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: facts underlying the charges for which the defendant had been acquitted were an “integral and natural part of an account of the [defendant’s] crimef.]” The same cannot be said for the facts at issue here, which relate to a seizure that occurred on an entirely different occasion. For that reason, we do not find either Agee or Solomon directly relevant to the present controversy. As a result, we will first examine the challenged evidence in light of the principles traditionally employed in evaluating challenges to evidence admitted pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b), which focus on the similarity between the prior incident and the incident that underlies the current charges against the defendant. See Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 348, 107 L. Ed. 2d 708, 717 (1990) (<HOLDING>). To be sure, the events of 10 February 2005 Options: A. holding that collateral estoppel component of tire double jeopardy clause did not preclude government from introducing defendants prior acquittal at trial because government was presented with lower standard of proof in the later case B. holding that the estoppel doctrine did not apply because unlike the situation in ashe v swenson the prior acquittal did not determine an ultimate issue in the present case C. holding that a prior acquittal does not preclude the admission of evidence of a defendants other alleged crimes in a prosecution for the bank robbery on the basis of collateral estoppel principles because the prior acquittal did not determine an ultimate issue in the present case D. holding that a criminal acquittal does not have collateral estoppel effect on a later civil forfeiture proceeding based on the same conduct E. holding that there is no need for a formal motion for a judgment of acquittal in a bench trial because the plea of not guilty asks the court for a judgment of acquittal

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a prior acquittal does not preclude the admission of evidence of a defendants other alleged crimes in a prosecution for the bank robbery on the basis of collateral estoppel principles because the prior acquittal did not determine an ultimate issue in the present case
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: by a prosecution witness, that there was a third individual involved in the October 8 robbery — specifically, a second individual riding in the van. Notably, counsel observed that the jury had "all the instructions on aiding and abetting,” and he did not accept the court’s invitation to comment further on the court’s proposed response. 6 . Under the Government’s theory of the case, Hopson appeared on the scene of the crime as the driver of the getaway van. 7 . We agree that the Government adduced sufficient evidence to satisfy the jurisdictional element as presently interpreted by this court. For example, Sanese's owner testified that Sánese uses money from its vending machines to purchase a variety of out-of-state goods. See United States v. Smith, 182 F.3d 452, 456 (6th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). 8 . We note that Hopson apparently failed to Options: A. holding that because the victims which were robbed of money by the defendant did substantial business in beer wine and tobacco products virtually none of which originated in the state where the victims did business the government had demonstrated a de minimis effect on interstate commerce B. holding that the requisite effect on interstate commerce for a 18 usc 1951 conviction is demonstrated by inter alia evidence that restaurant robbed by defendant had often purchased food products from outofstate vendors and that the money taken by defendant would have been used to buy more food products C. holding that dairy products that originated outside of texas and shipped to texas then stopped in dallas were part of a continuous movement in interstate commerce the truck drivers who delivered the products locally in texas were engaged in interstate commerce for purpose of the motor carrier act exemption D. holding that the government can satisfy the hobbs act interstate commerce requirement by showing that the robbery resulted in the closure of a business engaged in interstate commerce E. holding that the offense of sexual battery requires the state prove the victims lack of consent regardless of the victims age and charge the jury on the same

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that because the victims which were robbed of money by the defendant did substantial business in beer wine and tobacco products virtually none of which originated in the state where the victims did business the government had demonstrated a de minimis effect on interstate commerce
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 has complied and is presently complying, in all material respects, with all laws, rules, regulations, orders and requirements (federal, state and local and foreign) applicable to it in all jurisdictions where the business of the COMPANY is conducted or to which the COMPANY is subject, including all requisite filings with the SEC. The COM-PANY has not made any misrepresentation nor has omitted any material facts in any of its SEC filings to date.

assistant: Compliance With 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any dispute or claim concerning any Stock Awards granted (or not granted) pursuant to the Plan or any disputes or claims relating to or arising out of the Plan shall be fully, finally and exclusively resolved by binding and confidential arbitration conducted pursuant to the rules of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (“ JAMS ”) in the County of San Diego, California. In addition to any other relief, the arbitrator may award to the prevailing party recovery of its attorneys’ fees and costs. By accepting a Stock Award, Participants and the Company waive their respective rights to have any such disputes or claims tried by a judge or jury.

