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: Act (“IIRIRA”), Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-626-27 (1996), because the final agency order was entered after October 30, 1996, and deportation proceedings were pending before April 1, 1997. See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). Under the transitional rules, “there shall be no appeal permitted in the case of an alien who is ... deportable by reason of having committed a criminal offense” enumerated in section 241(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). See IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(G). Rojas-Garcia admitted to being convicted of a firearms offense, which is covered by section 241(a)(2)(C) of the INA. We must therefore dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. See Magana-Pizano v. INS, 200 F.3d 603, 607 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Briseno v. INS, 192 F.3d 1320, 1322 (9th Options: A. holding that jurisdictionstripping provisions of iirira did not preclude aliens convicted of aggravated felonies from pursuing habeas relief pursuant to 28 usc 2241 B. holding that review under 2241 is still available ndtwithstanding language in 1252a2c barring review by any court of final orders of removal for aliens deportable by reason of having committed a criminal offense and distinguishing between direct and collateral review C. holding that because 28 usc 2241 habeas corpus relief is available to review constitutional claims congress preclusion of direct appeals in iirira see tion 309c4g does not offend the due process clause of the constitution D. holding that review under 2241 still available notwithstanding express language in iirira barring review by any court of final orders of removal for aliens deportable by reason of having committed a criminal offense and distinguishing between direct and collateral review E. holding that iirira 309c4g repealed this courts jurisdiction over petitions for review filed by aliens who are deportable for having committed enumerated criminal offenses but did not repeal 28 usc 2241

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that iirira 309c4g repealed this courts jurisdiction over petitions for review filed by aliens who are deportable for having committed enumerated criminal offenses but did not repeal 28 usc 2241
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 parties hereto, whether as makers, endorsers, or otherwise, severally waive presentment for payment, demand, protest and notice of dishonor. Originator additionally expressly waives all notice of the acceptance by any Senior Interest Holder of the subordination and other provisions of this Subordinated Note and expressly waives reliance by any Senior Interest Holder upon the subordination and other provisions herein provided.

assistant: Waivers
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: DAVID M. EBEL, Circuit Judge. This matter is before the court on Appellee’s petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc. The petition for panel rehearing is granted solely to clarify on pages 13, 15, and 18 that the agents were executing a valid search warrant at the time the lawfully seized money allegedly was stolen. In all other respects, panel rehearing is denied. The panel’s original ord r summary judgment, which was based in part on qualified immunity. In this interlocutory appeal, the agents appeal the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. We first conclude that we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to consider the legal questions presented in this appeal. See Thomas v. Durastanti, 607 F.3d 655, 658-59, 662 (10th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Also, we conclude that there was no clearly Options: A. recognizing that this court considers only legal questions when considering interlocutory appeal from denial of qualified immunity B. holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over statelaw tort claims on an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity C. holding that an interlocutory appeal lies from a denial of summary judgment on a qualified immunity claim D. recognizing that the court declined to craft an exception to settled rules of interlocutory appellate jurisdiction and rejected the argument that the policies behind the qualified immunity defense justify interlocutory appeals on questions of evidentiary sufficiency E. holding court lacked jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeal of denial of motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity by defendants who were not public officials

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that this court considers only legal questions when considering interlocutory appeal from denial of qualified immunity
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: have been exhausted. By the same token, the federal habeas tolling provision should not be invoked except when a federal claim remains unexhausted in state court. Tolling is the complement of the exhaustion requirement. We hold, therefore, that a state petition for post-conviction or other collateral review must present a federally cognizable claim for it to toll the statute of limitations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Austin’s post-conviction complaint regarding the missing language of his indictment failed to satisfy this requirement. However, his second complaint in the state post-conviction proceeding, regarding ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, does raise a federal constitutional claim. See Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 396, 105 S.Ct. 830, 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985) (<HOLDING>). But, as noted above, it was filed in the Options: A. holding the sixth amendment right to effective assistance extends to a criminal defendants first appeal as of right B. holding that the sixth amendment right to counsel embodies the right to effective assistance of counsel C. recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel D. holding that defendants are entitled to effective assistance of appellate counsel on their first appeal as of right E. recognizing that the sixth amendment guarantees the right to effective assistance of counsel

