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: exclusive control. See Rakas, 439 U.S. at 143, 99 S.Ct. at 430, 58 L.Ed.2d at 402 (noting that “[o]ne of the main rights attaching to property is the right to exclude others ... and one who ... controls property will in all likelihood have a legitimate expectation of privacy by virtue of this right to exclude.”). As noted, the special power to exclude is not the same as the right to exclude. Most importantly with respect to control, even though Whiting maintained a lock on the bedroom door, he could have been removed by the City at any time. See Gilmore, 104 P.3d at 1055 (finding that defendant had no expectation of privacy in bedroom, despite the fact that he kept the door locked and the home owner did not have the key or any right to access the bedroom); Davis, 119 S.W.3d at 367-68 (<HOLDING>). With respect to rightful possession or lawful Options: A. holding that rooming house residents had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the front hallway of the house they shared which was not obviously a rooming house open to the general public B. holding that defendant staying in abandoned house had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the house despite having a key to the house and the ability to let people in and out of it C. holding that the evidence was sufficient to preclude inference where he tried to enter the house drunk and was staying at the neighboring house D. holding that squatter had no standing to challenge search of abandoned house where he was staying E. recognizing record supported determination that defendant lacked expectation of privacy in house

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that defendant staying in abandoned house had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the house despite having a key to the house and the ability to let people in and out of it
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: always been interpreted to provide for a private right of action. See Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 385-87, 103 S.Ct. 683, 688-90, 74 L.Ed.2d 548 (1983) (expressly interpreting section 10(b)’s private right of action as consistent with' securities laws’ “broad remedial purposes”). While some courts did not find the requisite congressional intent to infer a private right of action from section 17(a), see Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 574-76, 99 S.Ct. 2479, 2488-89, 61 L.Ed.2d 82 (1979) (legislative intent is the primary factor to consider when addressing whether a private right of action exists), other circuits found no meaningful distinction between section 17(a) and section 10(b). Compare Daniel v. Teamsters, 561 F.2d 1223, 1244-46 (7th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>), and SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d Options: A. holding that a private right of action exists B. recognizing that no private right of action exists for subsection a violations C. recognizing private right of action D. holding that erisa creates no private right of action E. holding that no private right of action exists under any of the provisions of the airport and airway improvement act

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a private right of action exists
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: is often, but not always, expressed as a percentage. Id. at 824. Interest, the court said, was broad enough to include non-percentage based charges. Although the court acknowledged that words contained in federal statutes are generally defined by federal common law, it determined that reference to state law was often appropriate. Resort to uniquely federal definitions is not, however, automatic. “Congress sometimes intends that a statutory term be given content by the application of state law.” Mississippi Band, 490 U.S. at 43, 109 S.Ct. at 1605. In such instances, a federal court may properly use state law to fill the interstices within a federal legislative scheme. See, e.g., Kamen [v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90, 107-09, 111 S.Ct. 1711, 1722-23, 114 L.Ed.2d 152 (1991) ] (<HOLDING>); Mississippi Band, 490 U.S. at 47-53, 109 Options: A. holding that under north carolina law a corporate parent cannot be held liable for the acts of its subsidiary unless the corporate structure is a sham B. holding it proper to borrow a definition from state corporate law C. holding that the general corporate laws are incorporated into the corporate charter D. holding that a fraudulent transfer claim against a corporate debtors control person belongs to the corporate debtor not to specific creditors E. holding that a corporate officer signing a contract in his corporate capacity is generally not liable for damages under the contract