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: “ ‘[I]f the circuit court is correct for any reason, even though it may not be the stated reason, we will not reverse its denial of the petition.’ ” Scroggins v. State, 827 So.2d 878, 880 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), quoting Reed v. State, 748 So.2d 231, 233 (Ala.Crim.App.1999). L Slaton contends that the circuit court erred in adopting the State’s proposed order as its own. Specifically, he argues that by adopting the State’s proposed order, the circuit court denied him “a full and fair hearing by a neutral factfinder.” (Slaton’s brief at p. 64.) As the State correctly points out in its brief to this Court, this issue was never presented to the circuit court; therefore, it is not properly before this Court for review. See, e.g., Whitehead v. State, 593 So.2d 126, 130 (Ala.Crim.App.l991)(<HOLDING>). ' However, even assuming that this issue is Options: A. holding that despite the merits of the argument the appellant raised on appeal the issue was not preserved for judicial review because it was not raised before the administrative agency B. holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court erred in failing to make specific findings of fact as to all claims in the appellants rule 32 petition was not preserved for review because the appellant did not first present the claim to the circuit court C. holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court failed to make specific findings of fact relating to issues raised at an evidentiary hearing on the appellants postconviction petition was not preserved for review because the appellant did not raise the issue in the circuit court D. holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court improperly adopted the states proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order denying the appellants postconviction petition was not preserved for review because the appellant never objected to the circuit courts order E. holding that claim that the circuit courts order was deficient because it did not include specific findings of fact regarding each is sue was not preserved for review where it was not raised in the circuit court

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that claim that the circuit courts order was deficient because it did not include specific findings of fact regarding each is sue was not preserved for review where it was not raised in the circuit 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: religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). To establish persecution on account of a political opinion, the asylum applicant must demonstrate “that the persecution arises from his own political opinion, actual or imputed.” Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2010). Persecution on account of a political opinion is a ground for asylum when committed by the government or by private actors whose actions the government has proven unwilling or unable to control. See Pavlova v. INS, 441 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir.2006). Both this Court and the BIA recognize that opposition to corruption may contain a political dimension that constitutes a protected ground. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 547-48 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Matter of N-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 526 (BIA Options: A. recognizing that purely personal retribution is of course not persecution on account of political opinion but holding that when the alleged government corruption is inextricably intertwined with governmental operation the exposure and prosecution of such an abuse of public trust is necessarily political B. holding that forced recruitment does not amount to persecution without a showing that it was on account of petitioners political opinion C. holding that persecution was on account of political opinion because petitioners prosecutorial investigation into acts of political corruption was by its very nature political D. holding that retaliation for opposition to government corruption can constitute persecution on account of a political opinion E. holding that attempted conscription by a guatemalan guerrilla group did not constitute persecution on account of a political opinion where petitioner failed to show that the group was motivated by his political opinion