assistant: The best answer is A. holding the sixth amendment right to effective assistance extends to a criminal defendants first appeal as of right
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: Employee does hereby unconditionally, irrevocably and absolutely release and discharge Mast, its directors, officers, employees, agents, attorneys, stockholders, insurers, divisions, affiliates, successors and assigns, and any related holding, parent, sister or subsidiary corporations from any and all loss, liability, claims, demands, causes of action or suits of any type, whether in law and/or in equity, related directly or indirectly, or in any way connected with any transactions, affairs or occurrences between them to date, including, but not limited to, Employee’s employment with Mast and the termination of said employment. This Agreement specifically applies, without limitation, to any and all wage claims, claims for unpaid expenses, contract claims, tort claims, claims for wrongful termination, and claims arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the California Family Rights Act, the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and any and all federal or state statutes or laws governing wages and/or discrimination in employment. In addition, this Agreement specifically applies to any claims for age discrimination harassment or retaliation in employment, including any claims arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act or any other statutes or laws which govern age discrimination in employment. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to mean that Employee is releasing or waiving claims to enforce this Agreement, workers’ compensation claims, claims for unemployment insurance benefits, claims for any vested retirement or claims that, by law, cannot be waived.

assistant: Releases
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: Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1024 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc). What matters is that Renb-A-Center’s interest in assuring that its employees focus on their work while on the job is a rational one, and the company’s prohibition on non-emergency, personal phone calls is a reasonable manifestation of this policy. Certainly, Rent-A-Center has a legitimate interest in ensuring that Bradford’s personal phone calls do not disrupt business meetings or interfere with his daily responsibilities. See, e.g., Koons v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 367 F.3d 768 (8th Cir.2004) (affirming district court’s holding that the discharge of an employee for making excessive personal calls was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason); Paluck v. Gooding Rubber Co., 221 F.3d 1003, 1011 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Because Renb-A-Center has successfully set Options: A. holding that termination of individuals employment for making personal phone calls was a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for discharge B. recognizing that even a personal grudge can constitute a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse employment decision C. holding that employer met its burden of articulating a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the plaintiffs termination by offering admissible evidence sufficient for the trier of fact to conclude that plaintiff was fired because of his failure to maintain accurate attendance records D. holding that drugrelated misconduct is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination E. holding that employees threats of violence against a coworker were legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for termination

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that termination of individuals employment for making personal phone calls was a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for discharge
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: Council members, Kevin Kamenetz, himself became actively involved in the opposition to the Clinic. Councilman Kamenetz not only met with community groups, he also contacted state officials to enlist their support in this effort. Clearly, Councilman Kamenetz was well aware of the community’s views. Finally, it is undisputed that the County held an open work session on the Bill shortly after its introduction. There, the entire County Council heard several members of the community voice strong opposition to the Clinic and strong support for the new legislation, after which the Council voted to adopt the new legislation. Under our precedent, this fact alone would be enough to find that the Council enacted the Bill in response to community opposition. See Marks, 883 F.2d at 309-11, 313 (<HOLDING>). Given these undisputed facts, we agree with Options: A. holding where plan language can be interpreted both to grant discretion and not to grant discretion plan does not unambiguously grant discretion B. holding that we may not review a district courts refusal to grant a downward departure unless the court mistakenly believed that it lacked the authority to grant such a departure C. holding that it would be inequitable to allow a town to deny a permit based on a new ordinance after the property owner was denied a permit three times and brought suit to determine the validity of the prior ordinance D. holding a city councils refusal wjithout further discussion to grant permit after hearing community opposition to its grant provided sufficient evidence that council denied permit based on those same impermissible considerations E. recognizing that federal district courts have the authority to grant a remedy if the refusal to file a substantial assistance motion was based on an unconstitutional motive

