a critical stage is binding on this court and applies in proceedings governed by aedpa footnote omitted
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: Court has done, is to sanction arbitrary sentencing, and to make anything but perfunctory appellate review of sentencing impossible. The only way, therefore, to expand the scope of allowable discretion while maintaining a functional capital punishment system is to circumscribe the substance and procedure of appellate review. See id. at 127; Special Project, “Capital Punishm lackmun, J., dissenting) (“The Court’s conclusion that we should allow the State to adopt capital punishment schemes that depend on appellate factfinding because ‘it is by no means apparent that appellate factfinding will always be inadequate’ ... turns on its head the heightened concern with reliability ...” required in capital punishment cases); Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 106 S.Ct. 433, 88 L.Ed.2d 387 (1985) (<HOLDING>); id. at-, 106 S.Ct. at 444, 88 L.Ed.2d at Options: A. holding that double jeopardy clause does not prohibit imposition of death sentence in alabama despite life sentence in georgia in murdertrial arising from same homicide B. holding that the imposition of a life sentence on a juvenile does not violate the holding of roper C. holding that graham which prohibited the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide does not apply to a lengthy termofyears sentence that might constitute a de facto life sentence D. holding that imposition of a habitual offender sentence on remand after the trial courts pronouncement of a nonhabitual sentence in the original proceeding does not violate double jeopardy E. holding that if a trial court has rejected death as a possible sentence double jeopardy bars the state from seeking the death penalty at resentencing even where rejection of the death sentence was based on a legal error

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that double jeopardy clause does not prohibit imposition of death sentence in alabama despite life sentence in georgia in murdertrial arising from same homicide
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 Company shall use the proceeds from the issuance of securities pursuant to this Agreement solely to repay all outstanding borrowings under the Revolving Credit Facility, redeem in full the Senior Secured Notes and for general corporate purposes.

assistant: Use Of Proceeds
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: addressing compatibility— is a separate “matter” for purposes of Rule I.11(a). They argue that when Mr. Cassell worked for the BZA, he was only involved with the LESA scoring stage; and that he is therefore free to represent Thom Hill before the BZA in connection with other aspects of Thorn Hill’s CUP application (for example, compatibility). However, neither common sense nor applicable legal authority support the contention that each stage in the consideration of a conditional use permit application is a separate and discrete “matter.” Nor do they support the contention that the BZA may not bar its former lawyer from aiding an applicant in connection with an application about which the lawyer once advised the BZA. In a similar case, In re Sofaer, 728 A.2d 625, 647 (D.C.Ct.App.1999) (<HOLDING>), the D.C. Court of Appeals quoted approvingly Options: A. holding that a former state department lawyer was disqualified from representing libya in connection with the lockerbie airplane bombing when the lawyer had worked on issues related to the bombing at the state department B. holding that under separation of powers the legislative department makes the laws the executive department carries the laws into effect and the judicial department interprets and declares the laws C. holding that because the department of revenue is subordinate to the board of tax review in the decision making process the department is not an adversely affected or aggrieved party having standing to petition for judicial review of the boards order reversing a decision of the department D. holding that the company administering a selfinsurance program for the department of transportation was an agent for the department and was therefore immune from suit E. holding that a state department of transportation employee was subject to patronage dismissal where his duties included serving as a liaison between the director of the department and the general public and other government officials including representing the department at meetings and conferences

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a former state department lawyer was disqualified from representing libya in connection with the lockerbie airplane bombing when the lawyer had worked on issues related to the bombing at the state department
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: context, then, it is clear that the Second Circuit’s holding was that the discovery of the cocaine packets provided probable cause to continue holding Valez, even after the arresting officer became aware of the intended suspect's arrest. 26 . With regard to the latter showing, plaintiffs’ "arrest cannot serve as the predicate deprivation of liberty because it occurred pri- or to his arraignment and without a warrant, and therefore was not 'pursuant to legal process,' ” i.e., not one that arose from malicious prosecution as opposed to false arrest. Singer, 63 F.3d at 116. Plaintiffs' release on bail after arraignment might constitute a Fourth Amendment "seizure,” see id.., but there is no evidence before the court as to whe , 380 U.S. 693, 699, 85 S.Ct. 1246, 1250, 14 L.Ed.2d 170 (1965) (<HOLDING>); cf. United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, Options: A. holding that exclusionary rule does apply to civil forfeiture proceedings B. holding discovery rules apply to civil forfeiture proceedings C. holding that the exclusionary rule under the fourth amendment applies to civil forfeiture proceedings D. holding that the exclusionary rule generally does not apply to immigration proceedings E. holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to proceedings other than criminal trials