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that retaliation for opposition to government corruption can constitute persecution on account of a political opinion
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same instrument and shall become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the Parties and delivered to the other Parties.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: evidence of resume fraud to be used as a complete defense to a breach of implied contract claim, we are not suggesting that the employment relationship never existed. Rather, we me preventing an employee from using fraud to take advantage of the Keenan exception to employment at-will by allowing the employer to rescind its agreement to adhere to termination procedures contained in an employment manual. 12 . We limit our holding here to resume fraud and do not address whether sifter-acquired evidence of post-hire misconduct would be similarly analyzed. 13 . Although McKennon arose in the context of post-hire misconduct, its holding applies to cases in which an employee's misconduct consists of resume fraud as well. See Wallace v. Dunn Constr. Co., 62 F.3d 374, 378-79 (11th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Wehr v. Ryan’s Family Steak Houses, Inc., 49 Options: A. holding the constitutional rule announced in apprendi does not prohibit a district court from finding by a preponderance of the evidence facts relevant to the application of the guidelines B. holding that the afteracquired evidence rule announced in mckennon applies to cases in which the afteracquired evidence concerns the employees misrepresentations in a job application or resume C. holding that rule announced in mcconnell applies retroactively D. holding that the rule announced in ring does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review E. holding that mckennons discussion on afteracquired evidence did not apply to a title vii failuretohire action and the evidence to which plaintiff objected was nonetheless admissible to show that plaintiffs prima facie case was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the afteracquired evidence rule announced in mckennon applies to cases in which the afteracquired evidence concerns the employees misrepresentations in a job application or resume
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: (2000). See Smith v. Smith, 737 So.2d 641, 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Margarita now earns more than she was earning before the dissolution proceedings began. She “voluntarily” sought additional income through full-time instead of part-time employment. The trial court properly and carefully considered Margarita’s recent work history and occupational qualifications before determining that income should not be imputed to her. There is no requirement that a person be employed earning the highest wages available in his or her field. See Daniel v. Moats, 718 So.2d 949, 949-50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Given the trial court’s broad discretion in this matter, we find no error in the court’s decision not to impute income to Margarita. See Pribble v. Pribble, 800 So.2d 743, 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>). Domingo also contends that the trial court Options: A. holding that in determining the amount of income to impute to a party the court does not necessarily have to impute the amount of income the party would earn by his or her best efforts to gain employment equal to the parties capabilities B. holding that when trial court orders restitution at sentencing pursuant to statute the defendant is entitled to notice of the amount claimed and the opportunity to dispute the amount C. holding that wrongfully discharged employee is entitled to damages in the amount due during the remainder of the wrongfully terminated contract offset by the amount of income which employee received from other employment during the remainder of the contract period D. holding that a claimant is required to establish a physical inability to follow any occupation from which he can earn a reasonably substantial income rising to the dignity of an income or livelihood although the income may not be as much as was earned prior to the disability E. holding that because the amount of the debtors obligation to the government exceeded the amount of their income tax refund the refund did not become property of the estate and could not be exempted

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that in determining the amount of income to impute to a party the court does not necessarily have to impute the amount of income the party would earn by his or her best efforts to gain employment equal to the parties capabilities
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: If any provision of this Debenture is invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the balance of this Debenture shall remain in effect, and if any provision is inapplicable to any Person or circumstance, it shall nevertheless remain applicable to all other Persons and circumstances. If it shall be found that any interest or other amount deemed interest due hereunder violates the applicable law governing usury, the applicable rate of interest due hereunder shall automatically be lowered to equal the maximum rate of interest permitted under applicable law. Company covenants (to the extent that it may lawfully do so) that it shall not at any time insist upon, plead, or in any manner whatsoever claim or take the benefit or advantage of, any stay, extension or usury law or other law which would prohibit or forgive Company from paying all or any portion of the principal of or interest on this Debenture as contemplated herein, wherever enacted, now or at any time hereafter in force, or which may affect the covenants or the performance of this Debenture, and Company (to the extent it may lawfully do so) hereby expressly waives all benefits or advantage of any such law, and covenants that it will not, by resort to any such law, hinder, delay or impede the execution of any power herein granted to Holder, but will suffer and permit the execution of every such as though no such law has been enacted.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: `` user content '' means any communications , images , sounds , and all the material , data , and information that you upload or transmit through a supercell game client or the service , or that other users upload or transmit , including without limitation any chat text .

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: The Borrower and each Lender, including the LC Issuers, hereby acknowledge and agree that Citibank and/or its Affiliates from time to time may hold investments in, make other loans to or have other relationships with the Borrower and its Affiliates.