assistant: The best answer is D. holding a city councils refusal wjithout further discussion to grant permit after hearing community opposition to its grant provided sufficient evidence that council denied permit based on those same impermissible considerations
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: Following termination of employment by the Company for cause or by the Executive, Executive shall cooperate with the Company, as requested by the Company upon reasonable notice and with due regard to Executive’s obligations to a future employer, (i) to effect a transition of Executive’s responsibilities and to ensure that the Company is aware of all matters being handled by Executive, provided that Executive shall only be obligated to provide such assistance for a period of six (6) months following the date of Executive’s termination of employment, (ii) to provide reasonable assistance to the Company, its affiliates and their respective representatives in defense of any action or proceeding (or any appeal from any action or proceeding) related to a matter to which Executive has information or knowledge that may be made against the Company or its affiliates, and (iii) to provide reasonable assistance to the Company and its affiliates in the prosecution of any action or proceeding (or any appeal from any action or proceeding) related to a matter to which Executive has information or knowledge, to the extent that such claims may relate to the period of Executive’s employment with the Company. Upon presentation of appropriate documentation, the Company shall pay or reimburse Executive a reasonable hourly rate and for all reasonable out-of-pocket travel or travel-related expenses incurred in the course of complying with this Section 8(a).

assistant: Cooperation
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: omitted). {21} Owners fail to meet their difficult burden in this case. Section 73-2-21(E) grants acequia commissioners the authority to deny approval of “change[s] in point of diversion or place or purpose of use of a water right served by the acequia” if the commissioners determine that the change “would be detrimental to the acequia ... or its members.” The deferential standard of review to be applied to such decisions helps assure that acequia commissioners, who have greater familiarity than does a district court with the unique needs of the acequia and its members, retain the power to decide whether such changes will harm the operation of the acequia or those who depend on it for access to their water rights. See Wilson v. Denver, 1998-NMSC-016, ¶43, 125 N.M. 308, 961 P.2d 153 (<HOLDING>). In light of what Owners concede is an Options: A. holding that whether a person has a disability under the ada is an individualized inquiry B. holding that district court must conduct individualized assessment based on particular facts of each case C. holding that suspicion must be individualized D. recognizing that each ditch system is unique and has individualized needs E. recognizing each individual bankruptcy courts unique interest in interpreting and enforcing stay in pending cases

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that each ditch system is unique and has individualized needs
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: From the date hereof until the earlier of (a) the termination of this Agreement in accordance with its terms if such termination is the result of any reason other than a breach by such Noteholder and (b) the Closing, each Noteholder agrees that it shall not, and it shall cause each of its affiliates that are controlled by such Noteholder not to, except pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, directly or indirectly (A) sell, deliver, transfer, give, pledge, encumber, assign or otherwise dispose of or enter into any contract, option, derivative, swap, hedge or other arrangement or understanding with respect to the sale, delivery, transfer, gift, pledge, hypothecation, encumbrance, assignment or other disposition of (including by operation of law) any Transferred Notes (or any rights or interests of any nature whatsoever in or with respect to any Transferred Notes), or as to voting, agreeing or consenting (or abstaining therefrom) with respect to any amendment to or waiver of any terms of, or taking any other action whatsoever with respect to, the Notes and/or the Indenture, or (B) agree (whether or not in writing) to take any of the actions referred to in the foregoing clause (A) . From the date hereof until the earlier of (a) the termination of this Agreement in accordance with its terms and (b) the Closing, the Company agrees that it will not disclose any information relating to the Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereunder (the “ Information ”) except to its representatives and agents, which it shall take reasonable care to ensure shall also not disclose the Information; provided that that Company may disclose the Information to the extent required or requested by law, legislation, rule, regulation or governmental (including Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure requirements), judicial, administrative, regulatory or self-regulatory (including any stock exchange) body or process.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: the purchase of virtual money and virtual goods is limited to account holders who are either ( a ) 18 years of age or older ; or ( b ) under the age of 18 and have the consent of a parent to make the purchase .

