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: enforcement officers, investigating a defendant father for alleged sex offenses committed against his daughter, intentionally misinformed the defendant that his daughter was pregnant. Id. at 113, 572 S.E.2d at 167. After determining that “[t]he use of false statements and trickery by police officers during interrogations is not illegal as a matter of law[,]” our Court turned to other factors to determine the admissibility of the defendant’s statement. Id. at 114, 572 S.E.2d at 167. Our Court found that: (1) the interrogation tactics employed “did not implant fear of physical violence or hope of better treatment;” (2) the defendant “was not tricked about the nature of the crime involved or possible punishment;” (3) the officer “did not subject defendant to threats of h 00, 609 (1994) (<HOLDING>). BRYANT, Judge. I concur in the result reached Options: A. holding that qualified immunity applies if either a the defendants action did not violate clearly established law or b it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such law internal quotation marks omitted B. holding that agents promise to inform prosecutor of defendants cooperation does not render a subsequent confession involuntary C. holding that implicit threats or promises did not render a defendants statement involuntary when a review of the circumstances reveals that the defendants independent will was not overcome so as to induce a confession that he was not otherwise disposed to malee internal quotation marks omitted D. holding that in order to prevail under 1983 a plaintiff must show 1 that defendants deprived him or her of a right secured by the constitution or laws of the united states and 2 that in doing so defendants acted under color of state law internal quotation marks omitted E. holding that agee applies only where defendant has alleged that his confession was induced by threats or promises

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that implicit threats or promises did not render a defendants statement involuntary when a review of the circumstances reveals that the defendants independent will was not overcome so as to induce a confession that he was not otherwise disposed to malee internal quotation marks omitted
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Seller will pay its pro rata share (the Seller’s pro rata portion to be determined according to the percentage that the aggregate principal balance as of the Cut-off Date of all the Mortgage Loans represents as to the aggregate principal balance as of the Cut-off Date of all the mortgage loans to be included in the Trust) of all costs and expenses of the Purchaser in connection with the transactions contemplated herein, including, but not limited to: (i) the costs and expenses of the Purchaser in connection with the purchase of the Mortgage Loans; (ii) the costs and expenses of reproducing and delivering the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and this Agreement and printing (or otherwise reproducing) and delivering the Certificates; (iii) the reasonable and documented fees, costs and expenses of the Trustee, the Certificate Administrator and their respective counsel; (iv) the fees and disbursements of a firm of certified public accountants selected by the Purchaser and the Seller with respect to numerical information in respect of the Mortgage Loans and the Certificates included in the Preliminary Prospectus, the Prospectus, the Preliminary Offering Circular, the Final Offering Circular and any related disclosure for the initial Form 8-K, including the cost of obtaining any “comfort letters” with respect to such items; (v) the costs and expenses in connection with the qualification or exemption of the Certificates under state securities or blue sky laws, including filing fees and reasonable fees and disbursements of counsel in connection therewith; (vi) the costs and expenses in connection with any determination of the eligibility of the Certificates for investment by institutional investors in any jurisdiction and the preparation of any legal investment survey, including reasonable fees and disbursements of counsel in connection therewith; (vii) the costs and expenses in connection with printing (or otherwise reproducing) and delivering the Registration Statement, Preliminary Prospectus, Prospectus, Preliminary Offering Circular and Final Offering Circular and the reproducing and delivery of this Agreement and the furnishing to the Underwriters of such copies of the Registration Statement, Preliminary Prospectus, Prospectus, Preliminary Offering Circular, Final Offering Circular and this Agreement as the Underwriters may reasonably request; (viii) the fees of the rating agency or agencies requested to rate the Certificates; (ix) the reasonable fees and expenses of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, as counsel to the Purchaser; and (x) the reasonable fees and expenses of Sidley Austin LLP, as counsel to the Underwriters and the Initial Purchasers.

