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: Edberg v. Neogen Corp., 17 F.Supp.2d 104, 112 (D.Conn.1998) (noting that “the courts have repeatedly held that jurisdiction may not be manufactured by the conduct of others”); Elbex Video Kabushiki Kaisha v. Taiwan Regular Elec. Co., No. 93 Civ. 6160(KMW), 1995 WL 224774, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 1995) (finding no personal jurisdiction where plaintiff arranged for former employee to make purchase from defendant for purpose of creating jurisdiction); see also Claras Transphase Scientific, Inc. v. Q- 4 F.Supp.2d 1284, 1287 (D.N.M.1998) (“Courts have held repeatedly that a defendant’s responses to the unilateral acts of a plaintiff are not contacts with the forum state sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.”); DeSantis v. Hafner Creations, Inc., 949 F.Supp. 419, 424 (E.D.Va.1996) (<HOLDING>); Network Profis., Inc. v. Network Int’l Ltd., Options: A. holding that personal jurisdiction was lacking when the only contact by defendant with forum state was initiated by plaintiffs counsels paralegal for the sole purpose of establishing personal jurisdiction B. holding that personal jurisdiction over defendant car manufacturer was inappropriate when defendants only contacts with the forum resulted from plaintiffs unilateral activity of driving defendants product into another state C. holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant where defendant assignee received patents from assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction in part because the unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state D. holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant because plaintiff failed to show that defendant was assignee of assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction E. holding that foreseeability of causing injury in forum state is not sufficient for specific personal jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that personal jurisdiction was lacking when the only contact by defendant with forum state was initiated by plaintiffs counsels paralegal for the sole purpose of establishing personal 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: nonetheless, the Court is not persuaded—on this record—that the breach of loyalty claim is preempted. See Marks, 948 F.Supp. at 1474 (“Preemption is only appropriate where other claims are no more than a restatement of the same operative facts which would plainly and exclusively spell out only trade secret misappropriation.”; - internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Nonetheless, the Court finds the evidence is insufficient to show that any trade secrets were taken— physically—by Defendants, other than the document containing the list of USI accounts sold taken by Mr. McQuate. The fact that this information—because it is now disseminated publicly in this case—is no longer a trade secret, does not negate a finding that a breach of loyalty occurred. See Marks, 948 F.Supp. at 1474 (<HOLDING>). D. Misappropriation, of Trade Secrets—Count Options: A. holding that supplier lists can be trade secrets under indianas uniform trade secrets act which uses the same definition of a trade secret as montana B. recognizing that customer lists may be protectable trade secrets C. recognizing that even if a plaintiff claims certain information constitutes trade secrets its claim may not depend on that determination D. holding that the loss of trade secrets cannot be measured in money damages E. holding that included among trade secrets employee may not appropriate from employer is certain information such as lists of customers

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that even if a plaintiff claims certain information constitutes trade secrets its claim may not depend on that determination
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: Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 557, 100 S.Ct. 1870; People v. Licea, 918 P.2d 1109, 1112 (Colo.1996). While reviewing courts typically defer to the trial court's findings of fact, we must overturn the trial court's ruling when it is clearly erroneous or not supported by the record. See Mendoza-Balderama, 981 P.2d at 158. This is the case here. While a language barrier may be relevant to evaluate a suspect's ability to act voluntarily, it is not determinative in this case. See United States v. Hernandez, 893 F.Supp. 952, 961 (D.Kan.1995) (citations omitted). The record does no ndant freely and voluntarily consented when there was no evidence that the officers made threats or promises that would affect the defendant's judgment); People v. Reyes, 174 Colo. 377, 483 P.2d 1342, 1343-44 (1971) (<HOLDING>). The trial court may have been confused Options: A. holding probationers acceptance of search provision of parole agreement did not constitute freely and voluntarily given consent B. holding that defendant voluntarily consented where defendants only basis for coercion was that the officers said that if he did not consent they would get a warrant which would take a while C. holding consent invalid when given under coercive circumstances in which police misrepresented that they had a warrant to search the home D. holding that consent was freely and voluntarily given despite officers advisement that the police could get a search warrant if consent was not given E. holding there is no consent as a matter of law where the consent was given under coercion