assistant: The best answer is B. holding it proper to borrow a definition from state corporate law
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 have the right to terminate your employment immediately at any time. If the Company terminates your employment for “Cause,” no compensation or continuation of benefits will occur unless required by law (e.g., COBRA). “Cause” is defined as (a) gross negligence in the performance of assigned duties; (b) refusal to perform or discharge the duties or responsibilities assigned by the Chief Executive Officer of the Company and/or the Board, provided the same are not illegal and are consistent with the duties customarily associated with your position; (c) conviction of a felony; (d) willful or prolonged unexcused absence from work; (e) falseness of any material statement in any employment application with, or resume or other written communication to the Company; or (f) the material breach, which is not cured within two (2) days following your receipt of written notice from the Company describing such breach in reasonable detail, of your obligations under this Agreement or the Invention, Nondisclosure and Non-Competition Agreement to the material detriment of the Company.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Second Amendment may be executed in counterparts, and all parties need not execute the same counterpart; however , no party shall be bound by this Second Amendment until Borrower, Administrative Agent and the Required Lenders have executed a counterpart. Facsimiles or other electronic transmission (e.g., .pdf) shall be effective as originals.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Junior Creditor shall not sell, assign, pledge, dispose of or otherwise transfer all or any portion of the Junior Debt or any Junior Debt Document (a) without giving prior written notice of such action to Senior Lender and (b) unless prior to the consummation of any such action, the transferee thereof shall execute and deliver to Senior Lender an agreement substantially identical to this Agreement, providing for the continued subordination and forbearance of the Junior Debt to the Senior Debt as provided herein and for the continued effectiveness of all of the rights of Senior Lender arising under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the failure to execute or deliver any such agreement, the subordination effected hereby shall survive any sale, assignment, pledge, disposition or other transfer of all or any portion of the Junior Debt, and the terms of this Agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of Junior Creditor, as provided in Section 17 below.

assistant: Sales
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: (a) The Loans comprising each ABR Borrowing (including each Swingline Loan, but excluding Protective Advances and Overadvances) shall bear interest at the Alternate Base Rate plus the Applicable Rate.

assistant: Interests
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: In the event of any merger, reorganization, consolidation, recapitalization, extraordinary cash dividend, stock dividend, stock split or other change in corporate structure affecting the Stock, the number of Restricted Stock Units subject to this Agreement shall be equitably and proportionately adjusted (without duplication of Section 4 ) by the Committee in accordance with the Plan.

assistant: Adjustments
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: initially stopping the truck for failing to illuminate the rear license plate in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1706(e). See United States v. Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d 1345, 1348 (10th Cir.1998) (“An initial traffic stop is valid under the Fourth Amendment ... if the officer has a reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation has occurred or is occurring.” (citing United States v. Botero-Ospina, 71 F.3d 783, 787 (10th Cir. 1995) (en banc))). Wilson also does not dispute that the smell of alcohol on VanHouden together with VanHouden’s admission that he had been drinking justified the further detention of the truck and its occupants in order for Deputy Watkins to conduct field sobriety tests on VanHouden. See United States v. Neumann, 183 F.3d 753, 756 (8th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Rogala v. Dist. of Columbia, 161 F.3d 44, 52 Options: A. holding that reasonable suspicion standard applies to routine traffic stops B. holding that an officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct traffic stop even when his suspicion that a law has been violated is based on a reasonable mistake of law C. holding that the discovery of 2000 in cash during a traffic stop supported a finding of reasonable suspicion D. holding that an officers reasonable mistake of law can give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a traffic stop under the fourth amendment E. holding detection of alcohol on a drivers breath during a routine traffic stop gave rise to reasonable suspicion

assistant: The best answer is E. holding detection of alcohol on a drivers breath during a routine traffic stop gave rise to reasonable suspicion
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: to a broad class or range of jobs. Indeed, she believes that she can perform the dealer job, despite her disabilities, as evidenced by her attempt to obtain employment as a dealer following her termination. She just cannot perform the job at nighttime (or apparently between the hours of 4 a.m. and noon). Such a schedule-specific job restriction is not sufficient to qualify as a substantial impairment on her ability to work. See Cotter v. Ajilon Services, Inc., 287 F.3d 593, 598 (6th Cir. 2002) (rejecting argument that doctor’s order that the plaintiff needed to take frequent breaks to avoid stress and to avoid prolonged overtime demonstrated a substantial impairment of the plaintiffs ability to work); see also Kocsis v. Multi-Care Management, Inc., 97 F.3d 876, 885 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>) (quotation marks and citation omitted); Chiles Options: A. holding that an employer did not regard the plaintiff as disabled B. holding that when an employer takes steps to accommodate an employees restrictions it is not thereby conceding that the employee is disabled under the ada or that it regards the employee as disabled C. holding that an employer did not regard an employee with an impaired ankle as disabled where it encouraged her to work in a position that required walking D. holding that an employer does not necessarily regard an employee as disabled simply by finding the employee to be incapable of satisfying the singular demands of a particular job E. holding that an employer did not regard the employee as disabled because it called the employee back from disability leave to work on a special project