assistant: Expenses
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: 165 L.Ed.2d 250, 259 n. 3 (2006) (declining to consider whether a search provision in a p E.2d 379, 381 n. 3 (1988) (“The coercive quality of the circumstance in which a defendant seeks to avoid incarceration by obtaining probation on certain conditions makes principles of voluntary waiver and consent generally inapplicable.”); Peterson, 233 N.W.2d at 255 (characterizing a search provision of a probation agreement as a “Bill of Attainder for the period of probation” and holding that “when the waiver [was] conditioned on the surrender of so hallowed a right, the so-called choice amounted] to no choice at all [and] the probationer’s signed acceptance therefore was in legal effect coerced and thus rendered nugatory” (footnote omitted)); State v. Schlosser, 202 N.W.2d 136, 139 (N.D.1972) (<HOLDING>); Tamez v. State, 534 S.W.2d 686, 692 Options: A. holding a search of a probationers home pursuant to a wisconsin probation regulation was permissible under a special needs theory but not addressing whether the probationer had consented to the search under the regulation B. holding probationers acceptance of search provision of parole agreement did not constitute freely and voluntarily given consent C. holding search of probationers computer by probation officers was reasonable even in absence of a search provision when conditions on probationers computer use reduced his expectation of privacy in his computer D. holding search provision in probation order constitute a reasonable and necessary element of the courts regulation of probationers which did not require the defendants consent E. holding that a probationers challenge to a condition of his probation was moot in light of the supreme courts reversal of the underlying conviction and the probationers apparent completion of probation

assistant: The best answer is D. holding search provision in probation order constitute a reasonable and necessary element of the courts regulation of probationers which did not require the defendants consent
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each notice, request or other communication given to any party hereunder shall be given in accordance with Section 13.01 of the Indenture, and in the case of any such notice, request or other communication to a Grantor other than the Company, shall be given to it in care of 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in WWITB was a complete assignment of rights to Brownmark (Am. Compl. ¶ 13), and, accordingly, Brownmark has standing to sue for infringement of the underlying copyright. HyperQuest, Inc. 632 F.3d at 382. The court proceeds to examine the defendants’ second argument for dismissing the amended complaint. B. Fair Use In the alternative, the defendants argue that Brownmark’s copyright in fringement claims are barred by the question are central to the plaintiffs claim, and indeed no party argues that the court cannot rely on the videos in evaluating whether Brownmark has failed to properly state a claim for copyright infringement. However, the rub is that “fair use” is viewed as an affirmative defense, as opposed to a central element of copyright infringement. See Janky, 576 F.3d at 361 (<HOLDING>); see also Harper & Row, Publrs. v. Nation Options: A. recognizing that patent protection extends to elements not protected adequately by copyright B. holding that a drawing containing several uncopyrightable public domain elements was entitled to copyright protection because the elements were selected coordinated and arranged in such a way as to render the work original C. holding that conversion and unjust enrichment claims were preempted by the copyright act since they were not qualitatively different from a copyright claim because they contained no extra element beyond those necessary to show copyright infringement D. holding that while the computer program at issue was within the subject matter of copyright the right sought under state law pursuant to a license was not equivalent to the exclusive rights under copyright as such copyright preemption did not apply E. holding that the two elements of a copyright infringement claim are 1 the plaintiff owns a valid copyright right and 2 the defendants copied constituent elements of the work that are original

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the two elements of a copyright infringement claim are 1 the plaintiff owns a valid copyright right and 2 the defendants copied constituent elements of the work that are original
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: impersonate any person or entity , including , but not limited to , a yahoo official , forum leader , guide or host , or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity ;