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: companies that employ 200 workers are liable to each complainant for a maximum of $100,000 in compensatory and punitive damages while companies employing 100 workers are liable for a maximum of $50,000. 9 . The Eleventh Amendment bars suit in federal courts against states for monetary damages, but not for injunctive or prospective relief. However, Plaintiff does not request such relief from the Individual Defendants. See supra page 9. 10 . In Sánchez Barreto v. Swiss Just De P.R., Inc., the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's dismissal of a Law 44 claim because there is no individual liability under Law 44. Sánchez Barreto v. Swiss Just De P.R., Inc., No. IPE2002-0263(205), 2003 WL 23336311, at *1 (P.R. Cir. Nov. 6, 2003); see also Vazquez Vazquez, 609 F.Supp.2d at 220 (<HOLDING>). Further, this Court is of the opinion that a Options: A. holding no individual liability under the adea B. holding that there is no right of recovery against individual defendants under the ada C. holding that there is no individual liability under law 44 D. holding that there is no individual liability under title vii E. holding there was no individual liability under titles i ii or iii of the ada

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that there is no individual liability under law 44
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 Term Loan Collateral Agent, on behalf of itself and each other Term Loan Claimholder, waives any claim it may hereafter have against any ABL Claimholder arising out of the election of any ABL Claimholder of the application of Section 1111(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, and/or out of any cash collateral or financing arrangement or out of any grant of a security interest, in each case in connection with the ABL Priority Collateral in any Insolvency or Liquidation Proceeding of any ABL Grantor so long as such actions are not in express contravention of the terms of this Agreement.

assistant: Waivers
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 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 OTHER 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 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 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Set forth in the Insurance Schedules is a complete and accurate summary of the property, casualty, worker’s compensation, errors and omissions, fidelity bonds/crime insurance program of the Loan Parties and the Subsidiaries of the Loan Parties as of the Closing Date (including the names of all insurers, policy numbers, expiration dates, amounts and types of coverage, annual premiums, exclusions, deductibles, self-insured retention, and a description in reasonable detail of any self-insurance program, retrospective rating plan, fronting arrangement or other risk assumption arrangement involving any Loan Party or any Subsidiary of any Loan Party). Each Loan Party and each Subsidiary of the Loan Parties, and their respective properties, are insured with financially sound and reputable insurance companies which are not Affiliates of the Loan Parties or the Subsidiaries of the Loan Parties, in such amounts, with such deductibles and covering such risks as are customarily carried by companies engaged in similar businesses and owning similar properties in localities where such Loan Parties or such Subsidiaries operate.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: from acting on applications submitted by individuals pursuant to § 925(c). The parties have not suggested that the ATF has access to any funds other than those affected by the relevant spending limitation, nor are we aware of any such funds. Thus, while the annual appropriations statutes speak in terms of the ATF’s ability to spend appropriated funds, their effect on the agency is obvious: It may neither grant nor deny applications falling within the scope of the funding restriction. We therefore conclude that Congress’s intent to suspend the ATF’s ability to act on applications submitted by individuals pursuant to § 925(c) is “clear and manifest.” Tennessee Valley Auth., 437 U.S. at 189, 98 S.Ct. 2279 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Dickerson, 310 U.S. at 561, 60 S.Ct. 1034 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Wiggins, 50 F.Supp.2d 512, Options: A. holding that the plaintiffs did not fall within the zone of interests protected by the tcpa because they attempted to use the statute in a way not intended or contemplated by congress and because their damages are not of the vexatious and intrusive nuisance nature sought to be redressed by congress in enacting the tcpa B. holding that money appropriated by congress for entitlements under other sections of the impact aid act were not available appropriations for a program that provided aid to school districts financially burdened by federal ownership of real property C. holding that title ii of the ada was a valid use of congress power under section 5 of the fourteenth amendment D. holding that congress suspended operation of statute by restricting use of appropriated funds E. holding that where counterclaim arises out of same transaction alleged in plaintiffs complaint is not barred by a running of the statute of limitations thereafter rather statute of limitations is suspended until counterclaim is filed

