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: denial of this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). VIII In conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violates the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Habeas relief does not lie for errors of state law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67, 112 S.Ct. 475, 479, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991); Jammal v. Van de Kamp, 926 F.2d 918, 919 (9th Cir.1991); Jackson v. Ylst, 921 F.2d 882, 885 (9th Cir.1990). Absent fundamental unfairness, federal habeas relief is not available for a state court’s misapplication of its own sentencing laws. See Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Miller v. Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116, 1118-19 Options: A. holding that a prisoners failure to pursue an appeal in state court is a procedural bar to federal habeas relief unless the petitioner shows both cause for failing to bring the state claim and actual prejudice from the failure to consider his federal claims B. holding that habeas petitioner scheduled to be executed in the state of virginia for capital murder could not raise claim of violation of his rights under the vienna convention on federal habeas review where he failed to preserve the claim by raising it in state court proceedings vienna convention does not trump subsequent federal statute requiring habeas petitioners who claim to be held in violation of treaties of the united states to develop factual bases for their claims in state court as a precondition of federal habeas review C. holding that when a state court adjudication is contrary to clearly established supreme court precedent this court must review de novo whether petitioner is entitled to habeas relief D. holding petitioner not entitled to habeas relief on claim state court improperly used petitioners prior federal offense to enhance punishment E. holding federal habeas proceeding was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies when petitioners direct appeal from resentencing was still pending in state court at the time he sought habeas relief

assistant: The best answer is D. holding petitioner not entitled to habeas relief on claim state court improperly used petitioners prior federal offense to enhance punishment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall bind all parties, their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, but nothing contained herein shall be construed as an authorization or right of Executive to assign her rights or obligations hereunder.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: To the extent applicable, the Board or the Committee may at any time and from time to time amend, in whole or in part, any or all of the provisions of this Agreement to comply with Section 409A of the Code and the regulations thereunder or any other applicable law and may also amend, suspend or terminate this Agreement subject to the terms of the Plan. The award of Restricted Stock pursuant to this Agreement is not intended to be considered “deferred compensation” for purposes of Section 409A of the Code. With respect to any dividend equivalents, however, this Agreement is intended to comply with the applicable requirements of Section 409A of the Code and shall be limited, construed and interpreted in a manner so as to comply therewith.

assistant: Amendments
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: Any notices and other communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given when mailed by first class registered or certified, postage prepaid, to their addresses as set forth above, or by courier delivery or by fax or email with confirmed receipt, or to such other address as shall be designated by such party by notice given in accordance herewith.

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: This First Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same document. The parties hereto intend that delivery may be effected by electronic (PDF) transmission and that a PDF copy which has been executed by the transmitting party shall constitute an original.

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: The Committee shall have broad authority to amend the Certificate without approval of the Participant to the extent necessary or desirable (a) to comply with, or take into account changes in, applicable tax laws, securities laws, accounting rules and other applicable laws, rules and regulations or (b) to ensure that the Participant is not required to recognize income for United States federal income tax purposes with respect to any Performance Share Units before such Performance Share Units are settled and is not subject to additional tax or interest under Section 409A with respect to any Performance Share Units. The Committee shall not be obligated to make any such amendment, however, and neither the Committee nor the Company makes any representation or guarantee that the Performance Share Units will not be subject to additional tax or interest under Section 409A.

assistant: Amendments
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: Seller covenants and warrants to Buyer, its successors and assigns, that Seller has full right and lawful authority to enter into this Agreement and no other parties have any right or ownership in or to the Property.

assistant: Authority
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 Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement, and any of the parties hereto may execute this Amendment by signing any such counterpart. Delivery of an executed counterpart hereof by facsimile or email transmission shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: by using any interactive areas , you expressly agree not to post , upload to , transmit , distribute , store , create or otherwise publish through this website any of the following :