assistant: Disclosures
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: interest in monitoring probationers. See Griffin, 483 U.S. at 876, 107 S.Ct. 3164. In Samson, the Supreme Court held that the state had a legitimate supervisory interest in warrantless, suspicionless searches of parolees. Samson, 126 S.Ct. at 2200-01. Specifically, this interest was considered legitimate because parolees are more likely to commit crimes in the future, and expeditious supervisory measures are required in order to prevent parolees from having the opportunity to “anticipate searches and conceal criminality.” Id. at 2201. This rationale finds foundation in the impracticability of obtaining a search warrant, a rationale similar to the underlying motivation used to support the administrative or “special needs” exception. See Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 770, 86 S.Ct. 1826 (<HOLDING>). The search at issue in Samson involved a Options: A. holding officer liable for deprivation of constitutional rights despite argument that officer although present was not in control of the situation B. holding a search permissible where the officer reasonably believed he faced an emergency situation that would result in the destruction of evidence C. recognizing emergency exception D. holding that the court must consider the totality of the circumstance when determining whether a law enforcement officer faced an emergency that justified acting without a warrant E. holding that a military police officer was entitled to qualified immunity from an excessive force suit when he objectively reasonably believed that he used reasonable force

assistant: The best answer is B. holding a search permissible where the officer reasonably believed he faced an emergency situation that would result in the destruction of evidence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns permitted hereby, except that neither the Company nor any other Loan Party may assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the Administrative Agent and each Lender and no Lender may assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights or obligations hereunder except (i) to an assignee in accordance with the provisions of subsection (b) of this Section or (ii) by way of participation in accordance with the provisions of subsection (d) of this Section (and any other attempted assignment or transfer by any party hereto shall be null and void). Nothing in this Agreement, expressed or implied, shall be construed to confer upon any Person (other than the parties hereto, their respective successors and assigns permitted hereby, Participants to the extent provided in subsection (d) of this Section and, to the extent expressly contemplated hereby, the Related Parties of each of the Administrative Agent, the L/C Issuers and the Lenders) any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Agreement.

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: See, e.g., Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith, 307 S.W.3d 762, 775 (Tex.2010) (“As to landowners, we have recognized negligent-activity and premises-liability theories of liability.”). But Occidental neither owned nor controlled the plant at the time of Jenkins’s injury. For the reasons discussed below, we decline to impose the elements of a premises defect claim on the jury’s negligent design finding. See e.g., Barzoukas v. Found. Design, Ltd., 363 S.W.3d 829, 838 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. filed) (op. on reh’g) (finding question of fact on negligence claim against engineering firm based on foundation design work); Goose Creek Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. of Chambers & Harris Cntys., Tex. v. Jarrar’s Plumbing, Inc., 74 S.W.3d 486, 495 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>); J.D. Abrams, Inc. v. McIver, 966 S.W.2d 87, Options: A. holding that the owner could maintain a 93a claim against the subcontractor where there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the owner was the thirdparty beneficiary of the contract between the general contractor and the subcontractor B. holding that where contract between contractor and subcontractor allowed subcontractor to recover if contractor recovered contractor was not barred from bringing suit on behalf of subcontractor C. holding that a subcontractor could not recover on theory of quantum meruit for an implied contract against general contractor where condition precedent to payment under express contract was not satisfied D. holding that subcontractor could recover damages from general contractor for delay in performance under state law E. holding that school district could recover against plumbing subcontractor for negligent construction of pipes

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that school district could recover against plumbing subcontractor for negligent construction of pipes
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 Executive represents and warrants that (a) the Executive has been properly paid for all hours worked and has received all wages, bonuses, vacation pay, expense reimbursements and any other sums due from the Company (with the exception of the Separation Benefits); (b) the Executive has returned all Company property in the Executive’s possession or control and has permanently deleted any Confidential Information stored on any electronic device, web- based email or other storage location not owned by the Company but within the Executive’s possession or control; (c) the Executive is not aware that she has suffered any work-related injury or occupational disease during the course of the Executive’s employment with the Company, which the Executive has not reported in writing to the Company; (d) the Executive has not filed any complaints, claims or actions against the Company or any other Released Party; and (e) the Executive has not assigned, transferred, conveyed or otherwise disposed of any Released Claims.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: monetary penalty, including restitution, shall make such payment immediately, unless ... the court provides for payment on a date certain or in installments.” 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(1). With restitution, the MVRA also mandates that the sentencing order include a payment schedule in consideration of the defendant’s economic circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2). Importantly, there is no analogous requirement for the imposition of fines. According to Gonzalez-Rivera’s § 2241 petition, the court at resen-tencing found that “the defendant has the wherewithal to earn [the $750 fine] in prison work programs, and that [it] is payable immediately.” The sentencing court’s order for immediate payment of the fine was permissible. See United States v. Ellis, 522 F.3d 737, 738-39 (7th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the Options: A. holding that an agency may not delegate its public duties to private entities B. holding that an inmate stated a claim under the due process clause when guards had placed her in a cell with a dangerous inmate C. holding that a sentence not in compliance with the mandatory provisions of a sentencing statute was illegal and appealable D. holding that 18 usc 3582a prevents a sentencing court from imposing or lengthening a prison term because the court thinks an offender will benefit from a prison treatment program E. holding that sentencing court did not improperly delegate its authority when it ordered that fine payments are due immediately but may be paid from prison earnings in compliance with the inmate financial responsibility program