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: of Span and did not take his threats seriously. For example, counsel grilled Epps about his failure to immediately report Span’s threat to the staff at the Metropolitan Correction Center where Epps was detained at the time. But Epps’s testimony about “Lil Ride” showed that he had good reason to take Span seriously. Epps knew that Span had tried to coerce “Lil Ride” into recanting, and he had reason to believe, based on Span’s plot to kill “Lil Ride”, that Span would resort to violence. This knowledge explains why Epps would have recanted his statements, and why he might have hesitated to report Span’s threat to authorities. The testimony about “Lil Ride” thus tended to rehabilitate Epps and lend plausibility to his story. See United States v. Holly, 167 F.3d 393, 394-95 (7th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we agree with appellate coun sel Options: A. holding that testimony by witnesses that the defendant threatened a witness is sufficient to support acharge of retaliation B. holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial C. holding that district court could admit evidence under 404b that defendant in insurance fraud case had threatened and abused witnesses in order to explain why witnesses initially told investigators defendant was not involved D. holding that the failure to call certain witnesses was not ineffective assistance because witnesses already presented similar evidence and counsel is not required to present cumulative evidence E. holding it was not error to admit incourt identifications for the first time without notice to defendant since witnesses had not made pretrial identifications and counsel had the opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that district court could admit evidence under 404b that defendant in insurance fraud case had threatened and abused witnesses in order to explain why witnesses initially told investigators defendant was not involved
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH BORROWER AND EACH OTHER LOAN PARTY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY AGREES THAT IT WILL NOT COMMENCE ANY ACTION, LITIGATION OR PROCEEDING OF ANY KIND OR DESCRIPTION, WHETHER IN LAW OR EQUITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT OR IN TORT OR OTHERWISE, AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT, ANY LENDER, THE L/C-BA ISSUER, OR ANY RELATED PARTY OF THE FOREGOING IN ANY WAY RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING HERETO OR THERETO, IN ANY FORUM OTHER THAN THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK SITTING IN NEW YORK COUNTY AND OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, AND ANY APPELLATE COURT FROM ANY THEREOF, AND EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF SUCH COURTS AND AGREES THAT ALL CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH ACTION, LITIGATION OR PROCEEDING MAY BE HEARD AND DETERMINED IN SUCH NEW YORK STATE COURT OR, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN SUCH FEDERAL COURT. EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO AGREES THAT A FINAL JUDGMENT IN ANY SUCH ACTION, LITIGATION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE AND MAY BE ENFORCED IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS BY SUIT ON THE JUDGMENT OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW. NOTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT OR IN ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT SHALL AFFECT ANY RIGHT THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT, ANY LENDER OR THE L/C-BA ISSUER MAY OTHERWISE HAVE TO BRING ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT AGAINST ANY BORROWER OR ANY OTHER LOAN PARTY OR ITS PROPERTIES IN THE COURTS OF ANY JURISDICTION.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: improper argument, remark, or other misconduct.” Behseleck v. Andrus, 60 S.D. 204, 244 N.W. 268, 270 (1932) (citing 3 CJ 864). When a party fails to object to argument of counsel at trial, he deprives the trial court the opportunity to rule on the issue and admonish the jury or give a curative instruction. Janklow, 2005 SD 25, ¶ 47, 693 N.W.2d at 701. When a party deprives the trial court an opportunity to rule on the issue by failing to object to argument at the time the objectionable comments are made, he waives his right to argue the issue on appeal. Id. ¶ 47, 693 N.W.2d at 701 (quoting State v. Boston, 2003 SD 71, ¶ 26, 665 N.W.2d 100, 109 (citing State v. Corey, 2001 SD 53, ¶ 9, 624 N.W.2d 841, 844); City of Sioux Falls v. Kelley, 513 N.W.2d 97, 110 (S.D.1994) (citations omitted) (<HOLDING>); see Anderson, 441 N.W.2d at 677 (S.D.1989) Options: A. holding that the plaintiff waived his right to argue an issue on appeal by failing to object below thereby denying the trial court the opportunity to correct its mistakes B. holding that although a defendant filed a motion in limine on an evidentiary issue a failure to object to the evidence at trial waives the issue for appeal C. holding that plaintiffs failure to object to the improper comments of defendant during closing arguments resulted in waiver of plaintiffs right to argue the issue on appeal because the trial court was not given an opportunity to rule on the issue D. holding that failure to object to trial courts refusal of further instruction to jury during deliberation results in waiver of issue on appeal E. holding that the failure to identify or argue an issue in an opening brief constitutes waiver of that argument on appeal