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an employer does not necessarily regard an employee as disabled simply by finding the employee to be incapable of satisfying the singular demands of a particular job
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: v. Gen. Motors Corp., 195 Ariz. 510, 514, 990 P.2d 1069, 1073 (Ct.App.1999); Collins v. Miller & Miller, Ltd., 189 Ariz. 387, 397, 943 P.2d 747, 757 (Ct.App.1996). (2) Hufford requests attorneys’s fees for both the district court action and this appeal. Because Hufford has not appealed the district court’s order denying fees, that issue is not properly before us. He is not entitled to fees on appeal. Under Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 12-341.01, a court may grant reasonable attorney’s fees to the successful party in “any contested action arising out of a contract, express or implied.” This is not an action “arising out of a contract;” it is a claim of wrongful issuance of an opinion letter by an attorney. See Morris v. Achen Constr. Co., Inc., 155 Ariz. 512, 514, 747 P.2d 1211, 1213 (Sup.Ct.1987) (<HOLDING>); cf. Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D, Options: A. holding principal liable to third party for tort of agent despite lack of privity between principal and third party B. holding that where a third partys conduct is closely related to the contractual relationship or the contractual dispute and where the third party enjoys financial benefit from the contract the forum selection clause applies to the third party C. holding that third party may petition to cancel fraudulently obtained trademark registration D. holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant E. holding that fraudulently inducing one to enter into a contract with a third party is not the type of tort falling within the ambit of ars 1234101a

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that fraudulently inducing one to enter into a contract with a third party is not the type of tort falling within the ambit of ars 1234101a
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: Murray, 194 Ariz. at 374-75 ¶¶ 4, 6, 982 P.2d at 1288-89. In holding that the statute violated separation of powers, we noted that parole eligibility on sentencing is a “substantive right” and the Legislature “ ‘may not disturb vested substantive rights by retroactively changing the law that applies to completed events.’ ” Id. at 375 ¶ 6, 982 P.2d at 1289 (quoting San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court, 193 Ariz. 195, 205 ¶ 15, 972 P.2d 179, 189 (1999)). ¶ 14 Senate Bill 1449’s operative provision, in contrast, does not disturb vested rights. The State does not argue, nor does the law suggest, that the government has a vested right to a conviction, at least when, as here, a case is pending trial or on direct appeal. Cf. State v. Morris, 55 Ohio St.2d 101, 378 N.E.2d 708, 715 (1978) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 15 The court of appeals in Fell held that a Options: A. recognizing separation of powers doctrine B. holding that statute that retroactively reduced penalties for drug offenses did not violate separation of powers C. recognizing a referendum on a court judgment would violate separation of powers D. holding legislatures retroactive amendment of statutory definition which rejected court interpretation did not violate separation of powers E. recognizing that the judicial rewriting of a statute would violate the separation of powers doctrine

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that statute that retroactively reduced penalties for drug offenses did not violate separation of powers
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 Receiver hereby represents and warrants that as of the Effective Date: (a) subject to the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order and Bar Order, he has the power and authority to bind the applicable Receivership Entities to the terms of this Agreement or otherwise has been duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on their behalf; (b) the Receiver will pursue the approval of this Agreement, including entry of the Preliminary Approval Order and Bar Order and Investor Class Action Dismissal, in good faith and using his best efforts; (c) he will perform the obligations created by this Agreement and cooperate with Raymond James and Class Counsel in good faith regarding this Agreement; and (d) he has, or has caused to be conducted by his counsel or other persons under his control, conducted a reasonably diligent search of the records of the Receivership Entities to ascertain the EB-5 investors and creditors of each of the Receivership Entities.