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: This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of New York without regard to principles of conflicts of law thereof, or principals of conflicts of laws of any other jurisdiction which could cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than the State of New York. Each of Participant and the Company hereby waive, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, any right either of them may have to a trial by jury in respect to any litigation directly or indirectly arising out of, under or in connection with this Agreement or the Plan.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: as set out in section 10.1 , in the event a court or arbitrator determines that the limitation of the arbitration to dispute ( s ) between you and linden lab ( prohibiting class or representative proceedings ) is unenforceable , the dispute then must be brought exclusively in the state or federal courts of san francisco county , california .

assistant: 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: 3.8. "Representatives" means, in relation to a Party to the extent involved in the Project, (a) its Affiliates; (b) its contractors / suppliers of any tier and (c) all of the aforementioned entities' employees, directors, senior executives, professional advisors and consultants. 5.1. Recipient shall: 5.1.3. not copy or reproduce (or permit to be copied or reproduced) any Confidential Information, or directly or indirectly disclose or distribute any of it to any person other than those of its Representatives who are strictly required to perform Recipient's work in relation to the Project.

assistant: No
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: This was not the issue before the trial court in this case. 2 . The legislature’s objective was "to assure the quick and efficient delivery of disability and medical benefits to an injured worker and to facilitate the worker's return to gainful reemployment at a reasonable cost to the employer.” § 440.015. It determined that "a mutual renunciation of common-law rights and defenses by employers and employees” served that objective. Id. 3 . This conclusion finds additional support in the principle that the mere fact that a party is under a purely legal obligation arising outside of a contract — such as one imposed by a statute or the common law — does not render one a "contractor” entitled to immunity. See, e.g., Smith v. Manner’s Bay Condo. Ass’n, 789 So.2d 1228, 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>); Sotomayor, 697 So.2d at 1008 (A "common law Options: A. recognizing that the duty arises not from the terms of the insurance contract but from an obligation imposed in law as a result of the special relationship B. holding that only factors specifically prohibited by the sentencing guidelines cannot form the basis for a downward departure C. holding that an obligation imposed by statute cannot form the basis for a statutory employer relationship D. holding that unenforceable promises cannot form the basis for a claim of promissory estoppel E. holding that the failure to disclose evidence known to the defense cannot form the basis of a brady violation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an obligation imposed by statute cannot form the basis for a statutory employer relationship
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 provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be unenforceable or invalid by a court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction, it shall be severed and shall not affect any other part of this Agreement, which will be enforced as permitted by law. Provided, however, that to the extent such invalid provision can be rendered valid by modification, you agree that the court or tribunal shall so modify such provision so as to render it valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.

assistant: Severability
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 weight of the evidence, especially in view of the videotape, that no reasonable jury can find in plaintiffs favor. (Tr. 33.) I denied the motion. The second time was after the defense rested. THE COURT: I know that there will be a , motion to- dismiss at the end of the entire ease? MR. LEONG: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: You’ll get a decision on the motion and we’ll go directly through____ (Tr. 72-73.) I did not rule on the motion at the close of all evidence, and the matter was not addressed again. Defendants’ failure to file a new motion after the jury returned a favorable verdict and when a judgment has not been entered to date, does not preclude the Court from granting the motion at this stage. See Nichols Constr. Corp. v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 808 F.2d 340, 356 (5th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Defendants shall file with the Options: A. holding defendants failure to file motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict did not prevent district court from granting motion for directed verdict for which court reserved decision B. holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment C. holding that the trial court erred in granting the school boards posttrial motion for directed verdict because although the school board timely moved for a directed verdict during trial it did not serve its motion for directed verdict until the eleventh day after the verdict D. holding a directed verdict motion stating specific grounds is a prerequisite for a subsequent motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict E. holding that under law of the case appellate decision that material factual issues precluded summary judgment on plaintiffs claims did not preclude district court from later granting defendants motion for a directed verdict because by then the parties had presented all of their evidence