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that plaintiffs failure to object to the improper comments of defendant during closing arguments resulted in waiver of plaintiffs right to argue the issue on appeal because the trial court was not given an opportunity to rule on the issue
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 when taken together shall be considered one and the same agreement and shall become effective when counterparts have been signed by each Party and delivered to the other Party, it being understood that the Parties need not sign the same counterpart. In the event that any signature is delivered by e-mail delivery of a “.pdf” format data file, such signature shall create a valid and binding obligation of the Party executing (or on whose behalf such signature is executed) with the same force and effect as if such “.pdf” signature page were an original thereof.

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: is, against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. at paragraph four of the syllabus. Consequently, the trial court’s judgment will not be reversed if it is supported by some competent and credible evidence. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Selz (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 169, 6 OBR 227, 451 N.E.2d 1203. In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court’s determination that he failed to provide for the maintenance and support of his child was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant asserts that the evidence showed that he made $329.40 in support payments during the year preceding the adoption petition in addition to $53 per week he paid to provide health care coverage for his children. This case presents us with an opportunity to 670, 647 N.E.2d 251 (<HOLDING>); In re Adoption of Carletti (1992), 78 Ohio Options: A. holding that natural parents consent for an adoption is required so long as the parent complies with the duty to support for any period during the oneyear preceding the filing of the adoption petition B. holding that parties not related to the child could not file an adoption petition and later prove the unfitness of the natural parents because the child was not available for adoption as defined in the adoption act parents had to be found unfit before petition could be filed C. holding that a single partial payment of 36 within the oneyear period prior to the filing of the adoption petition qualified as support and maintenance requiring natural parents consent as prerequisite to adoption D. holding prior to adoption of child support guidelines that a credit was discretionary E. holding that single partial payment of 20 within the oneyear period prior to the filing of the adoption petition was de minimis and did not make natural parents consent necessary for the adoption

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that single partial payment of 20 within the oneyear period prior to the filing of the adoption petition was de minimis and did not make natural parents consent necessary for the adoption
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement constitutes the full and entire understanding and agreement among the Parties with regard to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, understandings and representations, whether oral or written, of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. There are no restrictions, agreements, promises, representations, warranties, covenants or undertakings, oral or written, between the Parties other than those expressly set forth herein.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: latitude in analyzing the “comparative costs of treatment”: The State is entitled to wide discretion in adopting its own systems of cost analysis, and, if it chooses, to allocate health care resources based on fixed and overhead costs for whole institutions and programs. We must be cautious when we seek to infer specific rules limiting States’ choices when Congress has used only general language in the controlling statute. Id. at 615, 119 S.Ct. 2176 (Kennedy, J., concurring). D. Needs of Other Mentally Ill Persons Olmstead explains that the ADA does not compel states to provide relief where the requested relief would require the state to neglect the needs of other segments of the mentally disabled population who are not litigants before the court. Id. at 597, 119 S.Ct. 2176 (<HOLDING>). In addition, the plurality reasoned that a Options: A. holding that the fourteenth amendment due process clause requires states to provide civillycommitted persons with access to mental health treatment that gives them a realistic opportunity to be cured and released B. recognizing states need to maintain a range of facilities for the care and treatment of persons with diverse mental disabilities and the states obligation to administer services with an even hand C. holding states are not persons for the purposes of section 1983 D. holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states E. holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing states need to maintain a range of facilities for the care and treatment of persons with diverse mental disabilities and the states obligation to administer services with an even hand
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH SECURED PARTY SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS AGENT INDEMNITEES AND ISSUING BANK INDEMNITEES, TO THE EXTENT NOT REIMBURSED BY OBLIGORS, ON A PRO RATA BASIS, AGAINST ALL CLAIMS THAT MAY BE INCURRED BY OR ASSERTED AGAINST ANY SUCH INDEMNITEE, PROVIDED THAT ANY CLAIM AGAINST AN AGENT INDEMNITEE RELATES TO OR ARISES FROM ITS ACTING AS OR FOR AGENT (IN THE CAPACITY OF AGENT). In Administrative Agent’s Permitted Discretion, it may reserve for any Claims made against an Agent Indemnitee or an Issuing Bank Indemnitee, and may satisfy any judgment, order or settlement relating thereto, from proceeds of Collateral prior to making any distribution of Collateral proceeds to Secured Parties. If Administrative Agent is sued by any receiver, trustee or other Person for any alleged preference or fraudulent transfer, then any monies paid by Administrative Agent in settlement or satisfaction of such proceeding, together with all interest, costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees) incurred in the defense of same, shall be promptly reimbursed to Administrative Agent by each Secured Party to the extent of its Pro Rata share.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK WITHOUT REGARD TO CHOICE OF LAW RULES (OTHER THAN SECTION 5-1401 OF THE NEW YORK GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW) TO THE EXTENT THE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION WOULD BE REQUIRED THEREBY.