assistant: Representations
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 Letter Agreement may only be enforced by CF Corp at the direction of GSO, and nothing set forth in this Letter Agreement shall be construed to confer upon or give to Seller or any other Person (including CF Corp’s and Seller’s direct and indirect creditors), other than the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns, any rights to enforce the Commitment or to cause CF Corp to enforce the Commitment. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Letter Agreement, if Seller is entitled to specific performance in accordance with Section 11.12 of the Share Purchase Agreement to cause the Closing to occur, Seller may enforce CF Corp’s right to cause the Commitment to be funded (solely to the extent that CF Corp can enforce the Commitment in accordance with the terms hereof) without the direction of GSO, and in such event and solely to such extent Seller will be a third party beneficiary of CF Corp’s rights under this Letter Agreement. The exercise by CF Corp or Seller of any right to enforce this Letter Agreement does not give rise to any other remedies, monetary or otherwise. Whether or not Seller is entitled to enforce the Commitment in accordance with this Section 2, in the event the Commitment is not funded in accordance with the terms of this Letter Agreement, neither CF Corp, Seller, nor any other Person shall have, and no Person is intended to have, any right of recovery against GSO in respect of any liabilities or obligations arising under, or in connection with, this Letter Agreement or the Share Purchase Agreement (including in the event CF Corp breaches its obligations under the Share Purchase Agreement and whether or not CF Corp’s breach is caused by GSO’s breach of its obligations under this Letter Agreement), except to the extent expressly set forth in this Section 2.

assistant: Enforceability
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: however , blizzard entertainment reserves the right to temporarily suspend the service for maintenance , testing , replacement and repair of the telecommunications equipment related to world of warcraft , as well as for transmission interruption or any other operational needs of the system .

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: probable cause to arrest in light of whether the facts proved a crime as defined by state law). “To determine whether an officer had probable cause to arrest an individual, we examine the events leading up to the arrest, and then decide ‘whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable officer, amount to’ probable cause.” Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371, 124 S.Ct. 795, 800, 157 L.Ed.2d 769 (2003) (quoting Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 696, 116 S.Ct. at 1661). “If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender.” Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354, 121 S.Ct. 1536, 1557, 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001) (<HOLDING>), quoted with approval in Joyce v. Options: A. holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same B. holding that probable cause existed to arrest for trespassing under state law C. holding that probable cause existed to arrest for a seatbelt violation under state law D. holding that fourth amendment not violated when officer makes custodial arrest for driving without a seatbelt E. holding that probable cause existed to arrest for driving on a suspended license under state law

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that probable cause existed to arrest for a seatbelt violation under state law
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: facilitates collusion by limiting the distributors’ ability to obtain better prices, it does so in most cases for no more than 60 days. See Hovenkamp § 10.8b at 384-85 (Although “[ejxclusive dealing may facilitate collusion by denying buyers an opportunity to force sellers to bid against each other,” if the “contracts must be re-bid frequently, most of the benefits of exclusive dealing will be retained, but the competitive threat will be greatly diminished.”). Nor are we persuaded that a jury could reasonably infer probable injury to competition even in this highly concentrated market where the undisputed evidence shows increasing output, decreasing prices, and significantly fluctuating market shares among the major manufacturers. Cf. Brooke Group, 509 U.S. at 237, 113 S.Ct. at 2595 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that, even construed in the light Options: A. recognizing that a curative instruction may make it highly unlikely that improper comments misled the jury B. holding that standing to raise a claim under 2a of robinsonpatman act is derived from section 4 of the clayton act C. holding that since the defendant is no longer selling to plaintiffs as is its right there is no danger that it will sell to them on discriminatory terms in violation of 15 usc 13 1982 and accordingly no basis for a robinsonpatman injunction D. holding that under robinsonpatman act jury may not infer conscious parallelism or supraeompetitive pricing even in highly concentrated industry where output is expanding and prices are increasing E. holding that the courts determination that the plaintiff failed to make a showing of antitrust injury adequate to allow treble damages does not provide a basis to dismiss plaintiffs robinsonpatman act claim insofar as it seeks injunctive relief

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that under robinsonpatman act jury may not infer conscious parallelism or supraeompetitive pricing even in highly concentrated industry where output is expanding and prices are increasing
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: confusion by mischaracterizing Delmonico’s of Southampton as an ‘offshoot’ of Delmonico’s flagship New York City location”). Further, they allege in non-conclu-sory fashion that Defendants’ alleged misuses of the DELMONICO’S name actually did cause consumer confusion. See, e.g., AC ¶ 71 (“For example, several consumer reviews on public websites such as Yelp reflect that consumers believe that Delmonico’s Kitchen is affiliated with Ocinomled’s famous Delmonico’s restaurant.”). Defendants rely for their argument on Securitron, in which the Second Circuit held that under § 349, “[i]t is clear that the gravamen of the complaint must be consumer injury or harm to the public interest.” 65 F.3d at 264 (internal quotation marks and citation omit lub, Inc., 704 F.Supp.2d 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (<HOLDING>); Houbigant, Inc. v. ACB Mercantile, Inc., 914 Options: A. holding that concurrent use of same mark on similar product was sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion B. holding that plaintiff was likely to succeed on merits of 349 claim premised on likelihood of confusion between marks C. holding that even several isolated incidents of actual confusion are insufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion D. holding that a defendant must show actual prejudice to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim E. holding that same likelihood of confusion test applied in the context of trademarks also applies to certification marks