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that congress suspended operation of statute by restricting use of appropriated funds
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: noted with respect to Plaintiffs prima facie case, he has not put forth any evidence that he was treated less favorably than similarly situated younger employers, nor pointed to an adequate comparator to show that he was discriminated against because of his age. Cf. Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., 107 F.3d 846, 852 (11th Cir.1997) (“Evidence offered in the prima facie case may be sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext.”). Plaintiffs conclusory allegations as to his job performance, as well as his perception that younger employees were given more hours and more favorable application of the “first out” policy, without more, fail to support a finding of pretext. See, e.g., Carter v. Three Springs Residential Treatment, 132 F.3d 635, 642 n. 6 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). As stated by the Eleventh Circuit, “provided Options: A. holding unconstitutional a free transfer provision by which students were allowed to transfer solely on a racial basis from the school to which they had been assigned by virtue of redistricting if they were in a racial minority in their new school B. holding that conclusory and generalized allegations of racial bias such as there was a racially biased attitude by management towards minority black employees were properly struck by the district court C. holding that unequivocal examples of racial animus included instances when plaintiff was instructed to keep his black ass off the phone and was called a black son of a bitch and a black motherfucker D. holding that a reasonable jury could conclude that there was a racially hostile work environment when plaintiff was subjected to several statements involving racial epithets and a nude black doll was hung from a noose in his locker E. holding there was no constitutional presumption of juror bias where counsel asked the district court to make an inquiry into potential prejudice because the defendant was black and the prospective jurors were white

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that conclusory and generalized allegations of racial bias such as there was a racially biased attitude by management towards minority black employees were properly struck by the district court
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: damaged by a series of events, one occurrence was involved insofar as each property owner was concerned. Notwithstanding, therefore, that the same causes may have operated upon several properties at the same time resulting in varying degrees of damage, it cannot be regarded as one occurrence, but the damage to each plaintiff is a separate occurrence. Id. at 915-16. Following Lombard, “the damage to each [child] is a separate occurrence.” See also Interstate, 747 F.Supp. at 624 (“Each time this negligent supervision presented Father Laughlin with the opportunity to molest a different child, the Archdiocese was exposed to new liability,” which constitutes an “occurrence” under the policy language); Maurice Pincoffs Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 447 F.2d 204, 206 (5th Cir.1971) (<HOLDING>). b. The Parents’ Claims Interstate argues that Options: A. holding that each separate pull of a trigger during the same shooting spree is an event sufficiently in time and space to constitute an independent occurrence B. holding a judgment that reserved the issue of child support indefinitely and not pending the occurrence of a specific event to be final C. holding the payment of benefits at the occurrence of a single event an indicium of lack of an administrative scheme D. holding that the liability creating event constitutes an occurrence E. holding that there was no coverage because there was no occurrence within the meaning of the policy because defective workmanship does not constitute an accident or an occurrence under a commercial general liability policy

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the liability creating event constitutes an occurrence
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 the Asset Representations Reviewer resigns or is removed, the Asset Representations Reviewer will cooperate with the Issuer, the Servicer and the Administrator and take all actions reasonably requested to assist the Issuer in making an orderly transition of the Asset Representations Reviewer’s rights and obligations under this Agreement to the successor Asset Representations Reviewer. The Asset Representations Reviewer will pay the reasonable expenses of transitioning its obligations under this Agreement and preparing the successor Asset Representations Reviewer to take on the obligations on receipt of an invoice with reasonable detail of the expenses from the Issuer, the Servicer, the Administrator or the successor Asset Representations Reviewer.

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: "hopelessly entangled” resulting in significant harm to numerous claimants; (2) the claimants were enticed into investing in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme, and Bonham used investment funds to pay other investors and for personal benefit, and (3) Bonham, WPI and APFC should be treated as alter egos because insufficient funds were available to cover all of the creditors’ claims. See id. at 96-97. 7 . This court has previously discussed the doctrine, but never considered a direct challenge to the bankruptcy court's power to employ it. See Gill v. Sierra Pacific Constr., Inc. (In re Parkway Calabasas), 89 B.R. 832 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1988), aff’d, 949 F.2d 1058 (9th Cir.1991); cf. United States v. Alaska Nat’l Bank of the North (In re Walsh Construction, Inc.), 669 F.2d 1325, 1330 (9th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); Anaconda Building Materials Co. v. Newland, Options: A. recognizing that uniting power to prosecute and power to sentence in executive would raise constitutional concerns B. recognizing such limitations in dicta C. holding that the recognition power is not limited to a determination of the government to be recognized but rather includes the power to take actions without which the power of recognition might be thwarted D. recognizing a distinction between the power of a federal court to hear statelaw claims and the discretionary exercise of that power E. recognizing in dicta power to substantively consolidate entities but noting that power to be used sparingly