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: 2007 Letter failed to provide such “reasonable detail,” Defendant’s indemnification claims under §§ 9.2(a)(i) and (ii) of the Purchase Agreement have been waived. According to Parkstone, the November 16, 2007 Letter provided Ballard with the requisite “reasonable detail” because it informed him of the specific provisions of the Purchase Agreement purported to be vio lated and because Ballard was already on notice of the specific facts underlying its claims. However, with respect to its claims under §§ 9.2(a)(i) and (ii), Park-stone failed as a matter of law to provide Ballard with sufficient “reasonable detail” to satisfy the notice provision under the explicit terms of the Purchase Agreement. Compare Stena Line (U.K) Ltd. v. Sea Containers Ltd., 758 F.Supp. 934, 936-38 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (<HOLDING>), with Wayrol PLC v. Ameritech Corp., No. 98 Options: A. recognizing such balance of interests B. holding that where contract gave sixty days for objecting party to formally dispute balance sheet letter stating that party did not agree or in any way concede that balance sheet was prepared in accordance with the terms of the agreement did not satisfy notice requirement C. holding notice of balance due satisfies notice and demand requirements D. holding that court should balance competing interests E. holding that notice of foreclosure that failed to provide a reinstatement balance was not defective in the absence of harm caused by the omission

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that where contract gave sixty days for objecting party to formally dispute balance sheet letter stating that party did not agree or in any way concede that balance sheet was prepared in accordance with the terms of the agreement did not satisfy notice requirement
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 federal, state and local income and other material tax returns, reports and statements required to be filed by or on behalf of each Credit Party have been filed with the appropriate Governmental Authorities in all jurisdictions in which such returns, reports and statements are required to be filed and, except to the extent subject to a Permitted Contest, all income and other material Taxes (including real property Taxes) and other charges shown to be due and payable in respect thereof have been timely paid prior to the date on which any fine, penalty, interest, late charge or loss may be added thereto for nonpayment thereof.

assistant: Taxes
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 Administrator shall have sole and complete authority to determine the Participants who shall receive a Performance Award, which shall consist of a right that is (i) denominated in cash or Common Stock, (ii) valued, as determined by the Administrator, in accordance with, or subject to, the achievement of such performance objectives, including objectives based on one or more of the Performance Goals, during such performance periods as the Administrator shall establish, and (iii) payable at such time and in such form as the Administrator shall determine. All Performance Awards shall be subject to the terms and provisions of this Section 11.

assistant: General
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: ( b ) your user material is not illegal , obscene , defamatory , threatening , pornographic , harassing , hateful , racially or ethnically offensive , and does not encourage conduct that would be considered a criminal offense , and does not give rise to civil liability , violate any law , or is otherwise deemed inappropriate .