assistant: The best answer is A. holding defendants failure to file motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict did not prevent district court from granting motion for directed verdict for which court reserved decision
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) Each party irrevocably agrees that any legal action, suit or proceeding against it arising out of or in connection with this Agreement (whether for breach of contract, tortious conduct or otherwise) shall be brought exclusively in the United States District Court for the state of New York or, if such court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, the state courts of New York located in New York County, and hereby irrevocably accepts and submits to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the aforesaid courts in personam, with respect to any such action, suit or proceeding. The parties hereby waive, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, any objection that they now or hereafter have to personal jurisdiction or to the laying of venue of any such suit, action or proceeding brought in such court. The parties agree not to commence any action arising out of or relating to this Agreement in a forum other than the forum described in this Section 6.9(a).

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if you purchase third party currency or choose to make a payment in our services through a third party ( like facebook , apple , or google ) , you are agreeing to the third party 's payment terms , and zynga is not a party to the transaction .

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: protected from liability by vicarious official immunity. The district court also noted that even if the officers are not entitled to official immunity, their duty to render “unquestioning obedience” in executing the district court’s order protects them from liability. Pahnke’s appeal challenges those determinations, asserting that the district court misapplied the law and identifying disputed facts that she contends are material to the immunity decision. Whether to apply official immunity is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. Thompson v. City of Minneapolis, 707 N.W.2d 669, 673 (Minn.2006). Official immunity shields a public official from personal liability when the official is “charged by law with duties which ca ity of Chaska, 685 N.W.2d 725, 730 (Minn.App.2004) (<HOLDING>), review denied (Minn. Nov. 23, 2004). We Options: A. holding that an appellate court can review a district courts decision to remand when that decision rests upon a ground not authorized by statute B. holding that a defendant generally may not challenge an enhanced sentence through a section 2254 petition on the ground that the prior conviction was unconstitutionally obtained C. holding an issue not preserved when one ground is raised to the trial court and another ground is raised on appeal D. holding that officers decision during training exercise to place an individual on the ground through a controlled takedown was dis cretionary act E. holding that in reviewing a district courts decision on a motion for summary judgment de novo the decision can be affirmed on any ground that finds support in the record including an alternate ground

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that officers decision during training exercise to place an individual on the ground through a controlled takedown was dis cretionary act
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: and if snap group limited becomes aware that one of its users has repeatedly infringed copyrights , we will take reasonable steps within our power to terminate the user 's account .

assistant: 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The proceeds of the Initial Term A-2 Loans will be used to repay all Incremental Term A-1 Loans, to repay any Revolving Loans outstanding immediately prior to the Second Restatement Effective Date and to pay any accrued and unpaid interest, costs and expenses incurred in connection with such repayment. The proceeds of the Delayed Draw Term A-2 Loans will be used to finance general corporate purposes (including Permitted Acquisitions). The proceeds of Loans and other Credit Events made following the Second Restatement Effective Date will be used to finance the working capital needs, and for general corporate purposes (including Permitted Acquisitions or any other purposes not prohibited by this Agreement), of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries. No part of the proceeds of any Loan will be used, whether directly or indirectly, for any purpose that entails a violation of any of the Regulations of the FRB, including Regulations T, U and X. The Borrower will not request any Borrowing or Letter of Credit, and the Borrower shall not use, and shall procure that its Subsidiaries and its or their respective directors, officers, employees and agents shall not use, the proceeds of any Borrowing or Letter of Credit (A) in furtherance of an offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the payment or giving of money, or anything else of value, to any Person in violation of any Anti-Corruption Laws, (B) for the purpose of funding, financing or facilitating any activities, business or transaction of or with any Sanctioned Person, or in any Sanctioned Country, to the extent such activities, businesses or transaction would be prohibited by Sanctions if conducted by a corporation incorporated in the United States or in a European Union member state, or (C) in any manner that would result in the violation of any Sanctions applicable to any party hereto.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: the exclusive means of resolving any dispute or claim arising out of or relating to this agreement ( including any alleged breach thereof ) or the service shall be binding arbitration administered by the american arbitration association under the consumer arbitration rules .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: (a parent’s will may provide for guardianship in the event of the parent’s death). 3 Robert testified, in part, that Curtis appeared to be glassy-eyed, so Robert did not allow Tiffany to go with him that day. 4 A temporary guardianship is the same as a permanent or “ordinary” guardianship except that a temporary guardianship may not exceed six months. See Kater v Brausen, 241 Mich App 606, 607-610; 617 NW2d 40 (2000) (also holding that temporary guardians have standing to move for custody). A temporary guardianship is governed by both MCL 700.5204 (requirements for granting guardianship) and MCL 700.5213(3) (also stating that a temporary guardianship carries the same responsibilities as an ordinary guardianship). 5 See DeRose v DeRose, 249 Mich App 388, 390-391; 643 NW2d 259 (2002) (<HOLDING>), lv gtd 467 Mich 884 (2002). 6 We conclude Options: A. holding statute allowing evidence of collateral source payments unconstitutional B. holding that a statute is unconstitutional if it clearly contravenes a constitutional provision C. holding pennsylvania replevin statute unconstitutional D. holding that the statute is mandatory E. holding that the grandparentvisitation statute mcl 72227b is unconstitutional