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that sentencing court did not improperly delegate its authority when it ordered that fine payments are due immediately but may be paid from prison earnings in compliance with the inmate financial responsibility program
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: There is no action, suit, arbitration, investigation or proceeding pending against or, to the best of Buyer’s knowledge, threatened against or affecting any Purchased Asset before any court or arbitrator or any governmental body, agency or official.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement has been, and each other Loan Document, when delivered hereunder, will have been, duly executed and delivered by each Loan Party that is party thereto. This Agreement constitutes, and each other Loan Document when so delivered will constitute, a legal, valid and binding obligation of such Loan Party, enforceable against each Loan Party that is party thereto in accordance with its terms, except as the enforceability hereof or thereof may be limited by (a) bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium, fraudulent transfer or other laws now or hereafter in effect relating to creditors’ rights generally (including specific performance) and (b) general equitable principles (whether considered in a proceeding in equity or at law), and to the discretion of the court before which any proceeding may be brought.

assistant: Binding Effects
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 the Executive's Termination of Employment with the Control Group due to his death, the Company shall pay any amounts due to the Executive under Section 5 through the date of his death in accordance with the payment provisions of Section 5 and Section 13.

assistant: Death
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 confidentiality protections afforded by the Mediation Order. A. The Defendants Have Not Established a Special Need for Mediation Communications Under the first prong of the Teli-gent test, a movant seeking to modify a protective order must establish “improvidence in the grant of the order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need.” Teligent, 640 F.3d at 59 (quoting SEC v. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222, 229 (2d Cir.2001)); see Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola, Inc., 165 Fed.Appx. 878, 880 (2d Cir.2005) (affirming denial of motion to modify protective order on the” basis that movant “had not shown a compelling need or extraordinary circumstances necessary to modify the protective order”); Martindell v. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 296 (2d Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>); see also Dandong, 2012 WL 4793870, at *5 Options: A. holding that a defendant has the right to an order permitting him to inspect his own written or recorded statements absent a basis for a protective order B. holding that a protective order under rule 26c to stay discovery pending determination of a dispositive motion is an appropriate exercise of the courts discretion C. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it modified a protective order after settlement to permit public access to pretrial materials in spite of a protective order to the contrary which it viewed as having had been initially justified D. holding that the public records act does not mandate disclosure of documents sealed by a protective order entered pursuant to the tennessee rules of civil procedure E. holding that a protective order granted pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 26c should not be modified absent a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a protective order granted pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 26c should not be modified absent a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need
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: all subpoenas must be properly served on amazon.com , preferably by mailing the subpoena to corporation service company ( csc ) , amazon 's national registered agent .