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that exclusionary rule does apply to civil forfeiture proceedings
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: By the issuance of a Letter of Credit for the account of the Borrower and without any further action on the part of the applicable Issuing Bank or the Lenders, the applicable Issuing Bank hereby grants to each Revolving Lender with a Revolving Commitment, and each Revolving Lender hereby acquires from such Issuing Bank, a participation in such Letter of Credit equal to such Revolving Lender’s Revolving Commitment Percentage of the aggregate amount available to be drawn under such Letter of Credit, effective upon the issuance of such Letter of Credit. In consideration and in furtherance of the foregoing, each relevant Revolving Lender hereby absolutely and unconditionally agrees to pay to the Administrative Agent, for the account of the applicable Issuing Bank, such Revolving Lender’s Revolving Commitment Percentage of each L/C Disbursement made by such Issuing Bank and not reimbursed by the Borrower (or, if applicable, another party pursuant to its obligations under any other Loan Document) forthwith on the date due as provided in Section 2.02(g). Each Revolving Lender acknowledges and agrees that its obligation to acquire participations pursuant to this paragraph in respect of Letters of Credit is absolute and unconditional and shall not be affected by any circumstance whatsoever, including the occurrence and continuance of a Default or an Event of Default, and that each such payment shall be made without any offset, abatement, withholding or reduction whatsoever.

assistant: Participations
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: or controlled the committee, and whether it was formed “for the explicit purpose of furnishing advice to the Government.” Public Citizen, 491 U.S. at 460, 109 S.Ct. 2558; Aluminum Co. of Am., 92 F.3d at 906. Plaintiffs allege that EPA “established” FESTF, but have pointed to no evidence in the record that indicates that EPA or any federal entity actually formed FESTF. Plaintiffs state only that EPA provided FESTF with “collaboration,” and “guidance ... critical to FESTF’s emerging agenda.” (PL’s Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss at 16-17.) Even if these allegations were supported by the evidence, which they are not, this would be insufficient to indicate that EPA formed, or “established,” FESTF. See Public Citizen, 491 U.S. at 457-58, 109 S.Ct. 2558; Food Chem. News, 900 F.2d at 329, 333 (<HOLDING>). A relationship between a federal entity and a Options: A. holding that the defendant must provide facts to establish what the conflict was B. holding that even if the parties had formed a contract under 2207l the arbitration clause materially altered the contract and therefore did not become part of the parties agreement C. holding that a machine that allegedly eliminated lumps from womens breasts was governed by the ffdca even though the fda did not require the use of such a machine D. holding that a food and drug administration publication recommending how and when various drugs should be prescribed is insufficient to establish the standard of care in an action for medical injury resulting from an alleged improper prescription E. holding that the food and drug administration fda did not establish a committee of scientific experts that was formed by a private organization pursuant to the organizations contract with the fda to provide counsel on product safety

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the food and drug administration fda did not establish a committee of scientific experts that was formed by a private organization pursuant to the organizations contract with the fda to provide counsel on product safety
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: No Person will have, as a result of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, any valid right, interest, or claim against or upon the Company or any Purchaser for any commission, fee, or other compensation pursuant to any agreement, arrangement, or understanding entered into by or on behalf of such Purchaser. Each Purchaser, severally and not jointly, shall indemnify, pay, and hold the Company harmless against, any liability, loss or expense (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and out-of-pocket expenses) arising in connection with any such right, interest or claim. In any proceeding or matter in respect of which the Company may seek indemnity from one or more Purchasers pursuant to this Section 3.2(j), the Company and such Purchaser(s) shall have all the rights and obligations of an Indemnified Person and the indemnifying party, respectively, in Section 4.8.

assistant: Brokers
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 representations and warranties of Seller in Section 4.1 shall be true and correct as of Closing Date (except to the extent expressly made as of a specific date, in which case such representations and warranties shall be true and correct as of such date) (without giving effect to any qualifier as to “materiality” or other similar qualifiers set forth therein), except where the failures of such representations and warranties to be so true and correct, individually or in the aggregate, would not have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Warranties
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: pertaining to absolute immunity, see Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 102 S.Ct. 2690, 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982), and good faith immunity. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). Additionally, as with their counterparts in the judiciary and the legislature, public officials in the executive branch are entitled to a testimonial privilege. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974) (recognizing the existence of executive privilege but holding that it is not absolute, in that it cannot be asserted to shield evidence of a crime); Cheney v. United States Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (2004); Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Brooke, 573 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (<HOLDING>). It is clear from these authorities that the Options: A. holding that a draft of a proposed letter from an area director of a government agency to a municipal administrative agency was properly excluded because it did not represent an agency finding B. holding that the head of a state administrative agency was protected by executive privilege and could not be forced to appear in court and answer questions about funding of the agency C. holding that the state police is a state agency D. holding that because the scope of review of agency matters is confined to the administrative record discovery in the form of depositions from agency officials was improper and irrelevant E. holding that an agency head may delegate authority to assert the privilege when carefully undertaken