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing in dicta power to substantively consolidate entities but noting that power to be used sparingly
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall not become effective in any respect until the Revocation Period as set forth in Section 22(f) has expired without notice of revocation. In the absence of Employee’s revocation of this Agreement, the eighth day after Employee’s execution of this Agreement shall be the “ Effective Date ” of this Agreement.

assistant: Effective Dates
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: either Rule 65.1’s summary procedure or through an independent action [pursuant to Section 1352].”); see also 11 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2972. In either case, however, the party seeking to recover must show that it was “wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 65(c); see Blumenthal v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 910 F.2d 1049, 1054-55 (2d Cir.1990). . Neither Rule 65 nor Rule 65.1 defines the meaning of “wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” In Blumenthal, however, the Second Circuit held that “[a] party has been ‘wrongfully enjoined’ ... if it is ultimately found that the enjoined party had at all times the right to do the enjoined act.” 910 F.2d at 1054; see also H.E. Fletcher Co. v. Rock of Ages Corp., 326 F.2d 13, 16-17 (2d Cir.1963) (<HOLDING>); accord Note, Recovery for Wrongful Options: A. recognizing that the district court is not bound by its prior factual findings determined in a preliminary injunction hearing B. holding that the injunction bond renders the movant liable for damages if in the end it was determined that the enjoined party was within its rights in engaging in enjoined conduct C. holding that movant must demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction D. holding that the excusable neglect inquiry is at bottom an equitable one that should be made by considering the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party the length of the delay and its potential impact upon judicial proceedings the reason for the delay including whether it was in the reasonable control of the movant and whether the movant acted in good faith E. holding that the failure of the applicant to file a bond before the issuance of the temporary injunction renders the injunction void ab initio

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the injunction bond renders the movant liable for damages if in the end it was determined that the enjoined party was within its rights in engaging in enjoined conduct
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: 14.1 the terms constitute the whole legal agreement between you and youtube and govern your use of the service and completely replace any prior agreements between you and youtube in relation to the service .

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: His hands, everything, was shaking." Haley's mouth was dry and he was licking his lips, stuttering, shuffling his feet, and nervously pacing in circles. Daniel was also extremely nervous and exhibited a facial twitch and shaking hands and neither Dunlap nor Daniels knew their point of destination. Miller informed Haley that he was free to leave and asked him if he had any drugs or anything illegal in the vehicle, and Haley responded, "No. You want to check it out?" Haley asked the officer, "would you want to look at the bags or something?" Lastly, when Haley removed the bags from the trunk of nt officer's ability to distinguish between innocent and suspicious actions. United States v. Wood, 106 F.3d 942, 946 (10th Cir.1997); see also People v. Ratcliff, 778 P.2d 1371, 1379 (Colo.1989) (<HOLDING>). Here, that objectively reasonable suspicion Options: A. holding experts experience knowledge and training is considered in determining reliability B. holding that a defendants actions while appearing innocent to a casual observer assume added significance when considered in the context of a police officers training and experience in drug enforcement C. recognizing that officers are entitled to rely on training and experience in forming belief that drug transaction has occurred D. holding that a police officers opinion that a defendant was most definitely engaged in drug dealing was not proper lay testimony because it was based on the officers specialized training in narcotics and extensive experience in methamphetamine cases E. holding officer could testify based on his training and experience that a defendants actions were consistent with selling cocaine

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a defendants actions while appearing innocent to a casual observer assume added significance when considered in the context of a police officers training and experience in drug enforcement
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 will have such duties, responsibilities and authorities as are determined by the Board of Directors of the Company (the “ Board ”) and Executive Chairman of the Company, if applicable, and consistent with the Company's Corporate Governance Guidelines and corporate governance structure as in effect from time-to-time.