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: of a co-conspirator’s confession at trial for an impeachment purpose offends the Confrontation Clause. Harvey Street and an accomplice were arrested for burglary and murder. 471 U.S. at 411, 105 S.Ct. 2078. After their arrests, both men confessed to a Sheriff. Id. At trial, Street repudiated his confession and asserted that the Sheriff read him his accomplice’s confession and “directed him to say the same thing.” Id. To rebut Street’s claim that his confession was fabricated, the State had the Sheriff read to the jury the accomplice’s confession, which directly implicated Street. Id. at 411-12, 105 S.Ct. 2078. Before the Sheriff read the accomplice’s statement to the jury, however, “the trial judge twice informed the jury that it was admitted ‘not Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954) (<HOLDING>); cf. Watkins v. Sowders, 449 U.S. 341, 347, Options: A. holding that evidence of a defendants prior criminal convictions could be introduced for the purpose of sentence enhancement if the jury was instructed that the evidence could not be used for the purposes of determining guilt B. holding that statements elicited from a defendant in violation of his miranda rights could be introduced to impeach that defendants credibility when the jury was instructed that the statements were not to be considered as evidence of his guilt C. holding all evidence be suppressed traceable to the unlawfully seized D. holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt E. holding that the admission of unlawfully seized evidence of a crime was admissible if the jury was instructed that the evidence could be considered only in assessing a defendants credibility and not for determining guilt

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the admission of unlawfully seized evidence of a crime was admissible if the jury was instructed that the evidence could be considered only in assessing a defendants credibility and not for determining guilt
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 that any provision of this GDPA or portion thereof is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, such provision or portion shall be enforced to the extent possible consistent with the stated intention of the parties, or, if incapable of such enforcement, shall be deemed to be deleted from this GDPA, while the remainder of this GDPA shall continue in full force and remain in effect according to its stated terms and conditions.

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: record evidence, and whether the court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. See Denes v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm’n, 547 Pa. 152, 156, 689 A.2d 219, 222 (1997). Presently, PennDOT vigorously attacks the Commonwealth Court’s refusal to attach significance to the fact that the curbing was never installed on the Stafford Straightaway, and therefore, Landowner’s (and his patrons’) direct access to Landowner’s property was never impeded. On this point, PennDOT invokes a line of decisions establishing that a cause of action for consequential damages in the eminent domain context does not arise until the public improvement causing the asserted harm is actually constructed. See, e.g., Pane v. Department of Highways, 422 Pa. 489, 497-500, 222 A.2d 913, 917-18 (1966) (<HOLDING>); In re Construction of Legislative Route 115, Options: A. recognizing that publicly targeting a property for condemnation resulting in economic damage to the owner generally does not give rise to an inverse condemnation cause of action unless there is some direct restriction on use of the property B. recognizing no right to damages if landowner retains reasonable access to property after a condemnation C. holding that a cause of action relative to an asserted de facto condemnation did not arise until physical restrictions to access were effected since until such time the claim was speculative and remote as no compensable injury had occurred thus the mere filing of a highway plan showing a change of grade that would interfere with access did not give rise to a condemnation claim D. holding that landowner was entitled to compensation because the condemnation destroyed all reasonable access to remainder property E. holding that depreciation in land value caused by a material change in a highway grade which made access to the property difficult is compensable

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a cause of action relative to an asserted de facto condemnation did not arise until physical restrictions to access were effected since until such time the claim was speculative and remote as no compensable injury had occurred thus the mere filing of a highway plan showing a change of grade that would interfere with access did not give rise to a condemnation claim
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 district court’s determination that Boswell consented to the search. If Boswell had authority over the case, whether joint or sole, then he had authority to consent to its search. We conclude that, bas that authority to consent to a search of property does not necessarily translate into authority to search specific containers. See Welch, 4 F.3d at 764 (“The shared control of ‘host’ property does not serve to forfeit the expectation of privacy in containers within that property.”). However, in the cases in which we have held that there was not actual or apparent authority for a third party to consent to a search we have found that there was some fact that made it unreasonable for the officer to believe that the third party had authority over the container. See, e.g., id. at 764-65 (<HOLDING>). Here, Boswell’s statement that he did not Options: A. holding that it was unreasonable to believe that womans boyfriend had authority to consent to the search of her purse even though he had authority to consent to the search of the car in which it was kept B. holding that it was objectively reasonable for the police to conclude that the general consent to search the respondents car included consent to search a bag within that car C. holding that search of defendants purse which he carried was authorized by a warrant to search his person D. holding that the defendants consent to allow the officer to search her purse by way of holding it open for the officer was for consent to a limited view of the purses interior not to surrender possession for an unrestricted search and thus the officer exceeded the scope of the defendants consent E. holding that the question of whether police had a reasonable basis for finding that a third party had authority to consent to search is a question of law