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that plaintiff was likely to succeed on merits of 349 claim premised on likelihood of confusion between marks
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: In the event of termination of this Agreement as set forth above, this Agreement shall forthwith become void and there shall be no liability on the part of any Party hereto, provided that such Party is a Non-Defaulting Party (as defined below). The foregoing shall not relieve any Party from liability for damages actually incurred as a result of such Party’s breach of any term or provision of this Agreement.

assistant: Remedies
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: order is not a § 1447(c) remand order: [i]t seems evident that if an order of a district judge remanding a case is not insulated from review unless issued for a reason set forth in section 1447(c), i.e., a defect in removal procedure or a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, then an order of a magistrate judge that could not be issued pursuant to section 1447(c) because of the magistrate judge’s lack of authority to issue it is not insulated from review by section 1447(d). U.S. Healthcare, 159 F.3d at 146. The April 1999 remand order in CV-29 was not a § 1447(c) remand because the magistrate judge was not authorized to issue that dispositive order. Because § 1447(d) precludes review of only § 1477(c) remand orders, the district court was not precluded from revie , 225 (3d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Seedman v. United States Dist. Court, 837 Options: A. holding that certification of a remand order divests federal court jurisdiction B. holding that filing of appeal to federal circuit divests this court of jurisdiction to consider motion to stay court order pending appeal C. holding that mere entry of a remand order divests a federal court of jurisdiction even where no certified copy of the order was mailed to a state court D. holding that the mailing of a certified copy of a remand order to a state court divests federal jurisdiction E. holding that the state court is revested with jurisdiction when a federal district court executes the remand order and mails a certified copy of the order to the state court

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the mailing of a certified copy of a remand order to a state court divests federal 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 Option shall become vested and exercisable, according to the following vesting schedule, if the Grantee continues to be employed by, or provide service to, the Company (or its parent or subsidiary, as applicable) (the “ Employer ”) from the Date of Grant until the applicable vesting date.

assistant: Vesting
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 record also demonstrates that the forensic search of Wolfs computer was conducted by an offsite forensic technician who had the training and expertise necessary to complete the search of Wolfs computer. Although the forensic report indicated that a search of Wolfs computer was not conducted until October, probable cause to search the computer’s hard drive was not affected by the delay. Probable cause to search the hard drive did not dissipate during the month and a half the computer sat in the evidence locker. In addition, Wolf was not prejudiced by the delay, nor has he demonstrated that the delay was rooted in bad faith actions by law enforcement officers. Therefore, we hold that Wolfs trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress on t 10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Syphers, 426 F.3d 461, 469 Options: A. holding that the mere assertion of constitutional right to refuse consent to search does not supply probable cause to search B. holding a month delay in search of a computer constitutional because probable cause continued to exist at the time of the search and no prejudice occurred C. holding a fivemonth delay in searching a computer did not invalidate the search because there was no showing that the delay caused a lapse in probable cause that it created prejudice to the defendant or that officers acted in bad faith D. holding the search of a computer after the warrant had expired constitutional because despite the delay probable cause for the search continued to exist E. holding warrantless search of defendants automobile four days after impoundment was permissible under requirements of fourth amendment and state constitution where officers had probable cause to search vehicle when it was impounded and that probable cause continued between the time of the impoundment and the search

assistant: The best answer is B. holding a month delay in search of a computer constitutional because probable cause continued to exist at the time of the search and no prejudice occurred
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: Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, each provision of this Agreement (other than Sections 1 through 6 ) shall survive the termination of this Agreement and termination of employment for any reason or Executive’s ceasing to provide services to Company to the extent necessary to give effect to its terms, including, without limitation, Sections 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 and 14 of this Agreement.

assistant: Survival
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 terminated by any Purchaser, as to such Purchaser’s obligations hereunder only and without any effect whatsoever on the obligations between the Company and the other Purchasers, by written notice to the other parties, if the Closing has not been consummated on or before January 8, 2018; provided , however , that such termination will not affect the right of any party to sue for any breach by any other party (or parties).