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: was secured — can we determine how readily he could have obtained a weapon located just a step or two into the kitchen. In short, without further findings of fact on these issues, which may require taking additional testimony, the record is inadequate to establish whether sufficient potential danger remained, even after Go-ree’s detention, to create an exigency justifying the warrantless search. ■' In such circumstances, a remand for further proceedings is appropriate. See United States v. Hutchinson, 268 F.3d 1117, 1118 (D.C.Cir.2001) (remanding because the district court failed to make “findings of fact essential to decide [the] legal issue” of whether a Terry stop was excessive); United States v. Williams, 951 F.2d 1287, 1291 (D.C.Cir.1991) (remanding for factual findin ir.2000) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted); United Options: A. holding that the government must proffer clear evidence of an independent untainted investigation that inevitably would have uncovered the same evidence as that discovered through the illegal search B. holding that posttrial discovery of asserted newly discovered evidence did not satisfy the requirement that the evidence must be such as with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and produced at trial C. recognizing that a passenger in an automobile that is stopped may on the basis that it was illegal move to suppress evidence uncovered as a direct result of the stop D. holding that to justify a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence 1 the evidence must have been discovered after trial 2 the failure to discover this evidence must not be attributable to a lack of due diligence on the part of the movant 3 the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching 4 the evidence must be material and 5 the evidence must be likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is granted E. holding that the defendants evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the government must proffer clear evidence of an independent untainted investigation that inevitably would have uncovered the same evidence as that discovered through the illegal search
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and intentional violation of his rights. Port Authority argues that Vernon is not entitled to punitive damages. Although the Second Circuit has not decided this issue, this Court has held that the Port Authority, as a government entity, is immune from punitive damages. See Rose v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 13 F.Supp.2d 516, 524 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (Leisure, J.). The Court reasoned that municipalities are immune from punitive damages, and as such, entities created by a bi-state compact, such as Port Authority, should be similarly immune. See id. (citing City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 261, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981)). A number of courts have agreed. See King v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 909 F.Supp. 938 (D.N.J.1995), aff'd, 106 F.3d 385 (3d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Bolden v. Southeastern Penn. Trans. Auth., Options: A. holding that a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 usc 1983 B. holding that regional transit authority is immune from punitive damages C. holding that the state is immune from punitive awards D. holding that in the absence of statutory provisions to the contrary municipal corporations are immune from punitive damages E. holding that port authority is immune from punitive damages

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that regional transit authority is immune from punitive damages
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: clearly states that the precise location of an easement need not be designated for the easement to be valid. See McConnell v. Golden, 104 R.I. 657, 663, 247 A.2d 909, 912 (1968). Instead, the holders of the dominant estate are entitled to a convenient, suitable, and accessible easement of way. Id. Therefore, despite the lack of specificity in the original writing that created the easement, plaintiffs are entitled to the use of “a rear roadway, at least ten feet in width,” to be “kept open so that vehicles can reach the rear of the building [once] known as First National Store Since this language was referenced in defendant’s deed, and because it has not been modified by subsequent instrument, it remains in effect. See Crawford Realty Co. v. Ostrow, 89 R.I. 12, 19, 150 A.2d 5, 9 (1959) (<HOLDING>). There is no question that defendant caused a Options: A. holding that an express easement ran with the dominant estate B. holding that increase in vehicular traffic arising out of the subdivision of the dominant estate was reasonably foreseeable and so did not restrict the rights of the dominant owner C. recognizing that the dominant easement owner not the servient estate owner bears responsibility for maintaining an easement D. holding that the dominant tenement a power company rather than the servient tenement had affirmative duties of inspection and repair related to its easement E. holding that the owner of the dominant tenement may extinguish an easement appurtenant by specifically excluding it from a conveyance of the dominant estate