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that it was unreasonable to believe that womans boyfriend had authority to consent to the search of her purse even though he had authority to consent to the search of the car in which it was kept
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: On its face, ORS § 652.610(3) prohibits an employer from withholding “any portion of an employee’s wages unless ... [t]he employer is required to do so by law[.]” ORS § 652.610(3)(a) (emphasis added). Because neither the Internal Revenue Code nor its implementing regulations “require” an employer to withhold tax on estimated tips, an employer, like Starbucks, who does so pursuant to the permissive authority granted by federal law is in violation of the Oregon statute. This is precisely the type of conflict that is addressed by federal preemption. When a state law specifically prohibits an activity that is authorized by federal law, the state law must give way. See, e.g., Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25, 32-34, 116 S.Ct. 1103, 1108-09, 134 L.Ed.2d 237 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 550 U.S. 1, Options: A. holding a federal law permitting national banks to sell insurance in towns with less than 5000 residents preempted a state statute prohibiting banks from selling most types of insurance B. holding that a federal statute 12 usc 92 which expressly permits national banks to sell insurance in small towns is a statute which specifically relates to the business of insurance and preempts a state statute which prohibits banks from selling insurance C. holding that a florida statute requiring a foreign corporation to obtain a certificate of authority prior to transacting business in the state was preempted as it applied to national banks D. holding that an iowa statute requiring a foreign corporation to hold a certificate of authority to transact business in the state was preempted by the nba as the statute pertained to national banks because it infringed on the powers provided to national banks by the nba E. holding that comptroller of currencys holding that annuities both fixed and variable are not insurance within the meaning of 12 usc 92 2000 a provision allowing banks to sell insurance products in towns with less than 5000 inhabitants was a reasonable interpretation of the statute and stating that fixed annuities more closely resemble insurance than do variable annuities

assistant: The best answer is A. holding a federal law permitting national banks to sell insurance in towns with less than 5000 residents preempted a state statute prohibiting banks from selling most types of insurance
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: appellant’s allegation, our supreme court has held that ‘‘[c]ounsel clearly cannot be faulted for failing to raise a Batson objection at trial because Batson did not yet exist. See, e.g., [Commonwealth v. Gribble, 580 Pa. 647, 863 A.2d 455, 464 (2004) ] (‘Counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to predict developments or changes in the law.’)..” Commonwealth v. Sneed, 587 Pa. 318, 899 A.2d 1067, 1076 (2006). 10 . Then-District Attorney Rendell served as Philadelphia County District Attorney from 1978 through 1985. He subsequently served as Governor of the Commonwealth, therefore, he will be referred to hereinafter as “Governor Rendell.” 11 . Appellant’s direct appeal was decided pri- or to our supreme court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48, 813 A.2d 726 (2002) (<HOLDING>), therefore, at the time of appellant’s direct Options: A. holding that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are to be deferred to pcra review trial courts should not entertain claims of ineffectiveness upon postverdict motions and such claims should not be reviewed upon direct appeal B. holding that as a general rule a petitioner should wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel until collateral review C. holding that a petitioner should wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel until collateral review D. holding that the appellate standard of review of ineffectiveness claim is de novo E. holding that review of counsel ineffectiveness claims should be deferred until collateral review

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that review of counsel ineffectiveness claims should be deferred until collateral review
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: you agree to cooperate with and assist airbnb in good faith , and to provide airbnb with such information as may be reasonably requested by airbnb , to make a claim under your homeowner 's , renter 's or other insurance policy , including , but not limited to , executing documents and taking such further acts as airbnb may reasonably request to assist airbnb in accomplishing the foregoing .

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: Marion Barry. Nevertheless, as the district court found, these desires do not constitute implied promises. Ahn acknowledges that a promise of secrecy was not expressed in the plea agreement. The agreement did, however, include an integration clause, which specifically stated that no other agreements or promises existed between the parties. Standing alone, such a clause would be strong evidence that no implied promises existed' — after all, integration clauses “establish that the written plea bargain was ‘adopted by the parties as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement.’ ” United States v. Fentress, 792 F.2d 461, 464 (4th Cir. 1986) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 210 (1981)); accord United States v. Hunt, 205 F.3d 931, 935 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Alegria, 192 F.3d 179, 185 Options: A. holding that a waiver of right to appeal contained in a plea agreement is enforceable B. holding that where a criminal defendant has voluntarily and knowingly entered into a plea agreement in which he or she waives the right to appeal the defendant is not entitled to resentencing in light of booker C. holding a party breaches a plea agreement by acting in a manner not specifically prohibited by the agreement but still incompatible with explicit promises made in the agreement D. holding that promises made in a plea agreement could violate 18 usc 201c E. holding that a merger clause normally prevents a criminal defendant who has entered into a plea agreement from asserting that the government made oral promises to him not contained in the plea agreement itself

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a merger clause normally prevents a criminal defendant who has entered into a plea agreement from asserting that the government made oral promises to him not contained in the plea agreement itself
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 set forth in Section 1.2 herein, Executive shall be employed on an at-will basis by the Company. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Executive’s employment and this Agreement may be terminated in one of six ways as set forth in this Article 6: (a) Executive’s Death (Section 6.2); (b) Executive’s Disability (Section 6.3); (c) Termination by the Company for Cause (Section 6.4); (d) Termination by the Company without Cause (Section 6.5); (e) Termination by Executive due to a Constructive Termination (Section 6.6); or (f) Voluntary Resignation (Section 6.7).

assistant: General
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: Employment Comm’n, 754 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Tex.1988). “The rule is generally accepted that appellate courts do not decide cases where no actual controversy exists between the parties at the time of the hearing.” City of W. Univ. Place v. Martin, 132 Tex. 354, 356, 123 S.W.2d 638, 639 (1939). Unless an exception to this general rule exists, it would be proper to dismiss this appeal as moot. 2. Exceptions to the Rule There are exceptions allowing an appellate court to review a case after it becomes moot. Texas courts have recognized three exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception; (2) the collateral consequences exception; and (3) the public interest exception. See Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Nueces County, 886 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Tex.1994) (<HOLDING>); Nat’l Cafe Servs., Ltd. v. Podaras, 148 Options: A. recognizing two exceptions to eleventh amendment bar B. recognizing first two exceptions C. recognizing constitutionally mandated exceptions to that statutory principle D. recognizing three exceptions to atwill doctrine E. recognizing exceptions to immunity

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing first two exceptions
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: Executive shall devote substantially all of Executive’s business time and attention to the performance of Executive’s duties hereunder and will not engage in any other business, profession or occupation for compensation or otherwise which would conflict or materially interfere with the performance of such services either directly or indirectly without the prior written consent of the Chief Executive Officer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Executive will be permitted to (a) with the prior written consent of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) (not to be unreasonably withheld) act or serve as a director, trustee, committee member or principal of any type of business, civic or charitable organization as long as such activities are disclosed in writing to the Board in accordance with Company’s conflict of interest policy, and (b) purchase or own less than two percent (2%) of the publicly traded securities of any entity; provided, that such ownership represents a passive investment and that Executive is not a controlling person of, or a member of a group that controls, such entity; and provided further, that the activities described in clauses (a) and (b) of this Section 2.2 , in each case and in the aggregate, do not materially interfere with the performance of Executive’s material duties and responsibilities to Company as provided hereunder, including, but not limited to, the obligations set forth in this Section 2 . Executive has no such business, civic and charitable organizations for which he serves as of the date of this Agreement.

assistant: Duties