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: Rule 12(b)(1) motion was in fact an indirect attack on the merits of Miller’s case. See Gentek Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Steel Peel Litiga nizing the “subj ect-matter jurisdiction/ingredient-of-claim-for-relief dichotomy” and noting that “[sjubject matter jurisdiction in federal-question cases is sometimes erroneously conflated with a plaintiffs need and ability to prove the defendant bound by a federal law asserted as the predicate for relief — a merits-related determination” (quotation omitted)); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946) (“Jurisdiction ... is not defeated ... by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover.”); Williams v. Fleming, 597 F.3d 820, 822-24 (7th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); Doss v. Clearwater Title Co., 551 F.3d 634, Options: A. holding that a federal court improperly dismissed suit on abstention grounds where there was no concurrent jurisdiction over the federal claims B. holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial the state claims should be dismissed as well C. holding that the case must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction where notice of appeal was untimely D. holding that in the context of the federal tort claims act claims dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds are not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction but for the existence of a defense E. holding that when all federal claims have been dismissed the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that in the context of the federal tort claims act claims dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds are not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction but for the existence of a defense
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: to the primary avenue permitting habeas corpus review upon a demonstration of “cause and prejudice.” See Sawyer, 505 U.S. at 338-39, 112 S.Ct. at 2518. Significantly, the availability of federal habeas corpus review upon cause and prejudice was developed as a core safeguard against the miscarriage of justice in its broader sense. See Dretke, 541 U.S. at 394, 124 S.Ct. at 1852; see also Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495-96, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 2649, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986). Further, claims of constitutionally deficient stewardship such as those presented here, see, e.g., supra note 7, are cognizable under the cause and prejudice standard. See Dretke, 541 U.S. at 394, 124 S.Ct. at 1852. See generally Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2070, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (<HOLDING>). It is apparent from the above that, under Options: A. holding that fundamental fairness is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands B. holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged C. holding that misleading testimony regarding the purpose of a proceeding did not warrant inquiry into the result of the proceeding D. recognizing that the general rule that a ministerial officer cannot in a judicial proceeding attack the validity of a law imposing duties on him is subject to the exception that such a law may be challenged where it involves the disbursement of public funds E. recognizing that an ineffectiveness claim however as our articulation of the standards that govern decision of such claims makes clear is an attack on the fundamental fairness of the proceeding whose result is challenged

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that an ineffectiveness claim however as our articulation of the standards that govern decision of such claims makes clear is an attack on the fundamental fairness of the proceeding whose result is challenged
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: our services may contain links to third-party websites , content , advertisers , services , promotions , special offers , or other events or activities ( `` third-party content '' ) that are not owned or controlled by us .

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: All demands, notices and communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given if personally delivered to or mailed, by registered mail, postage prepaid, by overnight mail or courier service, or transmitted by facsimile and confirmed by similar mailed writing, if to the Buyer, addressed to the Buyer at 60 Wall Street, 3 rd Floor, New York, New York 10005, Attention: Timur Otunchiev, or such other address as may be designated by the Buyer to the Guarantor in writing, or, if to the Guarantor, addressed to the Guarantor at 1140 Avenue of Americas, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10036, Attention: Rick Herbst, Email: rherbst@waterfallam.com, Facsimile: 212-257-4699, or such other address as may be designated by the Guarantor to the Buyer in writing.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All covenants, agreements, representations and warranties made by the Borrower herein, in the other Loan Documents and in the certificates or other instruments delivered in connection with or pursuant to this Agreement or any other Loan Document shall be considered to have been relied upon by the other parties hereto and shall survive the execution and delivery of the Loan Documents and the making of any Loans and the issuance of any Letters of Credit, regardless of any investigation made by any such other party or on its behalf and notwithstanding that the Administrative Agent, any Issuing Bank or any Lender may have had notice or knowledge of any Default or incorrect representation or warranty at the time any credit is extended hereunder, and shall continue in full force and effect as long as the principal of or any accrued interest on any Loan or any fee or any other amount payable under this Agreement is outstanding and unpaid or any Letter of Credit is outstanding and so long as the Commitments have not expired or terminated. The provisions of Sections 2.15, 2.16, 2.17 and 9.03 and Article VIII shall survive and remain in full force and effect regardless of the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, the repayment of the Loans, the expiration or termination of the Letters of Credit and the Commitments or the termination of this Agreement or any provision hereof.