assistant: Duties
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: or prior contact with authorities, can never be more than speculation; a warning is a cleareut fact. More important, whatever the background of the person interrogated, a warning at the time of the interrogation is indispensable to overcome its pressures and to insure that the individual knows he is free to exercise the privilege at that point in time. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 468-69, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1625, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). We detect no indication in this language that the Court intended to distinguish between individuals based on occupation or training in determining when Miranda warnings are required. Indeed, subsequent cases have so held. See, e.g., Desire v. Attorney General of California, 969 F.2d 802, 805 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Longbehn, 850 F.2d 450, 453 Options: A. holding that although miranda warnings were not given to defendant police officers they had no cause of action under 42 usc 1983 because they were never prosecuted B. holding that the warnings in their totality satisfied miranda C. holding that although defendants voluntarily given initial statement was inadmissible because of miranda violation subsequent statement made after careful miranda warnings were given and waiver was obtained was admissible D. holding that although defendant was a deputy sheriff miranda warnings were required irrespective of defendants knowledge of his fifth amendment rights E. holding that because miranda warnings make defendant aware of right to counsel and of consequences of waiving sixth amendment rights defendants waiver of right to counsel after receiving such warnings is valid

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that although defendant was a deputy sheriff miranda warnings were required irrespective of defendants knowledge of his fifth amendment rights
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: “[had] nothing to do with denat-uralization.” Id. at 38 n. 5. I agree with the First Circuit’s sound reasoning. For the foregoing reasons, I cannot accept the majority’s conclusion that Pullman-Standard and Anderson overruled— by implication — Baumgartner and its progeny. It follows that our precedent, Lim v. Mitchell, which relies on Baum-gartner's progeny, controls the appellate standard of review in this case. Thus, we are required to conduct an independent review of the evidence in the record to determine whether that evidence is sufficient to satisfy the government’s heavy burden to show by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a Mexican citizen, not a United States citizen. See supra Part III.A; United States v. Gay, 967 F.2d 322, 327 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). IV. THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO PROVE ITS CASE Options: A. holding that a three judge panel is free to reexamine the holding of a prior panel when the supreme court has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable B. holding a three judge panel cannot reconsider or overrule the decision of a prior panel unless an intervening supreme court decision undermines an existing precedent of the ninth circuit and both cases are closely on point internal quotations and citation omitted C. holding that in the absence of an intervening supreme court decision only the en banc court may overrule a decision by a threejudge panel D. holding that a three judge panel is not bound by prior circuit precedent if an intervening decision of a higher authority undercuts the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable E. holding that threejudge panel cannot disregard or overrule circuit precedent

assistant: The best answer is B. holding a three judge panel cannot reconsider or overrule the decision of a prior panel unless an intervening supreme court decision undermines an existing precedent of the ninth circuit and both cases are closely on point internal quotations and citation 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: any subjective expectation of privacy that a prisoner might have in his prison cell and that, accordingly, the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches does not apply within the confines of the prison cell.” Id. at 526, 104 S.Ct. 3194. Specifically, the Court noted that prison administrators must be free to take measures to ensure the safety of staff, personnel, and visitors to the prison, which would be impossible if prisoners had any expectation of privacy in their cells. Id. at 526-28, 104 S.Ct. 3194. Although the Court stated: “We hold that the Fourth Amendment has no applicability to a prison cell,” id. at 536, 104 S.Ct. 3194, it remains unclear whether the holding is limited by the rationale of preserving institutional safety. [¶ 18 9 N.W.2d 216, 220-21 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Courts have also held that Hudson’s Fourth Options: A. recognizing that police officers generally do not need warrant to search person they have lawfully arrested B. holding that although the automobile exception is based in part on exigence where police have probable cause to search a ear they need not get a search warrant even if they have the time and opportunity C. holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant D. holding that inventory search could not be condemned insofar as department policy permitted opening box for the standard purposes of inventory searches E. holding that police do not need probable cause or a warrant to search items that have already been searched for inventory purposes

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that police do not need probable cause or a warrant to search items that have already been searched for inventory 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The headings contained in this Agreement are inserted only for reference as a matter of convenience and in no way define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of this Agreement, and will not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement.

assistant: Headings