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the head of a state administrative agency was protected by executive privilege and could not be forced to appear in court and answer questions about funding of the agency
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 constitutes the entire agreement of the parties hereto and supersedes in their entirety all prior representations, understandings, undertakings or agreements (whether oral or written and whether expressed or implied) of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof; provided, however, that any accelerated vesting related to termination of employment described in the Employment Agreement will continue to apply.

assistant: Entire Agreements
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: conduct at issue); Kari v. City of Maplewood, 582 N.W.2d 921, 923 (Minn.1998) (distinguishing discretionary from ministerial acts). The specific conduct Pahnke complained of is Deputy Sass’s order to leave her apartment immediately despite the fact that Pahnke presented him with notice of what she urges is her statutory right to a 24-hour deadline for removal. The district court found that both Sass and Har-grove served the notice and removed Pahnke from the apartment, and Officer Hargrove does not contend that this finding is erroneous. It is the immediacy of Pahnke’s removal by the offi y requiring officers to use red lights and siren “in a continuous manner” during vehicular pursuit imposed a ministerial duty); Brown v. City of Bloomington, 706 N.W.2d 519, 523-24 (Minn.App.2005) (<HOLDING>), review denied (Minn. Feb. 22, 2006); Hyatt v. Options: A. holding that the relationship between fire insurance regulation and rating fire loss fire prevention and fire investigation is rational and reasonable B. holding that it was plain error for trial court to allow more than one conviction of grossly negligent operation of a vehicle where more than one person was injured C. holding that the public duty doctrine applied to claims against the town and fire chief for negligence in responding to a fire call although plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to show the special duty exception applied D. holding that more than notice to a defendant is required E. holding that officers decisions to use lesslethal ammunition and to fire more than one round were discretionary but that departments procedure for making transition from lethal to lesslethal shells when loading weapon imposed a ministerial duty

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that officers decisions to use lesslethal ammunition and to fire more than one round were discretionary but that departments procedure for making transition from lethal to lesslethal shells when loading weapon imposed a ministerial duty
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: unrecorded bench conference with the foreperson, the trial court informed the foreperson that it needed to give him “one other instruction” and instructed him that “[t]he issues about which we had talked in this courtroom, both here at the bench and also openly on the record, are issues you that are not to share with the other jurors.” While the record sufficiently reveals that the trial court violated the unanimity requirement by instructing only the foreperson, the record is inadequate to meet the demanding task of showing that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. For the State to meet its burden, the record must reveal the substance of the conversations at issue or the conversations must be adequately reconstructed. See, e.g., Boyd, 332 N.C. at 106, 418 S.E.2d at 474 (<HOLDING>); State v. Smith, 326 N.C. 792, 794-95, 392 Options: A. holding that the state could not meet its burden of proving harmless error where the record did not reveal the substance of the trial courts unrecorded conversations with prospective jurors B. holding that in appellate proceedings where no transcript is provided a trial courts decision has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error C. holding that the trial courts definition of normal use was harmless error D. holding that without transcript of trial proceedings appellate court cannot review underlying evidence so as to conclude that trial courts judgment is not supported by evidence E. holding that the state cannot demonstrate harmless error where the substance of the trial courts conversation with an excused juror was not revealed by the transcript or reconstructed at trial

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the state cannot demonstrate harmless error where the substance of the trial courts conversation with an excused juror was not revealed by the transcript or reconstructed at 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: The obligation of confidentiality and restriction on use in Section 2 hereof shall not apply to any Confidential Information that the Receiving Party proves: (d) is requested to be disclosed in a judicial or administrative law, regulation or proceeding after all reasonable legal remedies for maintaining such information in confidence have been exhausted, including, but not limited to, giving the Disclosing Party reasonable advance notice of the potential for such disclosure and allowing the Disclosing Party to seek a protective order concerning such disclosure; or

assistant: No