assistant: Survival
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 Parties recognize and acknowledge that a breach by such Party of any covenants or agreements contained in this Release will cause the other Parties to sustain damages for which such other Parties would not have an adequate remedy at law for money damages, and therefore each Party agrees that in the event of any such breach, the other Parties shall be entitled to the remedy of specific performance of such covenants and agreements and injunctive and other equitable relief in addition to any other remedy to which such other Parties may be entitled, at law or in equity.

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: Agent, each Lender and each Transferee shall hold all non-public information obtained by Agent, such Lender or such Transferee pursuant to the requirements of this Agreement in accordance with Agent's, such Lender's and such Transferee's customary procedures for handling confidential information of this nature; provided , however , Agent, each Lender and each Transferee may disclose such confidential information (a) to its examiners, Affiliates, outside auditors, counsel and other professional advisors, (b) to Agent, any Lender or, subject to an agreement containing provisions substantially the same as those of this Section 16.15, to any prospective Transferees, and (c) as required or requested by any Governmental Body or representative thereof or pursuant to legal process; provided , further that (i) unless specifically prohibited by Applicable Law, Agent, each Lender and each Transferee shall use its reasonable best efforts prior to disclosure thereof, to notify the applicable Borrower of the applicable request for disclosure of such non-public information (A) by a Governmental Body or representative thereof (other than any such request in connection with an examination of the financial condition of a Lender or a Transferee by such Governmental Body) or (B) pursuant to legal process and (ii) in no event shall Agent, any Lender or any Transferee be obligated to return any materials furnished by any Borrower other than those documents and instruments in possession of Agent or any Lender in order to perfect its Lien on the Collateral once the Obligations (other than Hedge Liabilities and Cash Management Liabilities) have been paid in full and this Agreement has been terminated. Each Borrower acknowledges that from time to time financial advisory, investment banking and other services may be offered or provided to such Borrower or one or more of its Affiliates (in connection with this Agreement or otherwise) by any Lender or by one or more Subsidiaries or Affiliates of such Lender and each Borrower hereby authorizes each Lender to share any information delivered to such Lender by such Borrower and its Subsidiaries pursuant to this Agreement, or in connection with the decision of such Lender to enter into this Agreement, to any such Subsidiary or Affiliate of such Lender, it being understood that any such Subsidiary or Affiliate of any Lender receiving such information shall be bound by the provisions of this Section 16.15 as if it were a Lender hereunder. Such authorization shall survive the repayment of the other Obligations and the termination of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any non-disclosure agreement or similar document executed by Agent in favor of any Borrower or any of any Borrower's Affiliates, the provisions of this Agreement shall supersede such agreements.

assistant: Confidentiality
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: proscribed conduct, and they do indicate that it is their intention to engage in such conduct. Thus, O’Shea is inapplicable. Laird is also not directly on point. There, the plaintiffs challenged an Army civilian surveillance system on first amendment grounds. “The plaintiffs, however, were not targets of the surveillance, thus any chilling effect resulted merely from their knowledge of the surveillance activities.” Olagues v. Russoniello, 797 F.2d 1511, 1518 (9th Cir.1986) (en banc). In this case, by contrast, the chilling effect upon the sanctuary workers plainly results from more than mere knowledge of the prosecutions. Rather, plaintiffs claim to be actual targets of the harboring prosecutions because they are engaging in the very conduct that is being prosecuted. Cf. id. at 1518-19 (<HOLDING>). The court agrees with the defendants that the Options: A. holding that an organization whose members are injured may represent those members even where the organization itself cannot show injury B. holding that an organization whose members were potential targets of future prosecutions had standing to seek injunctive relief C. holding that a class of juveniles had standing to seek injunctive relief in federal court against future interrogations by a police squad because of the strong likelihood that the challenged interrogation methods would be used again D. holding that a party that was neither a purchaser nor a seller of the securities involved lacked standing to seek injunctive relief under the federal counterpart to 8617 E. holding an organization had standing because some of its individual members did

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an organization whose members were potential targets of future prosecutions had standing to seek injunctive relief