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the grandparentvisitation statute mcl 72227b is unconstitutional
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: supervisors or the Calhoun County jail of the injury or to follow the city’s policy of reporting all officer-caused injuries. Instead of believing Watkins’s lies, then, Mrs. Watkins argues that the officers determined to punish Watkins by making him suffer for them. There are thus two closely related factual disputes regarding what the officers did after they had made the crucial inference of a substantial risk to Watkins’s health: (1) whether the officers actually believed Watkins’s lies or instead disbelieved them and intended to punish Watkins for lying to them, and (2) whether the officers acted reasonably after having perceived that there was a risk to Watkins’s health. These disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment. Cf. Curry v. Scott, 249 F.3d 493, 508 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Thus, I believe that the district court erred Options: A. holding that the issue of defendants actual knowledge should not be resolved on summary judgment but should be left to the trier of fact B. holding that the reasonableness of a defendants efforts in discharging a duty of care is a question for the trier of fact when the record does not permit summary judgment C. holding that the issue of proximate causation involves application of law to fact which should be left to the fact finder subject to limited review D. holding that credibility determinations should not be resolved at the summary judgment stage E. holding that where parties did not respond to an issue in summary judgment motion parties relinquished any claim on the issue and conceded that summary judgment should be entered against them

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the issue of defendants actual knowledge should not be resolved on summary judgment but should be left to the trier of fact
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: 366 F.3d at 150; see also Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 147 (2d Cir.2003). Although the Second Circuit has held that there is no “magic” threshold number of harassing incidents that are required, as a matter of law, to state a claim, see Richardson, 180 F.3d at 439, “[isolated instances of harassment ordinarily do not rise to this level.” Cruz, 202 F.3d at 570. Generally, however, a hostile work environment is determined by “all the circumstances,” including “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; [and] whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance .... ” Howley, 217 F.3d at 154 (quoting Harris, 510 U.S. at 23, 114 S.Ct. 367); see Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Edüd 662, (1998) (<HOLDING>); Brennan v. Met. Opera Ass’n, Inc., 192 F.3d Options: A. holding that simple teasing offhand comments isolated incidents unless extremely serious are not discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment B. holding teasing and offhand comments even if offensive are not actionable harassment C. recognizing that the seventh circuit consistently has held that isolated comments that are no more than stray remarks in the work place are insufficient to establish that a particular decision was motivated by discriminatory animus D. holding that isolated remarks are insufficient to prove discriminatory intent E. holding no joint employer status despite some isolated incidents of supervision

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that simple teasing offhand comments isolated incidents unless extremely serious are not discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment
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 arbitrator will decide the substance of all claims in accordance with the laws of the state of california , including recognized principles of equity , and will honor all claims of privilege recognized by law .

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: (i) Immediately after the consummation of the transactions to occur on the Effective Date and immediately following the making of each Advance, if any, made on the Effective Date and after giving effect to the application of the proceeds of such Advances, (a) the fair value of the assets of the Company and its Subsidiaries on a consolidated basis, at a fair valuation, will exceed the debts and liabilities, subordinated, contingent or otherwise, of the Company and its Subsidiaries on a consolidated basis; (b) the present fair saleable value of the Property of the Company and its Subsidiaries on a consolidated basis will be greater than the amount that will be required to pay the probable liability of the Company and its Subsidiaries on a consolidated basis on their debts and other liabilities, subordinated, contingent or otherwise, as such debts and other liabilities become absolute and matured; (c) the Company and its Subsidiaries on a consolidated basis will be able to pay their debts and liabilities, subordinated, contingent or otherwise, as such debts and liabilities become absolute and matured; and (d) the Company and its Subsidiaries on a consolidated basis will not have unreasonable small capital with which to conduct the business in which they are engaged as such businesses are now conducted and are proposed to be conducted after the Effective Date.

assistant: Solvency
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 defendant’s motion to suppress his statement on Fourth Amendment grounds. According to Captain Long, witnesses at the bar had observed the defendant threatening to kill the victim and burn his house down approximately one to two hours before the fire occurred that claimed the victim’s life. Moreover, the defendant failed to appear for his interview as he had agreed. Thus, the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant and take him into custody before he made his statement at the department. Because probable cause existed for the defendant’s arrest, the exclusionary rule does not require that his subsequent statement made while in lawful custody be suppressed. See id., 495 U.S. at 19, 110 S.Ct. at 1644; see also State v. Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d 666, 672 n. 8 (Tenn.1996) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, although we have determined that Options: A. holding that because code 19260 a procedural statute did not expressly provide a right of suppression of evidence a violation of that provision did not require application of the exclusionary rule in the absence of a constitutional violation B. holding of suspect incommunicado contributes to suppression of confession C. holding that under elstad the first question that must be answered when determining whether a subsequent confession is tainted by an earlier confession is whether the initial confession was obtained in violation of the defendants fifth amendment rights ie whether it was involuntary or whether the confession was voluntary but obtained in technical violation of miranda D. recognizing that violation of the fourth amendments rule against warrantless arrests in a dwelling generally does not lead to suppression of a postarrest confession E. holding that the fourth amendment remedy sought is suppression

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that violation of the fourth amendments rule against warrantless arrests in a dwelling generally does not lead to suppression of a postarrest confession
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: on Bailey’s current net income, of $970.51 per month, an amount lower than his former monthly net income of $1,200 per month. We remand this issue to the trial court with instructions to calculate and award retroactive child support to the date Bardin filed her counter-petition for support, based upon the child’s needs and Bailey’s ability to pay. III. Change of the Child’s Surname. The trial court changed the child’s legal surname from Bardin to Bailey despite the fact that Bailey offered no evidence that the change was in the best interests of the child. This court, in Collinsworth v. O’Connell, 508 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), held that the change of a child’s surname to that of the father, based only on a finding of paternity, is error. The Collinsworth court explained CA 1997)(<HOLDING>); Lazow v. Lazow, 147 So.2d 12, 14 (Fla. 3d DCA Options: A. holding that the trial court had erred in imposing an obligation to pay child support when clear and convincing evidence established that the husband was not the father of the child B. holding that the trial court abused its discretion in changing the surname of the child and explaining that the mere fact that paternity has been established does not automatically entitle the father to insist the child be given his surname C. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in changing the surname of the child where the court made factual findings that the name change would be in the best interest of the child D. holding in a paternity action that the selection and change of the childs surname from the name chosen by the mother must be based on the trial courts determination that renaming is in the childs best interests and the record must affirmatively show such a name change is required for the welfare of the minor child E. holding that a child was not barred by a former statute of limitations applicable to actions to establish the existence of a father and child relationship when the current action was to establish the nonexistence of a father and child relationship and the presumed father no longer persisted in maintaining paternity

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the trial court abused its discretion in changing the surname of the child and explaining that the mere fact that paternity has been established does not automatically entitle the father to insist the child be given his surname
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: Lessor ”), and recognize the Successor Lessor as lessor under this Lease, and, subject to the provisions of this Article XIII, this Lease shall continue in full force and effect as a direct lease between the Successor Lessor and Lessee, provided that the Successor Lessor shall only be liable for any obligations of Lessor under this Lease which accrue after the date that such Successor Lessor acquires title. The foregoing provision shall be self-operative and effective without the execution of any further instruments.

assistant: Successors
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: “subjects, or causes to be subjected,” a person to deprivation of a right. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see, e.g., Board of County Com’rs of Bryan County, Okl. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 402-03, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997). As assistant coaches and an athletic trainer, Defendants Palladino, Mr. Ducar, Ms. Ducar, and Prentice were not Defendant Dorrance’s supervisors and had no authority over his behavior. In the absence of legal control over Defendant Dorrance, these Defendants’ reporting omissions cannot be said to have affirmatively caused the alleged deprivation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Therefore, the § 1983, failure-to-report claims against Defendants Palladino, Mr. Ducar, Ms. Ducar, and Prentice must be dismissed. See Reid v. Kayye, 885 F.2d 129, 131-32 (4th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); see also Doe v. Rains County Indep. Sch. Options: A. holding that public defenders do not act under color of state law and therefore are not subject to suit under 42 usc 1983 B. holding that magistrate judge had jurisdiction to dismiss prison inmates action under 42 usc 1983 as frivolous without consent of defendants because defendants had not been served yet and therefore were not parties C. holding that a state university is not a person within the meaning of 1983 and therefore is not subject to suits brought under 1983 D. holding that states and state officials acting in their official capacities are not persons subject to liability under 1983 E. holding that defendants were not in control and therefore were not supervisors and not subject to liability under 1983

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that defendants were not in control and therefore were not supervisors and not subject to liability under 1983
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that the State of Colorado is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, and that the District Court properly dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim against Colorado for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We next turn to the court’s decision to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claim against the University of Colorado Board of Regents for lack of standing. We need not address this issue, however, because the Colorado Board of Regents is, like the state itself, entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Buchwald v. Univ. of N.M. Sch. of Med., 159 F.3d 487, 494 n. 3 (10th Cir. 1998) (“[W]e have no doubt that UNMSM, its Regents, and the Committee on Admissions are ‘arms of the state,’ entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.”); Lujan v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 69 F.3d 1511, 1522 (10th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Hensel v. Office of Chief Admin. Hearing Options: A. holding that the eleventh amendment protects a state from suit by its own citizens B. holding that the university of californias board of regents is shielded from suit under the eleventh amendment C. holding that a debtors adversary proceeding against the university of virginia to determine the dischargeability of a debt is a suit for eleventh amendment purposes D. holding that governors duty to nominate and appoint members of the board of regents of the university of hawaii is subject to a reasonable time standard judged by the totality of the circumstances E. holding that the department of corrections was entitled to eleventh amendment immunity from suit under section 1981

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the university of californias board of regents is shielded from suit under the eleventh amendment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: (b) Receiving Party may disclose Confidential Information of Disclosing Party in accordance with a judicial or other governmental order, provided that Receiving Party either (i) gives the undersigned Disclosing Party reasonable notice prior to such disclosure to allow Disclosing Party a reasonable opportunity to seek a protective order or equivalent, or