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the owner of the dominant tenement may extinguish an easement appurtenant by specifically excluding it from a conveyance of the dominant estate
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 insurance policies and other bonds to which any Loan Party is a party provide adequate coverage from reputable and financially sound insurers in amounts sufficient to insure the assets and risks of each Loan Party and each Subsidiary of any Loan Party in accordance with customary business practice in the industry of the Loan Parties and their Subsidiaries and owning similar properties in localities where the Loan Parties and their Subsidiaries are located.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) This Agreement is personal to Executive and without the prior written consent of the Company shall not be assignable by Executive, except for the assignment by will or the laws of descent and distribution, and any assignment in violation of this Agreement shall be void. The Company may only assign this Agreement, and its rights and obligations hereunder, in accordance with the terms of Section 13(b) hereof, or to an affiliate of the Company, provided that any such assignee expressly agrees to assume in writing and perform all obligations of the Company 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 555 U.S. at 236, 129 S.Ct. 808. In light of the above discussion, we can reasonably assume both that El-lins’s protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in Diaz’s decision, and that Diaz would not have delayed signing Ellins’s P.O.S.T. application in the absence of his protected speech. Ellins’s First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for engaging in protected speech was clearly established in 2009 when Diaz allegedly delayed the signing of his P.O.S.T. application. Forty years previously, in 1968, the Supreme Court established that public employees have a First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for commenting on matters of public concern, even when the protected comments are critical of their employers. Pickering, 391 U.S. at 571, 88 S.Ct. 1731 (<HOLDING>). In Connick, decided in 1983, the Supreme Options: A. holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern B. holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours C. holding that a school districts policy which limited and restricted teachers speech criticizing other staff members administrators or school board members by restricting the audience to which such criticisms could be directed was contentbased because it distinguished between favored and disfavored speech on the basis of the views expressed D. holding that a teacher could not be dismissed for criticizing school boards budget management even though the criticism included false allegations against board members because the speech addressed a matter of public concern and the speech did not prevent the school districts efficient functioning E. holding speech about reasons for school principals resignation a matter of public concern

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a teacher could not be dismissed for criticizing school boards budget management even though the criticism included false allegations against board members because the speech addressed a matter of public concern and the speech did not prevent the school districts efficient functioning
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: Purchasers acknowledge that except as expressly provided in Article 2 of this Agreement, Seller has not made, and Seller hereby expressly disclaims and negates, and each of the Purchasers hereby expressly waive, any other representation or warranty, express, implied, at Law or otherwise relating to the Acquired Interests, Seller or Seller Affiliates, the Project Company, the Wind Project or this Agreement.

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

user: The Receiving Party may disclose Confidential Information if required by a judicial or governmental request, requirement or order; provided that the Receiving Party will take reasonable steps to give the Disclosing Party sufficient prior notice of such request, requirement or order for the Disclosing Party to contest, limit or protect such disclosure.

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: membership in a prison gang. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir.2005) (res judicata); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003) (failure to exhaust). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the due process claims because they have already been litigated by the parties or their privies in state court. See Acuna v. Kirkland, No. HC-PB-05-0005242, slip op. at 1 (Cal.Super.Ct. Oct. 6, 2006); In re Arcadio Acuna, No. HCPB06-5235, slip op. at 3 (Cal.Super.Ct. Apr. 6, 2007); see also Kay v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 504 F.3d 803, 808 (9th Cir.2007) (setting forth elements of res judicata under California law); Silverton v. Dep’t of Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1347 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). The district court properly dismissed the Options: A. 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 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 common issue of fault was actually litigated in prior property damage suit and determined adversely to plaintiff and therefore fault could not be relitigated in subsequent per sonal injury action under issue preclusion D. holding that because of the nature of a state habeas proceeding a decision actually rendered should preclude an identical issue from being relitigated in a subsequent 1983 action if the state habeas court afforded a full and fair opportunity for the issue to be heard and determined under federal standards E. holding that a state habeas proceeding decided on the merits precluded a section 1983 action in federal court

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that because of the nature of a state habeas proceeding a decision actually rendered should preclude an identical issue from being relitigated in a subsequent 1983 action if the state habeas court afforded a full and fair opportunity for the issue to be heard and determined under federal standards
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: contact another member for any purpose other than asking a question related to a your own booking , listing , or the member 's use of the airbnb platform , including , but not limited to , recruiting or otherwise soliciting any member to join third-party services , applications or websites , without our prior written approval ;

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: GUARANTOR AND BENEFICIARY HEREBY JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY WAIVE ANY AND ALL RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING RELATING TO THIS GUARANTY. GUARANTOR AND BENEFICIARY EACH REPRESENTS TO THE OTHER THAT THIS WAIVER IS KNOWINGLY, WILLINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY GIVEN.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials