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: breach of the rule established in Edwards is [ ] a technical violation of Miranda, not a Fifth Amendment violation.”). Accordingly, even if we were to accept Howard’s argument that his statement to Polk, including his request to speak to the FBI, was obtained in violation of Edwards, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine would not bar-admission of Howard’s confessions to Agent Battle and Lieutenant Hitch-ins. Only if Howard could show that his statement to Polk was obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination and that insufficient time had passed to dissipate the taint, might the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine bar admission of Howard’s subsequent confessions to Agent Battle and Lieutenant Hitch-ins. Cf. Correll, 63 F.3d at 1290 (<HOLDING>). The Fifth Amendment guarantees that “[n]o Options: A. holding that question of whether a confession was coerced was not to be resolved by considering the truth or falsity of the confession B. holding that a confession obtained in violation of miranda was admissible for impeachment C. holding that question is whether defendants will was overborne by police at the time of the confession D. 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 E. holding that trial judges determination of the admissibility of a confession is based on whether the confession was voluntarily given

assistant: The best answer is D. 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
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 post-1978 refinancing of a debt did not constitute a novation, thus debtor could not avoid liens on equipment it owned prior to the 1978 enactment of the Bankruptcy Code where no new money was advanced, no additional security was encumbered, and varying the term of years and interest rates was done to benefit the debtor); In re Hemingson, 84 B.R. 604 (Bankr.D.Minn.1988) (<HOLDING>); Geist v. Converse County Bank (In re Geist), Options: A. holding that in georgia pursuant to 9107 of the ucc refinancing of a promissory note transforms the obligation thereby destroying purchase money nature of the security interest therefore the creditor lost its purchase money security interest pmsi in a television set when the loans were consolidated and lien was avoidable id 89 br 264 18 bcd 58 B. holding that there was no presumption of a gift where the wifes money was used to make the purchase but title was placed in the name of the husband and finding the facts sufficient to establish a purchase money resulting trust in favor of the wife C. holding that under minnesota law refinancing and consolidation of purchase money loans did not destroy their purchase money character for bankruptcy lien avoidance purposes D. holding that a purchase money security in jewelry was not lost when the perfected purchase money security interest was consolidated with a subsequent retail installment contract E. holding section 501 applies to both purchase money and refinancing mortgages

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that under minnesota law refinancing and consolidation of purchase money loans did not destroy their purchase money character for bankruptcy lien avoidance purposes
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 convincing the jury that [the plaintiff] would have been terminated in the absence of First Amendment protected activity. See Mt. Healthy [City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle], 429 U.S. [274,] at 287, 97 S.Ct. [568,] at 576 [(1977)]; Tindal [v. Montgomery County Comm’n], 32 F.3d [1535,] at 1540 [(11th Cir.1994)]; Bryson [v. City of Way cross], 888 F.2d [1562,] at 1565 [(11th Cir.1989)]. Nevertheless, if [the plaintiff] produced enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that a retaliatory animus substantially motivated his termination, [the defendants] could only rebut this showing by convincing the jury, not the court, that a legitimate reason justified the decision. See Pullman-Standard [v. Swint], 456 U.S. [273,] at 289-90, 102 S.Ct. [1781,] at 1790-91 [(1982)] (<HOLDING>); Bell v. Birmingham Linen Service, 715 F.2d Options: A. holding defendants proffer of a false reason for employment action sufficient basis for trier of fact to find that such action was motivated by an improper discriminatory intent B. holding that matters of statutory construction are questions of law for the court to decide rather than issues of fact C. holding that the issue of discriminatory intent in a race discrimination case is a factual question for the trier of fact whose findings are reviewed only for clear error D. holding that issues of discriminatory intent and actual motivation are questions of fact for the trier of fact E. holding issues of fact in dispute are solely for the jury

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that issues of discriminatory intent and actual motivation are questions of fact for 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notices provided for in your Award or the Plan shall be given in writing and shall be deemed effectively given upon receipt or, in the case of notices delivered by the Company to you, five (5) days after deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to you at the last address you provided to the Company. Any such notices from the Company to you may also be delivered to you at the last email address you provided to the Company.

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 Agreement, those documents expressly referred to herein (including the Exchange Agreement, the Registration Rights Agreement and the Tax Receivable Agreement), any indemnity agreements entered into in connection with the First Amended and Restated LLC Agreement with any member of the board of managers at that time and other documents of even date herewith embody the complete agreement and understanding among the parties and supersede and preempt any prior understandings, agreements or representations by or among the parties, written or oral, which may have related to the subject matter hereof in any way. For the avoidance of doubt, the First Amended and Restated LLC Agreement is superseded by this Agreement as of the Effective Time and shall be of no further force and effect thereafter.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If and whenever this Note shall be assigned and transferred, or negotiated, including transfers to substitute or successor trustees, in each case subject to applicable law and the availability of an exemption from registration for such transfer, which shall be approved by the Company subject to the Holder providing the Company a legal opinion for such transfer, which opinion shall be reasonably accepted by the Company, the holder hereof shall be deemed the “ Holder ” for all purposes under this Note.

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: Without duplication of any obligation of the Borrower under Section 9.05 , in addition to amounts payable as provided herein, the Borrower hereby agrees to protect, indemnify, defend, pay and save harmless the Issuing Bank from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, damages, losses, costs, charges and expenses (including reasonable fees, expenses and disbursements of counsel) which the Issuing Bank may incur or be subject to as a consequence, direct or indirect, of (i) the issuance of any Letter of Credit by the Issuing Bank, other than as a result of (1) the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the Issuing Bank (as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction by final and nonappealable judgment) or (2) the wrongful dishonor by the Issuing Bank of a proper demand for payment made under any Letter of Credit issued by it, or (ii) the failure of the Issuing Bank to honor a drawing under any Letter of Credit as a result of any Governmental Act. The indemnity and other obligations of the Borrower under this Section 2.04 shall not apply with respect to Taxes, other than any Taxes that represent losses, claims, damages, etc., arising from any non-Tax claim.

assistant: Indemnifications
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: First Circuit held that “[t]he same [Pearce] presumption may arise when a criminal defendant rejects a plea agreement — and with it the prospect of a more lenient sentence — and elects instead to exercise his constitutional right to a jury trial.” Correia, 364 F.3d at 388 (citing Johnson v. Vose, 927 F.2d 10, 11 (1st Cir.1991)); accord Jones v. Poole, No. 05-cv-0886, 2010 WL 1949599, at *36 (W.D.N.Y. May 13, 2010). “ ‘[T]he evil the [Pearce ] Court sought to prevent’ was not the imposition of ‘enlarged sentences after a new trial’ but ‘vindictiveness of a sentencing judge.’ ” Smith, 490 U.S. at 799, 109 S.Ct. 2201 (quoting Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134, 138, 106 S.Ct. 976, 89 L.Ed.2d 104 (1986) and citing Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17, 25, 93 S.Ct. 1977, 36 L.Ed.2d 714 (1973) (<HOLDING>)). Similarly, in appeals on federal cases, Options: A. holding that the trial courts apparent consideration of the defendants national origin during sentencing amounted to a due process violation and required resentencing by a different judge B. holding that the amount of alimony should not be reduced to a mathematical formula because the need for flexibility outweighs the need for relative certainty C. recognizing need for flexibility and discretion by the secretary in section 13c certifications D. holding that the pearce presumption was not designed to prevent the imposition of an increased sentence on retrial for some valid reason associated with the need for flexibility and discretion in the sentencing process but was premised on the apparent need to guard against vindictiveness in the resentencing process E. holding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award the increased child support retroactive to the date of the petition for modification because the childs increased need for support and the former husbands ability to pay the increased child support existed at the time the former wifes petition for modification was filed

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the pearce presumption was not designed to prevent the imposition of an increased sentence on retrial for some valid reason associated with the need for flexibility and discretion in the sentencing process but was premised on the apparent need to guard against vindictiveness in the resentencing process
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: U.S. 1013, 113 S.Ct. 635, 121 L.Ed.2d 566 (1992), as authority for the application of the motor carrier exemption to the overtime provisions of the FLSA. The Tenth Circuit determined the relevant factual issue to be whether any of the employee’s duties had a substantial effect on motor veMcle safety. Id. at 1025. SMC asserts a driver’s duties are by their very nature safety affeetmg, and have been defined as such under the statute. SMC contends the failure of the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) to exercise its authority to regulate lightweight veMcles (such as the passenger van Bowe drove for SMC) did not serve as a forfeiture of that power as Bowe suggests; rather the DOT specifically retained that power. See Friedrich v. U.S. Computer Services, 974 F.2d 409, 415 (3d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). SMC asserts the material issue m determining Options: A. holding that due process rights were not violated by the district court failing to expressly articulate that it was imposing sanctions pursuant to its inherent power B. holding that states were permitted to regulate intrastate airfares C. holding that state court could regulate the practice of law in federal courts located in the state D. holding that dot expressly retained its power to regulate lightweight vemcles E. recognizing right of this court to regulate and discipline members of the bar

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that dot expressly retained its power to regulate lightweight vemcles
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 Parent Guarantor Joinder Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. Delivery of an executed signature page to this Parent Guarantor Joinder Agreement by facsimile or electronic transmission shall be as effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Parent Guarantor Joinder Agreement.

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: Except as otherwise provided in Section 8, the Option shall vest and become exercisable with respect to the number of Option Shares specified on the Vesting Date(s) set forth above, in each case provided that the Optionee has been in continuous service with the Company from the Date of Grant through such Vesting Date(s). If the Optionee’s service terminates due to Optionee’s death or Disability (as defined below), the Option shall fully vest and be exercisable with respect to all Option Shares. Any portion of the Option that is not vested as of the date of the Optionee’s termination of service shall be cancelled and forfeited at the time of such termination of service. Except as set forth in Sections 7 or 8 hereof, once exercisable the Option shall continue to be exercisable at any time or times prior to the Expiration Date (subject to applicable securities laws and Company policy).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Wright & Miller § 2751 (“[The declaratory judgment remedy] relieves potential defendants ‘from the Damoclean threat of impending litigation which a harassing adversary might brandish, while initiating suit at his leisure-or never.’ ” (citing Japan Gas Lighter Ass’n v. Ronson Corp., 257 F.Supp. 219, 237 (D.N.J.1966)). In these circumstances, it would be inappropriate for the Court to deny plaintiffs the right to proceed, eve 261, 265 (2d Cir.1984) (“Ordinarily, a judgment in an ejectment or quiet title action will not affect the interests of others than the parties or those in privity with them. Such actions do not operate in rem upon the land itself, and therefore principles of collateral estoppel by judgment are not implicated.”); Goldsmith v. Gilliland, 24 F. 154, 158 (C.C.D.Or.1885) (<HOLDING>). That said, the Court sees no reason why the Options: A. recognizing actions to quiet title are equitable in nature and a court sitting in equity has jurisdiction to quiet title as a remedy for fraud B. holding that a plaintiff in possession of property may bring suit to quiet title against any or all tenantsincommon with competing claims C. holding that a plaintiffs attempt to quiet title failed because the plaintiff could not furnish competent evidence that the description in the deed includes any or all of the real estate which is admitted by the parties to be the subject of controversy D. holding there is no statute of limitations on action to quiet title by landowner who was in continuous possession of property under claim of ownership E. holding that the united states may bring suit against a state to enforce compliance with federal law

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a plaintiff in possession of property may bring suit to quiet title against any or all tenantsincommon with competing claims
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: Section 1 of this Amendment shall become effective on the date (such date, if any, the “ Amendment No. 1 Effective Date ”) that the Trustee shall have received executed signature pages hereto from each Grantor.

assistant: Effectiveness
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: to the extent permitted by applicable law , you acknowledge and agree that we offer the services and set the services ' prices in reliance upon the warranty disclaimers , releases , and limitations of liability set forth in the terms .

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: (9th Cir.1999) (explaining that a plaintiff must establish that he or she is an employee to be entitled to protection under Title VII); Barnhart v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 141 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir.1998) (same under the Age Discrimination Employment Act); 29 U.S.C. §§ 2611(2), 2614 (indicating that the FMLA covers “eligible employees”). The district court improperly concluded that Csanyi failed to prove that Supercuts violated the FMLA. The district court clearly erred by finding that Csanyi failed to prove that her health insurance was terminated while she was on FMLA leave because the parties stipulated in the Final Pretrial Order that Csanyi’s health insurance benefits were terminated while on approved FMLA leave. See Patterson v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 11 F.3d 948, 950 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Although the parties stipulated that Csanyi’s Options: A. recognizing that administrative agencies are not bound by rules of evidence B. holding that claims or issues omitted from the pretrial order are waived even if they appeared in the complaint C. holding that parties are bound by admissions in pleadings D. holding that parties are generally bound by the stipulations they agree to E. holding that parties are bound by the stipulated facts in a pretrial order

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that parties are bound by the stipulated facts in a pretrial order
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: putting air into his tire at a gas station. The motorist pulled into the gas station and parked his truck in a manner that blocked the insured’s vehicle. The motorist then began yelling and threatening the insured, attempting to pick a fight. The motorist moved his truck so that it was no longer blocking the insured’s vehicle, and parked it parallel to the insured’s vehicle. The motorist then pointed a gun at the insured. An exchange of gunfire ensued culminating in the motorist shooting the insured while the insured was attempting to escape in his vehicle. Ulrich, 839 P.2d at 944-45. ¶51 In holding that the insured’s injuries did not arise out of the use of the motorist’s truck, the Wyoming Supreme Court applied the “natural consequences” test to U . 1995), 878 F.Supp. 862, 864-65 (<HOLDING>). ¶53 In advocating their respective tests, Options: A. holding that injuries must be connected to the use of the car as a car ie as a means of transportation rather than a situs for the commission of criminal acts B. holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate legitimate expectation of privacy where he could not show that he had the owners permission to use the car or demonstrate prior use or control of the car C. holding that there was probable cause for arrest where officers knew defendants had recently been with suspected drug dealer officers saw defendants car being maneuvered so as to indicate that surveillance had been detected and when officers approached car defendant attempted to place package under car and then pulled the package back inside the car and closed and locked the car door D. holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search E. holding that an officer intentionally hitting the plaintiffs head into the top of the police car as the plaintiff was being placed in the police car could be excessive force

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that injuries must be connected to the use of the car as a car ie as a means of transportation rather than a situs for the commission of criminal acts
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 trial court could properly conclude that “there was no showing of uniform conduct likely to mislead the entire jury is not required for non-representative class members, the issues of reliance and injury do not foreclose Plaintiff Brown’s UCL class action. See, e.g., Yamada v. Nobel Biocare Holding AG, 275 F.R.D. 573, 578 (C.D.Cal.2011) (“The ... the alleged omissions and affirmative misrepresentations were consistently made and are therefore common to all members of the putative class.”); Wiener v. Dannon Co., 255 F.R.D. 658, 669 (C.D.Cal.2009) (“For a class action, an inference of reliance arises as to the entire class only if the material misrepresentations were made to all class members.”); Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 238 F.R.D. 482, 492 (C.D.Cal.2006) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Plaintiff Brown may prove with Options: A. holding that the court could reasonably assume that no rational class member would have purchased the product had he known of the alleged misrepresentation B. holding that a person cannot reasonably rely on a misrepresentation when the contents of a written instrument contradict the alleged misrepresentation C. holding inference appropriate where no rational class member would have acted if there had been adequate disclosure D. holding that no class member may opt out of a rule 23b1 class action E. holding that contractor could not show that it reasonably relied upon alleged misrepresentation

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the court could reasonably assume that no rational class member would have purchased the product had he known of the alleged misrepresentation
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: proof and the manner of weighing aggravating circumstances against the mitigating circumstances when deliberating on the sentence to be imposed. Finally, as noted, Appellant offers no authority requiring trial courts to list each category of catchall mitigation evidence on the verdict slip. In fact, case law of this Court has held to the contrary. See Commonwealth v. Miller, 560 Pa. 500, 746 A.2d 592, 604 (2000) (rejecting claim that a verdict slip that was identical to the form mandated by Pa.R.Crim.P. 358A [renumbered as Pa.R.Crim.P. 808] prevented the jury from considering mitigation evidence presented by the defendant because such evidence was not specifically listed on the form or enumerated in the jury charge); see also Commonwealth v. Reyes, 600 Pa. 45, 963 A.2d 436, 442 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Appellant is not entitled to Options: A. holding that the jurys finding of various factors supporting the catchall mitigating circumstance set forth at 42 pacs 9711e8 did not metamorphose those factors into additional statutory mitigators B. holding that trial court must consider both statutory and nonstatutory mitigating factors C. holding imposition of the death penalty proportionate where the trial court found two aggravating circumstances ccp and contemporaneous murder two statutory mitigating factors and a number of nonstatutory mitigating factors D. recognizing same factors E. holding that override was not arbitrary and discriminatory where jurys recommendation of life imprisonment may have been the product of defense counsels highly impassioned closing argument where defendant had a prior criminal history and where no valid statutory mitigating factors and three statutory aggravating factors existed

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the jurys finding of various factors supporting the catchall mitigating circumstance set forth at 42 pacs 9711e8 did not metamorphose those factors into additional statutory mitigators
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in the application of Ring is a matter of procedure, not of substantive definition regarding death-penalty eligibility. After all, in the habeas context, Apprendi and Ring regularly have been held to announce a new rule of criminal procedure, not a new rule of substantive law. See United States v. Brown, 305 F.3d 304, 308-09 (5th Cir.2002); Cannon v. Midlin, 297 F.3d 989, 994 (10th Cir.2002); United States v. Warden, 286 F.3d 1059, 1063 (8th Cir.2002); United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664, 668 (9th Cir. 2002); McCoy v. United States, 266 F.3d 1245, 1257 n. 16 (11th Cir.2001); see also Sepulveda v. United States, 330 F.3d 55, 59 (1st Cir.2003) (treating Apprendi as having announced a rule of criminal procedure); United States v. McAllister, 272 F.3d 228, 232 (4th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). To cinch matters, the Jones Court made Options: A. holding that apprendi announced a rule of criminal procedure forecloses argument that ring announced a substantive rule B. holding in the context of a constitutional challenge to 21 usc 841 that apprendi announced a procedural rule C. holding that apprendi did not render 841 unconstitutional D. holding the language of apprendi dictates that rule is procedural E. 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

assistant: The best answer is B. holding in the context of a constitutional challenge to 21 usc 841 that apprendi announced a procedural rule
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: Cedarstone entered a fee petition, Music City and Armagh timely appealed. II. At oral argument, Music City and Armagh abandoned them argument as to the propriety of the district court’s order remanding this case to state court. This leaves only the award of costs and attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to Cedarstone as an issue on appeal. Here, Music City and Armagh appealed the court’s decision to award attorney fees and costs before the court had monetized the attorney fees and costs and entered final judgment. Had they waited to appeal the actual award, we would have had jurisdiction over their appeal. Warthman v. Genoa Township Bd. of Trustees, 549 F.3d 1055, 1059-60 (6th Cir.2008) (citing Stallworth v. Greater Cleveland Reg’l Transit Auth., 105 F.3d 252, 255 (6th Cir.1997)) (<HOLDING>). However, as the order awarding attorney fees Options: A. holding that we have jurisdiction to review the award or denial of attorney fees under 1447c B. holding a summary judgment to be final although motion to assess attorney fees remained pending because award of attorney fees is collateral to judgment C. holding that although we typically review award or denial of attorneys fees and costs for an abuse of discretion where district court denies attorneys fees and costs based upon legal determination that a party is not a prevailing party we review the determination de novo D. holding because an award of attorney fees is discretionary court may consider attorney fees in relation to the underlying equities in the case E. holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a denial of adjustment of status as a discretionary matter

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that we have jurisdiction to review the award or denial of attorney fees under 1447c
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 aberration is an established one and one that has been recognized ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ a total of five[ ] consecutive cases in this Court. It is an aberration that has been with us now for half a century, one heretofore deemed fully entitled to the benefit of stare decisis, and one that has survived the Court’s expanding concept of interstate commerce. It rests on a recognition and an acceptance of baseball’s unique characteristics and needs. Id. (internal citation omitted). The majority opinion ends by reciting the holding of Toolson that “the business of baseball” is exempt from antitrust legislation based on stare deci-sis and congressional inaction. See id. at 285, 92 S.Ct. 2099. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger concurred. Flood, 407 U.S. at 285, 92 S.Ct. 2099. Although h , 457 (W.D.Wash.1995) (<HOLDING>). A different interpretation of Flood can be Options: A. holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit B. holding that because the officers decision to pursue the suspect was a discretionary act entitled to immunity the plain language of 65338b ala code 1975 extended that immunity to the municipality that employed thei officer C. holding that as a general rule interlocutory trial court orders rejecting defenses of common law sovereign immunity governmental immunity public official immunity statutory immunity or any other type of immunity are not appealable under the maryland collateral order doctrine D. holding that floods reaffirmation of toolson extended immunity to the business of baseball E. holding that the business of providing public baseball games for profit between clubs pf professional baseball players was not within the scope of federal antitrust laws

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that floods reaffirmation of toolson extended immunity to the business of baseball
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: statute, including § 18.1-215, the statute under which Silver was charged. Although not directly raised by Silver, the Court further notes that application of the recent complaint hearsay exception to § 18.1-215 does not raise an ex post facto concern. On brief, Silver indirectly presents an ex post facto argument, claiming that § 18.1-215 of the Code of Virginia is not one of the exceptions delineated in § 19.2-268.2. (Memo. Opp. Mot. in Limine 2-4.) The applicability of the relevant hearsay exception is a mere procedural change that “does ‘not increase the punishment nor change the ingredients of the offense or the ultimate facts necessary to establish guilt’.” Pilcher v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 158, 163, 583 S.E.2d 70, 72 (2003) (quoting Hopt v. Utah, 110 U.S. 574, 590 (1884)) (<HOLDING>); see also Carpenter v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. Options: A. holding that application of the rape shield law to a case in which the underlying events occurred prior to the enactment of the rape shield law was not a violation of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws B. holding that the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws applies only to penal statutes which disadvantage the offender affected by them C. holding that the rape shield statute affects the use of character evidence to impeach witnesses and is therefore procedural in nature D. holding that the retroactive application of a statute authorizing the assessment of a cost to a defendant who committed the felony pri or to the statutes enactment did not violate ex post facto laws E. holding that a rape shield statute was not ex post facto when it barred evidence of a prior sexual relationship that was admissible before enactment of the statute

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that application of the rape shield law to a case in which the underlying events occurred prior to the enactment of the rape shield law was not a violation of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto 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: As an additional consideration for the extension of credit, Company and each endorser, surety, guarantor, and any other person who may become liable for all or any part of this obligation understand and agree that the loan evidenced by this Series B Note is made in the State of Colorado and the provisions hereof will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Buyer has previously delivered to Company the Buyer’s financial statements consisting of the company-prepared balance sheet of Buyer’s business operations as of December 31, 2016 and the audited balance sheet of the Buyer’s business operations as of December 31, 2015, and the related statements of income and cash flows for the years then ended (the “ Buyer’s Financial Statements ”). Buyer’s Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with GAAP and are true, correct, complete, and not misleading.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: By the issuance of a Letter of Credit (or an amendment to a Letter of Credit increasing the amount thereof) and without any further action on the part of any Issuing Bank or the Lenders, the applicable Issuing Bank hereby grants to each Revolving Credit Lender, and each Revolving Credit Lender hereby acquires from the applicable Issuing Bank, a participation in such Letter of Credit equal to such Lender’s Applicable Percentage of the aggregate amount available to be drawn under such Letter of Credit. In consideration and in furtherance of the foregoing, each Revolving Credit Lender hereby absolutely and unconditionally agrees to pay to the Revolver Administrative Agent, for the account of the applicable Issuing Bank, such Revolving Credit Lender’s Applicable Percentage of each LC Disbursement with respect to a Letter of Credit made by such Issuing Bank and not reimbursed by the Revolver Borrowers on the date due as provided in paragraph (e) of this Section, or of any reimbursement payment required to be refunded to the Revolver Borrowers for any reason in respect thereof. Each Revolving Credit Lender acknowledges and agrees that its obligation to acquire participations pursuant to this paragraph in respect of Letters of Credit, and such Revolving Credit Lender’s obligations under Section 2.7(e) are absolute and unconditional and shall not be affected by any circumstance including (i) any setoff, counterclaim, recoupment, defense or other right that such Lender may have against the Issuing Bank, the Revolver Borrowers or any other Person for any reason whatsoever, (ii) the occurrence or continuance of a Default or Event of Default or the failure to satisfy any of the other conditions specified in Section 4, (iii) any adverse change in the condition (financial or otherwise) of any Borrower, (iv) any breach of this Agreement or any other Loan Document by any Borrower, any other Loan Party or any other Lender or any reduction in or termination of the Revolving Credit Commitments or (v) any other circumstance, happening or event whatsoever, whether or not similar to any of the foregoing.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: we retain the right at our sole discretion to deny access to anyone to this website and the services we offer , at any time and for any reason , including , but not limited to , for violation of this agreement .

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: not plausibly incorporate EU 261 but instead explains that those rights are defined and subject to the rules of EU 261. In sum, the provisions of the Conditions of .Carriage quoted in the Complaint, with no other evidence of incorporation, fall short of plausibly establishing the requisite “clear and specific” intent to incorporate Articles 6 and 7 of EU 261 into the Conditions of Carriage. 188 LLC, 300 F.3d at 736; see, e.g., Mandel Metals, Inc. v. Walker Group Holdings, Case No. 14 CV 8493, 2015 WL 3962005 at *5 (N.D.Ill. June 26, 2015) (granting motion to dismiss breach of contract claims because of insufficient evidence that Terms and Conditions were incorporated into contract); Lozano v. United Cont’l Holdings, Inc., No. 11 C 8258, 2012 WL 4094648 at *3-5 (N.D.Ill. Sep. 17, 2012) (<HOLDING>); Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Henry Bros. Constr. Options: A. holding that federal statutes and regulations can form the basis of a breach of contract claim if expressly incorporated into the contract B. holding that plaintiff entitled to recover for changes not incorporated into contract under theory of breach C. holding that the statute incorporated all the rights and obligations of the contract emphasis added D. holding eu 261 not incorporated into contract because language clearly designed to give notice of rights under eu 261 E. holding breachofcontract claim preempted because the plaintiff tried to enlarge the federal rights that were incorporated into the contract

assistant: The best answer is D. holding eu 261 not incorporated into contract because language clearly designed to give notice of rights under eu 261
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 intention of the parties is to comply fully with all rules, laws, and public policies to the extent possible. If and to the extent that any court of competent jurisdiction is unable to so construe any provision of this Agreement and holds that provision to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Agreement, which shall remain in full force and effect. With respect to any provision in this Agreement finally determined by such a court to be invalid or unenforceable, such court shall have jurisdiction to reform this Agreement to the extent necessary to make such provision valid and enforceable, and, as reformed, such provision shall be binding on the parties.

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 cause of her symptoms before March, 1995. The only doctor visit of which she has made this Court aware is a February, 1994 visit to a family doctor and Murphy does not claim that she inquired about or discussed her symptoms or possible causes with him, only that she requested a prescription for powder-free latex gloves. This is not a case where the plaintiff repeatedly sought medical advice and multiple doctors were unable to diagnose the problem. See Lindsay v. Romano, 427 Mass. 771, 696 N.E.2d 520 (1998). Instead, Murphy “essentially did nothing to investigate the cause of [her] injury.” Id. at 775, 696 N.E.2d 520 n. 4. Murphy claims that she was not aware of the existence of latex allergies until shortly before Dr. DuBuske gave her the 542 (Mass.Super.Ct. Oct. 23, 2001) (<HOLDING>). In Gray v. Johnson & Johnson, the court Options: A. holding that cause of action accrued no later than date plaintiffs physician advised her to switch from vinyl to latex gloves even though physician did not then discuss latex allergy with her B. holding letter from plaintiffs father a physician to plaintiffs psychiatrist describing her emotional problems was properly admitted as a business record C. holding victim waived physicianpatient privilege by authorizing her doctor to release her medical records to the department of criminal investigation because the information contained in her medical records was no longer confidential between herself and her physician D. recognizing physician assistant as agent of the supervising physician E. holding physician in action based on illegal cavity search to standard of a reasonable physician

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that cause of action accrued no later than date plaintiffs physician advised her to switch from vinyl to latex gloves even though physician did not then discuss latex allergy with her
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 Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida without regard to principles of conflicts of laws. Any action brought by either party against the other concerning the transactions contemplated by this Note shall be brought only in the state and/or federal courts of Florida located in Palm Beach County, Florida. The parties to this Note hereby irrevocably waive any objection to jurisdiction and venue of any action instituted hereunder and shall not assert any defense based on lack of jurisdiction or venue or based upon forum non conveniens . The Borrower and Holder waive trial by jury. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. In the event that any provision of this Note or any other agreement delivered in connection herewith is invalid or unenforceable under any applicable statute or rule of law, then such provision shall be deemed inoperative to the extent that it may conflict therewith and shall be deemed modified to conform with such statute or rule of law. Any such provision which may prove invalid or unenforceable under any law shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of any agreement. Each party hereby irrevocably waives personal service of process and consents to process being served in any suit, action or proceeding in connection with this Note by mailing a copy thereof via registered or certified mail or overnight delivery (with evidence of delivery) to such party at the address in effect for notices to it under this Agreement and agrees that such service shall constitute good and sufficient service of process and notice thereof. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to limit in any way any right to serve process in any other manner permitted by law.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the county in which such real estate or a part thereof is located . . .”). 6 See Heritage Creek Dev. Corp. v. Colonial Bank, 268 Ga. App. 369, 372 (1) (601 SE2d 842) (2004) (“Not every irregularity or deficiency in a foreclosure advertisement will void a sale”); accord Oates v. Sea Island Bank, 172 Ga. App. 178, 179 (2) (a) (322 SE2d 291) (1984); Walker v. Northeast Production Credit Ass’n, 148 Ga. App. 121, 122 (2) (251 SE2d 92) (1978). 7 Se. Timberlands, Inc. v. Sec. Nat. Bank, 220 Ga. App. 359, 360 (1) (469 SE2d 454) (1996) (“The minimum legal requirements of a foreclosure advertisement are prescribed in OCGA § 9-13-140 (a), and only a failure to properly include those items will render the advertisement defective as a matter of law.”); ac . App. 529, 531 (1) (744 SE2d 369) (2013) (<HOLDING>); Heritage Creek Dev. Corp., 268 Ga. App. at Options: A. holding that a typographical error in a security deed does not necessarily invalidate the legal description when the deed also referred to the propertys physical address B. holding that a beneficiary under a deed of trust was entitled to reformation of the grantors deed C. recognizing that the right to seek reformation of a deed is limited to the original parties to the deed and their successors in title D. holding that because the purchase price typically is not included in the deed this term of the contract of sale is not merged with the deed E. holding that deed was valid when the deed was conveyed to grantee corporation which formally incorporated after the conveyance

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a typographical error in a security deed does not necessarily invalidate the legal description when the deed also referred to the propertys physical address