assistant: Yes
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: provision] as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction.” ' " Id. (quoting Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 239-40, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 3146, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985) (quoting Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 673, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1360-61, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974))). We conclude that the State did not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by filing a counterclaim in the circumstances of this case. See Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska v. Nebraska, 121 F.3d 427, 431 (8th Cir.1997) ("[T]he Nebraska assistant attorney general’s conduct in answering the complaint and filing a counterclaim does not constitute a waiver of Nebraska’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.”); American Fed’n of State, County and Mun. Employees v. Corrections Dep't, 783 F.Supp. 1320, 1327 (D.N.M.1992) (<HOLDING>); see also National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Options: A. holding that utah did not waive its eleventh amendment immunity with respect to a suit brought in federal court because state statute provided for exclusive original jurisdiction in its own courts B. holding that a plaintiff waived an argument that the defendant voluntarily waived its eleventh amendment immunity by removing the case from state to federal court by failing to raise it before the district court even though an intervening supreme court decision clarified the law in the plaintiffs favor C. holding that state did not waive eleventh amendment immunity by removing case to federal court D. holding that the nyshrl does not waive the new yorks eleventh amendment immunity to suit in federal court E. holding that new mexico did not waive eleventh amendment immunity by engaging in activities and entering contracts subject to federal regulation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that state did not waive eleventh amendment immunity by removing case to federal court
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 charged substantive crime. The indictment may only be read to also implicitly charge Dunne with either aiding and abetting in or causing someone else to commit the charged crime, i.e., the certification of the false documents. According ly, the government’s argument that the statut es not depend on everyday notions or ordinary meaning.” United States v. Jaynes, 75 F.3d 1493, 1506 (10th Cir. 1996) (quotations omitted). It “is not the same as a scheme or pattern of illegal conduct.” Id. Rather, it “is, in general, [an offense] that involves a prolonged course of conduct,” and “its commission is not complete until the conduct has run its course.” United States v. Rivera-Ventura, 72 F.3d 277, 281 (2d Cir.1995); see also United States v. De La Mata, 266 F.3d 1275, 1288 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 989, 122 S.Ct. 1543, Options: A. holding that because a 1326 violation constitutes a continuing offense venue may lie in any district in which the continuing conduct occurred B. holding that failure to appear is also a continuing offense C. holding that escape is a continuing offense because the escapee can be held liable for failure to return to custody and given the continuing threat to society posed by an escaped prisoner the nature of the crime involved is such that congress must assuredly have intended that it be treated as a continuing one quoting toussie 397 us at 115 90 sct 858 D. holding that a continuing offense is one which is not complete upon the first act but instead continues to be perpetrated over time E. holding that kidnapping is a continuing offense because the crime by its nature involves unlawful seizure and detention and the perpetration of the offense and harm to the victim continues throughout the duration of the detention

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a continuing offense is one which is not complete upon the first act but instead continues to be perpetrated over time
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: degree of state funding received by the entity; and 4) whether the entity may levy taxes or issue bonds. Sonnenfeld v. City and County of Denver, 100 F.3d at 749. “Historically, the most important consideration is whether a judgment against the entity would be paid from the state treasury.” Elam Construction, 129 F.3d at 1345. The district court reviewed these factors and concluded that the Board is not an arm of the state for Eleventh Amendment purposes. The Board argues that under Colorado law counties are “constituent parts of the state government subject to the plenary control of the Governor and the Colorado General Assembly.” Even so, a county is not considered an arm of the state for Eleventh Amendment immunity purposes. See Wigger v. McKee, 809 P.2d 999, 1003 (Colo.App.1990) (<HOLDING>). The county defendants in the present action Options: A. holding that the anne arundel board of education is an arm of the state for purposes of eleventh amendment immunity B. holding that an ohio school district is more like a county or city than it is like an arm of the state and therefore it is not entitled to assert eleventh amendment immunity from suit C. holding that a county is not an arm of the state for purposes of the eleventh amendment D. holding that the university of colorado is an arm of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity E. holding that the supreme court of pennsylvania is a state entity for purposes of the eleventh amendment

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a county is not an arm of the state for purposes of the eleventh amendment
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 Guarantor shall have no further liability or obligation under this Guaranty from and after the earliest of (a) a written agreement between the Guarantor and the Beneficiary terminating the obligations and liabilities of the Guarantor pursuant to this Guaranty and (b) the termination of the Purchase Agreement in accordance with its terms.

assistant: Terminations