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that consent was freely and voluntarily given despite officers advisement that the police could get a search warrant if consent was not given
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: (“It has long been the policy of our courts to recognize that the setting of utility rates must take into account the interests of utility consumers as well as utility shareholders.”). The consideration of consumer interests in setting just and reasonable rates fulfills the protective role the constitutional framers envisioned in creating the Commission and clothing it with exclusive power to set rates and regulate utilities. See Arizona Corp. Comm’n v. State ex rel. Woods, 171 Ariz. 286, 290, 830 P.2d 807, 811 (1992) (“The founders expected the Commission to provide both effective regulation of public service corporations and consumer protection against overreaching by those corporations.”); State v. Tucson Gas, Elec. Light & Power Co., 15 Ariz. 294, 306-08, 138 P. 781, 786 (1914) (<HOLDING>). ¶31 Bearing in mind the Commission’s duty to Options: A. holding that the texas legislature limited jurisdiction to the public utilities commission for disputes about rates operations and services of an electric utility by stating that the commission has exclusive original jurisdiction over these issues citing tex utilcode 32001 west 2007 B. holding that a debtor has primarily consumer debts if the aggregate amount of consumer debt is more than 50 of the total debt C. holding that the commission applied its technical knowledge and expertise to the facts presented and the commissioners decision should be afforded deference when the commission conducted investigations reviewed accounting practices and solicited comments from several agencies and organizations involved in the regulatory process in the course of balancing the interests of the public utility and the public to reach its decision D. holding commission created and given full power to investigate hear and determine disputes between utility and general public primarily for the interest of the consumer E. holding commission cannot authorize utility to increase rates based solely on return on stock and warning of potential danger of tying rates to one factor over which the utility exercises total control without regard for the interests of the consumer

assistant: The best answer is D. holding commission created and given full power to investigate hear and determine disputes between utility and general public primarily for the interest of the consumer
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 United States. Lucero v. Operation Rescue, 954 F.2d 624, 627 (11th Cir.1992); see also Saville v. Houston County Healthcare Auth., 852 F.Supp. 1512, 1537 (M.D.Ala.1994). The second element of the cause of action requires the Plaintiffs to make a showing that the Defendants’ actions were motivated by racial or other class-based invidious discrimination. Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 1798, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971); Lucero, 954 F.2d at 627. In this case, all of the Plaintiffs except possibly for Louise Cleckley have failed to present evidence to show that they are members of a protected class. For the purpose of this motion, the court will assume, without holding, that gender-based discrimination is actionable under § 1985(3). See Saville, 852 F.Supp. at 1538 (<HOLDING>). In her case, however, the Plaintiffs have Options: A. holding that the fourth amendment protects people not places B. holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent C. recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members D. holding that the fourth amendment protects property as well as privacy E. holding that 19853 protects women as a class

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that 19853 protects women as a class
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 of the Borrower and each Guarantor may have certain Claims against the Released Parties, as those terms are defined below, regarding or relating to the Credit Agreement or the other Loan Documents. The Administrative Agent, the Lenders, the Lead Arranger, the Co-Lead Arranger, the Issuing Lender, the Swingline Lender, the Borrower and the Guarantors desire to resolve each and every one of such Claims in conjunction with the execution of this Amendment and thus each of the Borrower and each Guarantor makes the releases contained in this Section 11. In consideration of the Administrative Agent and the Lenders entering into this Amendment, each of the Borrower and each Guarantor hereby fully and unconditionally releases and forever discharges each of the Administrative Agent, the Lenders, the Issuing Lender, the Swingline Lender and their respective directors, officers, employees, subsidiaries, branches, affiliates, attorneys, agents, representatives, successors and assigns and all persons, firms, corporations and organizations acting on any of their behalves (collectively, the “ Released Parties ”), of and from any and all claims, allegations, causes of action, costs or demands and liabilities, of whatever kind or nature, from the beginning of the world to the date on which this Amendment is executed, whether known or unknown, liquidated or unliquidated, fixed or contingent, asserted or unasserted, foreseen or unforeseen, matured or unmatured, suspected or unsuspected, anticipated or unanticipated, which the Borrower or any Guarantor has, had, claims to have had or hereafter claims to have against the Released Parties by reason of any act or omission on the part of the Released Parties, or any of them, occurring prior to the date on which this Amendment is executed, including all such loss or damage of any kind heretofore sustained or that may arise as a consequence of the dealings among the parties up to and including the date on which this Amendment is executed, including the administration or enforcement of the Loans, the Obligations, the Credit Agreement or any of the Loan Documents (collectively, all of the foregoing, the “ Claims ”). Each of the Borrower and each Guarantor represents and warrants that it has no knowledge of any claim by it against the Released Parties or of any facts or acts of omissions of the Released Parties which on the date hereof would be the basis of a claim by the Borrower or any Guarantor against the Released Parties which is not released hereby. Each of the Borrower and each Guarantor represents and warrants that the foregoing constitutes a full and complete release of all Claims.

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: Cf. Cruz, 202 F.3d at 570 n. 5 (noting that plaintiff's "allegation in her EEOC complaint of 'unpermitted touching by supervisors’ ” was sufficient for the court to consider her claim of sex-based hostile work environment). 11 . Plaintiff's Complaint refers to an additional OEEO complaint made in February 2007. (Compl. ¶31.) However, Plaintiff has adduced no evidence of that complaint, nor does Plaintiff’s Opposition address the argument to that end in Defendants' memorandum in support of summary judgment. (See Defs.' Mem. 18; see generally Pl.’s Opp’n.) "[Ajrguments not made in opposition to a motion for summary judgment are deemed abandoned.’’ Plahutnik v. Daikin Am., Inc., 912 F.Supp.2d 96, 104 (S.D.N.Y.2012); see Jain v. McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc., 827 F.Supp.2d 272, 280 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (<HOLDING>); Senno v. Elmsford Union Free Sch. Dist„ 812 Options: A. holding that claims must put parties on sufficient notice of underlying arguments or arguments are deemed waived B. holding that petitioners had abandoned arguments not raised below C. holding that arguments not briefed are abandoned D. holding that plaintiff abandoned six claims when her opposition papers failed to respond to defendants arguments on those claims E. holding the petitioner abandoned her cat claim when she failed to raise it in her initial appellate brief

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that plaintiff abandoned six claims when her opposition papers failed to respond to defendants arguments on those claims
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of acquittal ... at the close of the evidence offered by the State and, in a jury trial, at the close of all the evidence. The defendant shall state with particularity all reasons why the motion should be granted.” (Emphasis added.) Subsection (c) of Rule 4-324 provides: A defendant who moves for judgment of acquittal at the close of evidence offered by the State may offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, without having reserved the right to do so and to the same extent as if the motion had not been made. In so doing, the defendant withdraws the motion. “ ‘[T]he language of [Rule 4-324] is mandatory.’” Bates v. State, 127 Md.App. 678, 691, 736 A.2d 407, cert. denied, 356 Md. 635, 741 A.2d 1095 (1999) (quoting State v. Lyles, 308 Md. 129, 135, 517 A.2d 761 (1986)) (<HOLDING>); accord Graham v. State, 325 Md. 398, 416-17, Options: A. holding that arguments not raised below are waived for appeal B. holding that where counsel failed to articulate below the arguments they urged on appeal regarding sufficiency of the evidence the arguments were waived C. holding that prisoner waived first amendment claim because he failed to brief arguments on appeal D. recognizing that arguments not briefed on appeal are waived E. holding arguments not raised on appeal waived

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that where counsel failed to articulate below the arguments they urged on appeal regarding sufficiency of the evidence the arguments were waived
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 Party hereto will bear and pay all costs and expenses incurred by it in connection with the transactions contemplated in this Agreement, including fees and expenses of its own financial consultants, accountants and counsel (and with respect to Buyer including the fees incurred by Buyer in connection with Section 7.2(c); provided , however, that a Party will indemnify the other Party for any finder’s fees and expenses relating to the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.

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: close a loophole that had allowed preferences in the form of set offs.” In re Elcona Homes Corp., 863 F.2d 483, 486 (7th Cir.1988). Section 553(a)(3) modified a Bankruptcy Act provision that prohibited setting off debt intentionally incurred for such a purpose by effectively limiting the determinative inquiry to whether the creditor intended to offset the recently acquired debt. In re Butcher, 79 B.R. 741, 746 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn.1987) (quoting DuVoisin v. Foster (In re S. Indus. Banking Corp.), 48 B.R. 306, 309 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn.1985)). The Section 553(a)(3) exception to setoff “prevents the courts from rewarding creditors who persuade a debtor to engage in conduct which has the effect of impermissi-bly improving the creditor’s position among the other creditors.” Woo , 568 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Factors that courts consider when evaluating Options: A. holding that the debtors deposit of funds was not in the ordinary course of business and was for the purpose of creating a setoff right for the bank B. holding that a purchaser of a vehicle was a buyer in the ordinary course of business even though the car dealer did not provide the certificate of title at the time of the sale C. holding that for setoff purposes a debt is due when the bank has the power to deem the debt due not when the bank actually exercises that power D. holding that boat repair was done in the ordinary course of business of river transportation company E. holding that the payment of a settlement from estate funds is not within the ordinary course under 363b

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the debtors deposit of funds was not in the ordinary course of business and was for the purpose of creating a setoff right for the bank
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 counterparts (and by different parties hereto in different counterparts), each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which when taken together shall constitute a single contract. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Agreement by facsimile or in electronic (i.e., “pdf” or “tif”) format shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the Effective Date, no information, exhibit or report furnished by any Loan Party to the Agent or any Lender Party in connection with the negotiation and syndication of the Loan Documents or pursuant to the terms of the Loan Documents contained any untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading; provided that all financial projections, if any, that have been or will be prepared by the Company and made available to the Joint Lead Arrangers, the Agent, any Lender or any potential Lender, or any other party hereto, have been or will be prepared in good faith based upon reasonable assumptions, it being understood by the Lenders and all the other parties hereto that such projections are subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies, many of which are beyond the Company’s control, and that no assurances can be given that the projections will be realized.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: on work-life expectancies compiled by the United States Department of Labor). In this regard, however, we must agree with the appellant. If sufficient, reliable evidence of Weil’s actual expenses is available then the district court should give the appellant the latitude to introduce this evidence. Once again we note that the actual maintenance deduction is a jury question and if the evidence of Weil’s actual maintenance expenditures will assist the jury in this determination then the evidence should be permitted. Weil’s estate is free to argue to the jury as to why the statistics are more accurate than the evidence of actual maintenance expenses presented by the appellant. See, e.g., Strickland v. Roosevelt County Rural Elec. Coop., 99 N.M. 335, 657 P.2d 1184, 1191 (Ct.App. 1982) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 99 N.M. 358, 658 P.2d 433 Options: A. recognizing the limitations of estimates of worklife expectancy and personal maintenance deductions based on department of labor tables B. holdingthat 301a confers jurisdiction on federal district courts over any agreement between employers and labor organizations significant to the maintenance of labor peace between them C. holding claims based on the fair labor standards act subject to arbitration D. holding that denial of petition for modification of maintenance was proper when the parties agreement prohibited modification of maintenance E. holding neutrality and nondiscrimination provisions of election agreement enforceable under 301 of the lmra as an agreement between an employer and a labor organization significant to the maintenance of labor peace between them

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing the limitations of estimates of worklife expectancy and personal maintenance deductions based on department of labor tables
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 may maintain a different billing address on file for the credit card issuing bank than the billing address you enter when you place an order on on http://www.underarmour.com.tr .

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: in the United States illegally following an order of deportation, were permitted to have a second and third bite at the apple simply because they managed to marry and have children while evading authorities. This apparent gaming of the system in an effort to avoid deportation is not tolerated by the existing regulatory scheme.”). Furthermore, despite Lin’s submission of various allegedly official Chinese government docu its discretion in concluding that Lin had not provided sufficient evidence that the birth of his U.S. citizen children violated the family planning policy in his area of residence in China, or that the implementation of sanctions resulting from any possible violation would rise to the level of persecution. Cf. Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we decline to examine Lin’s Options: A. holding that absent solid support in the record a petitioners fear is speculative at best B. holding that in the absence of solid support in the record for an appli cants assertion that she would be persecuted the bia did not err in denying asylum because her fear was speculative at best C. holding that in the absence of solid support in the record for an applicants assertion that he will be persecuted his fear is speculative at best D. holding that absent solid support in the record for the petitioners assertion that he would be subjected to persecution his fear was speculative at best E. holding that absent solid support in the record for the petitioners assertion that he would be persecuted his fear was speculative at best

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that in the absence of solid support in the record for an appli cants assertion that she would be persecuted the bia did not err in denying asylum because her fear was speculative at best
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: treated as a predicate felony conviction for career offender status because, while the maximum sentence at the time he was convicted and sentenced was two years imprisonment, a change in the law the following year reduced the maximum sentence to 150 days. For career offender purposes, a “prior felony conviction” is any prior conviction “punishable by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” even if the offense is not designated as a felony. USSG § 4B1.2, comment. (n.l). Polk objected to his career offender status on this ground in the district court, but at sentencing he acknowledged that settled Fourth Circuit law did not support his position. See United States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 245 (4th Cir.2005) (citing United States v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 435, 444-45 (4th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>)); United States v. Carter, 300 F.3d 415, 427 Options: A. holding that the mere possibility of an upward departure beyond one year qualifies a kansas offense as one punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year B. holding that to determine whether a north carolina conviction for a crime is punishable by a prison term exceeding one year a court is to consider the maximum aggravated sentence that could be imposed for that crime upon a defendant with the worst possible criminal history internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted C. holding that defendant has right to trial by jury before conviction of contempt punishable by severe punishment D. holding that a prior north carolina conviction was for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year if any defendant charged with that crime could receive a sentence of more than one year E. holding that determination of whether prior conviction was punishable by term of imprisonment exceeding one year is governed by law in effect on date of conviction

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that determination of whether prior conviction was punishable by term of imprisonment exceeding one year is governed by law in effect on date of conviction
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice required hereunder shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently given if delivered or sent by reputable overnight courier, hand delivered by messenger service, or sent by certified mail return receipt requested (in each case with evidence of receipt), addressed to the Address for Notice under each party’s signature below.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The term of this Agreement shall be for the period commencing on March 18, 2016 (the “ Effective Date ”) and ending, subject to earlier termination as set forth in Section 6, on the third anniversary thereof (the “ Employment Term ”).

assistant: Terms
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 judgment of the state court that the sentences be served concurrently. The short answer to that contention is that such a determination is not binding on federal authorities.”) (citing Abdul-Malik v. Hawk-Sawyer, 403 F.3d 72, 75 (2d Cir.2005) (“The state sentencing court did specify that the state sentence should run concurrently to the federal sentence. However, such a determination is not binding on federal authorities.”) (emphasis in original) (citing McCarthy v. Doe, 146 F.3d 118, 120-21 (2d Cir.1998)) (“[Although petitioner emphasizes the state court’s designation of its sentence to run concurrently with petitioner’s federal sentence, we note that the state court’s intent is not binding on federal authorities.”) (citing United States v. Sackinger, 704 F.2d 29, 32 (2d Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>)), aff'd No. 09-1848-pr, 377 Fed.Appx. 97 (2d Options: A. holding that both the state and the defendant are bound to the terms of a plea agreement under santobello B. holding federal court is not bound by terms of plea agreement between defendant and state authorities C. holding federal courts are bound by state court determinations of state law D. holding that a federal habeas court may grant specific performance of a plea agreement in the face of evidence that the state has breached the terms of such an agreement E. holding that when a court accepts a fixed plea agreement it is bound by the agreements terms

assistant: The best answer is B. holding federal court is not bound by terms of plea agreement between defendant and state authorities
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: attorney’s fees (R. at 106), ond brief (bearing "15” as a handwritten page number) begins mid-sentence, even though the previous page (bearing “14” as a handwritten page number) concluded with the end of its last paragraph. Given this, it appears that Jones may have omitted one or more pages from his brief when he filed it. Jones has not taken any action to correct his brief or otherwise inform the Court of a problem with this filing. 8 . By not challenging the bankruptcy court’s decision to construe the Application as seek-tag to be appointed as special counsel on behalf of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate, and by not addressing § 327(e) in his briefs, Jones has waived any argument on these issues. Landstrom v. Ill. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 892 F.2d 670, 678 (7th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). 9 . Because Land was a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Options: A. holding that a single sentence in an opening brief asserting a district courts alleged error is insufficient to raise on appeal any meritsbased challenge to the district courts ruling B. holding that a courts failure to provide a defendant with any portion of a habeas transcript was error C. holding that appellants waived any claim of error as to the portion of the lower courts ruling that they did not expressly challenge on appeal D. holding that the defendant waived the right to challenge a suppression ruling on appeal E. holding challenge to suppression ruling not waived under young even though record did not affirmatively indicate that the ruling was part or all of reason for plea

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that appellants waived any claim of error as to the portion of the lower courts ruling that they did not expressly challenge on appeal
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: To the extent that they exist, Employee will not disclose to the Company or any of its subsidiaries any of Employee’s previous employer’s confidential information or trade secrets. Further, Employee represents and warrants that Employee has not previously assumed any obligations inconsistent with those of this Agreement and that employment by the Company does not conflict with any prior obligations to third parties. In addition, Employee and the Company agree that it is important for any prospective employer to be aware of this Agreement, so that disputes concerning this Agreement can be avoided in the future. Therefore, Employee agrees that, following termination of employment with the Company, the Company or any of its subsidiaries may forward a copy of this Agreement (and any related Exhibits hereto) to any future prospective or actual employer, and Employee releases the Company or any of its subsidiaries from any claimed liability or damage caused to Employee by virtue of the Company’s act in making that prospective or actual employer aware of this Agreement (and any related Exhibits hereto).

assistant: No Conflicts
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: See 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(l)(A)(ii). Defendants have attached both an affidavit and the tax returns for the prior three years to their Motion to Dismiss, and these documents reflect that Pegaso’s gross sale volume falls short of $500,000. In light of the evidence presented by Defendants, this Court finds Defendants have established that the restaurant does not meet the FLSA “enterprise” standard. Plaintiff claims that it is premature for this Court to make a dispositive finding with respect to the gross volume of sales issue and asks that this Court provide her an opportunity to conduct further discovery. As discovery on this matter would not lead to any genuine issues of fact, this Court cannot accede to Plaintiffs request. Cf. Strag v. Board of Trustees, 55 F.3d 943, 954 (4th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Even if an employer does not meet the Options: A. holding that under rule 56f nonmoving party seeking additional discovery must demonstrate precisely how additional discovery will lead to a genuine issue of material fact B. holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment C. holding that a court may deny a rule 56f motion where the additional evidence sought for discovery would not have by itself created a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment D. holding that rule 56f may not defeat summary judgment where the result of a continuance to obtain further information would be wholly speculative E. holding that the court was precluded from considering whether the district court had abused its discretion in ruling on defendants summary judgment motion before allowing plaintiff to conduct requested discovery where the plaintiff had not filed an affidavit pursuant to rule 56f and stating that when a party does not avail himself of relief under rule 56f it is generally not an abuse of discretion for the district court to rule on the motion for summary judgment citation omitted

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a court may deny a rule 56f motion where the additional evidence sought for discovery would not have by itself created a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment
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: same conclusion.” Id. at 1079 n. 6. In addition, although “a number of decisions have applied the Davis rule in a pre-waiver or initial waiver context ... only one published opinion, from any jurisdiction, [has done] so after expressly considering the initial waiver/post-waiver distinction.” Id. (citing In re Christopher K., 299 Ill.Dec. 213, 841 N.E.2d at 964-65). 10 . Thus, attempts by officers to clarify an ambiguous request for counsel in the pre-waiver context do not, as the Court of Criminal Appeals implied, g 478-79 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.2000) (determining that defendant's statement, while being read his Miranda rights, that "I want a lawyer but I can't afford a lawyer” was not an unequivocal request for counsel); People v. Granderson, 212 Mich. App. 673, 538 N.W.2d 471, 473 (1995) (<HOLDING>); State v. Linnik, No. CA2004-06-015, 2006 WL Options: A. holding that defendants response i cant i cant afford it when informed that an attorney would be provided for him if he could not afford one did not without further explanation amount to a clear unambiguous or unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel B. holding that defendants response after being told that the state would provide him an attorney if he wanted one of yeah im im ah need that cause i cant afford none did not reflect a present desire for counsel at all much less an unequivocal one C. holding that a suspect must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law that he has the right to the presence of an attorney and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires D. holding in light of davis that defendants statement i cant afford a lawyer but is there anyway i can get one lacked the clear implication of a present desire to consult with counsel and was ambiguous at best E. holding that the defendants conclusory assertion that he told his counsel he wanted to testify but that counsel failed to call him as witness was insufficient to require a hearing or a response from government but the defendant should have been allowed an opportunity to state his claim with greater specificity

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that defendants response after being told that the state would provide him an attorney if he wanted one of yeah im im ah need that cause i cant afford none did not reflect a present desire for counsel at all much less an unequivocal one
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: 295 Md. 67, 453 A.2d 814 (1982) (same); Hunter v. Board of Educ., Md.Ct.App., 292 Md. 481, 439 A.2d 582 (1982) (same); Swidryk v. Saint Michael’s Med. Ctr., N.J.Super.Ct.Law Div., 20l N.J.Super. 601, 493 A.2d 641 (1985) (same); Hoffman v. Board of Educ., N.Y.Ct.App., 49 N.Y.2d 121, 424 N.Y.S.2d 376, 400 N.E.2d 317 (1979) (same); Donohue v. Copiague Union Free Sch. Dist., N.Y.Ct.App., 47 N.Y.2d 440, 418 N.Y.S.2d 375, 391 N.E.2d 1352 (1979) (often-cited case refusing to recognize educational malpractice tort based on claim that school failed to adequately educate student); Poe v. Hamilton, Ohio Ct.App., 56 Ohio App.3d 137, 565 N.E.2d 887 (1990) (stating public policy precludes cause of action for educational malpractice); see also Ross v. Creighton Univ., 7th Cir., 957 F.2d 410 (1992) (<HOLDING>). 8 . In Moore, the Iowa Supreme Court Options: A. holding that illinois supreme court would refuse to recognize the tort of educational malpractice B. holding that the court of appeals lacks the authority to overrule decisions of the supreme court of north carolina and has a responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the supreme court C. recognizing that only the illinois supreme court could finally resolve the issue of implicit repeal explaining the state must resolve this conflict internally D. holding that district court opinion which cites controlling authority that is pending review in florida supreme court allows supreme court to exercise jurisdiction E. holding that court was within its discretion to refuse to consider reports that did not meet the supreme courts standards for admitting reports into evidence

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that illinois supreme court would refuse to recognize the tort of educational malpractice
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: pounds of chickens caught and the number of Catchers providing chicken catching services for the particular job. See Beacon Flag Car, 910 A.2d at 108; Pavalonis v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 57 Pa.Cmwlth. 289, 426 A.2d 215, 217 (1981). Second, the Joint Venture did not withhold taxes from the Catchers’ compensation. See Krum v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 689 A.2d 330, 332 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997). Third, the Joint Venture did not provi group or dictate the manner in which the work must be completed; rather the Catchers worked together as a group to divide tasks and complete each job without supervision to accomplish the goal of loading live chickens. See York Gazette Co. v. Bureau of Employment Securities, Dep’t of Labor and Indus., 28 Pa.Cmwlth. 410, 368 A.2d 1314, 1315 (1977) (<HOLDING>). It is clear from the record that the Joint Options: A. holding that duty to ensure that independent contractor performs its work in safe manner arises if the general contractor retains some control over the manner in which the independent contractor performs its work B. holding that if the putative employee has the discretion to adopt the means and methods he wishes to accomplish the required work he is an independent contractor C. holding that a general contractors right to forbid the work from being performed in a dangerous manner and the fact that he would have stopped the work and required protective equipment had he seen the employee of the independent contractor not using such equipment merely showed the possibility of control not actual control D. holding that putative employers control over result but not manner in which work was performed is factor that weighs in favor of independent contractor status E. holding that even though the relationship lasted over a six year period the yeartoyear contracts between the parties weighed in favor of independent contractor

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that putative employers control over result but not manner in which work was performed is factor that weighs in favor of independent contractor status
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 Member, for itself, its Affiliates and their directors, officers, agents, employees and other persons authorized to act in its or their behalf agrees that the Business of the Joint Venture shall be conducted in conformity with all applicable laws, statutes, regulations, rules, policies, and orders as in effect from time to time.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notices referred to herein shall be in writing and shall be deemed given if delivered in person or by facsimile transmission, telexed or sent by U.S. registered or certified mail to the Participant at his or her address on file with the Company (or to such other address as the Participant shall specify by notice), or to the Company at its principal executive office, Attn: Secretary.

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: made some positive efforts in collecting rebates which should be commended. At this juncture, the most pertinent issue is how best to expend Federal Defendants’ limited resources to accomplish the purpose of the Court’s decrees-the enforcement of the regulatory duties. This suit comes at a time of frugal federal budgets and limited resources for federal officials. Doubtless the conservation of these resources will assist them in fulfilling their regulatory duties generally and more specifically the ones at issue in this suit. Finally, if for no other reason, compensatory sanctions are inappropriate because competent proof of the amount of losses and attorney fees have not been submitted to the Court. See O’Connor v. Midwest Pipe Fabrications, Inc., 972 F.2d 1204, 1211 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Gen. Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d Options: A. holding that monetary sanction was not supportable as a compensatory civil contempt sanction because there was no proof of the amount of loss B. recognizing that the stated purposes of a contempt sanction alone cannot be determinative C. holding that 25 surcharge added to fees that otherwise would be compensatory was a criminal contempt sanction even though it was payable to the adverse party and not to the court reversing order for sanctions because court did not follow procedural requirements for criminal contempt D. holding that a trustee can recover damages in the form of costs and attorneys fees under section 105a as a sanction for ordinary civil contempt E. holding that a postjudgment contempt sanction for refusal to obey orders whether it is characterized as a civil or a criminal sanction is immediately appealable as a final order under 1291

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that monetary sanction was not supportable as a compensatory civil contempt sanction because there was no proof of the amount of loss