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: of error regarding the tender back determination. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 2 . See Weiner v. San Diego County, 210 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.2000). 3 . See Klem v. County of Santa Clara, 208 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir.2000). 4 . 29 C.F.R. § 541.118(a) (To remain exempt, "an employee need not be paid for any workweek in which he performs no work.”) 5 . 29 C.F.R. § 778.105. 6 . See Childers v. City of Eugene, 120 F.3d 944, 947 (9th Cir.1997) (one suspension); Paresi v. City of Portland, 182 F.3d 665, 668 (9th Cir.1999) (two improper suspensions not sufficient to constitute an "actual practice”); Block v. City of Los Angeles, 253 F.3d 410, 422 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); but see id. at 419 (finding actual practice Options: A. holding that to determine whether a statement was voluntary the court must consider the totality of all the surrounding circumstances both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation and decide whether a defendants will was overborne by the circumstances surrounding the giving of a confession B. holding in case where the asserted defense to plaintiffs contract action to recover fees for his professional services was that the professional services were for the unlicensed practice of law in new jersey and that the contract was therefore illegal and unenforceable that questions of unlawful practice of law will turn on the particular facts presented that the issue could be determined only on a full and complete appreciation of the events and surrounding circumstances that the trial court not evaluate the merits of appellees affirmative defense without reference to matters outside the pleadings and therefore that judgment on the pleadings was not warranted C. holding that trial court may consider circumstances surrounding making of agreement in determining whether agreement is ambiguous and noting that ambiguity exists when language of agreement in and of itself supports reasonable interpretation distinct from reasonable interpretation reached when language is read in light of surrounding circumstances D. holding that an encounter is a seizure if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave E. holding that a reasonable factfinder could infer from the facts and circumstances surrounding the suspensions that the six improper suspensions do not amount to a pattern or practice of violations demonstrating an intention not to pay employees on a salaried basis

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a reasonable factfinder could infer from the facts and circumstances surrounding the suspensions that the six improper suspensions do not amount to a pattern or practice of violations demonstrating an intention not to pay employees on a salaried basis
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: “reason ably infer” with respect to justifiable reliance, such an argument “cannot substitute for evidence of ‘justifiable reliance.’ ” Taylor, supra, 776 A.2d at 1220 (emphasis added). Here, appellants have not shown justifiable reliance in order to establish a special relationship. Despite their conclu-sory allegations to the contrary, appellants have failed to show that Allen acted or failed to act in any way, because of the presence of EMTs, PAT monitors, or any other safety personnel at the test. Indeed, a conclusion that there was a special relationship between Allen and the District, relying overwhelmingly on the fact that EMTs were present at the PAT, would be the impetus toward perverse incentives such as the avoidance of safety precautions. Cf. Varner, supra, 891 A.2d at 272 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, Allen’s decision to sign the Options: A. holding that operational manuals do not establish standard of care because to hold otherwise would create the perverse incentive to write manuals in such a manner as to impose minimal duties in order to limit civil liability internal quotation marks omitted B. recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted C. holding that trial court retains wide latitude and considerable discretion to limit crossexamination internal quotation marks omitted D. holding that the petitioner may not turn a clerical error into a windfall of rights it would not otherwise enjoy internal quotation marks omitted E. holding that to establish a violation of due process an alien must show that she was denied a full and fair opportunity to present her claims internal quotation marks omitted

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that operational manuals do not establish standard of care because to hold otherwise would create the perverse incentive to write manuals in such a manner as to impose minimal duties in order to limit civil liability internal quotation marks omitted
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: The Court explained the considerations behind this view in Wayte: This broad discretion rests largely on the recognition that the decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to judicial review. Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution’s general deterrence value, the Government’s enforcement priorities, and the case’s relationship to the Government’s overall enforcement plan are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake. 470 U.S. at 607, 105 S.Ct. 1524. These considerations apply as well to the administrative charging decisions of the Secretary of Labor. And we have previously found the traditional nonreviewability of prosecutorial charging decisions applicable to administrative cases. See Drake, 291 F.3d at 71 (<HOLDING>); Beverly Health & Rehab. Servs., Inc. v. Options: A. holding that the relevant inquiry is not whether the court has discretion to facilitate notice but whether this is an appropriate case in which to exercise discretion B. holding that exercise of prosecutorial discretion was not subject to judicial review absent a constitutional claim or question of law C. holding that the faas action in this case was analogous to an exercise of prosecutorial discretion and noting that when prosecutorial discretion is at issue the matter is presumptively committed to agency discretion by law D. holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion E. holding the selection of the person to be appointed guardian is a matter which is committed largely to the discretion of the appointing court and an appellate court will interfere with the exercise of this discretion only in case of a clear abuse

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the faas action in this case was analogous to an exercise of prosecutorial discretion and noting that when prosecutorial discretion is at issue the matter is presumptively committed to agency discretion by law
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 failed to show “a patent violation of law, or such a palpable abuse of authority as to be commensurate with illegality”). However, there is an exception to this general rule for cases in which an administrative agency commits a public wrong or violates substantive rights without giving an equal benefit in return. Newhall, 54 So.2d at 50. In Newhall, the Newhall Drainage District and a landowner filed a complaint requesting that the court enjoin the Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District from (1) placing two culverts under a state road to allow flood waters- to enter canals in the Newhall District and (2) cleaning, widening, and deepening the main diversion canal in the Newhall District so that it could receive floodwaters. 54 So.2d at 48. The c a. 1st DCA 1980) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the trial court recognized the Options: A. holding that simply dumping a hazardous substance onto land or into water is an abnormally dangerous activity B. holding that the department of transportation may be enjoined from diverting water flow onto a landowners property C. holding that article x 2 of the california constitution dictates the basic principles defining water rights that no one can have a protectible interest in the unreasonable use of water and that holders of water rights must use water reasonably and beneficially D. holding that a board of county commissioners may be enjoined from flooding private property E. recognizing that water rights constitute a real property interest

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the department of transportation may be enjoined from diverting water flow onto a landowners property
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 be governed, construed, interpreted and enforced in accordance with its express terms, and otherwise in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of Illinois without reference to the principles of conflicts of law of the State of Illinois or any other jurisdiction, and where applicable, the laws of the United States.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: caused by Visa’s absence from this litigation. Any such harm would result from FIFA’s alleged conduct in awarding Visa sponsorship rights it could not legally give. We would be significantly broadening both Rule 19(a)(2)® and the principle discussed in Crouse-Hinds if we found that because the outcome of this case may impact a separate contract involving a different party, that finding would transform the action into “an action to set aside a lease or a contract.” Crouse-Hinds, 634 F.2d at 701 (quoting Lomayaktewa, 520 F.2d at 1325). Crouse-Hinds involved an actual .action to set aside a contract; here we have an action that could in the future impact a third party’s rights under a separate contract. We, therefore, do not find Crouse-Hinds controlling here and decline to b Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>), we do not find this reasoning applicable Options: A. recognizing actions to quiet title are equitable in nature and a court sitting in equity has jurisdiction to quiet title as a remedy for fraud B. holding that federal government may not under michigan law attach lien to entireties property to satisfy individual tax liability of one spouse C. holding that state legislature should determine whether to cure discriminatory tax by enforcing tax as to all or forgiving tax in its entirety D. holding that a lien holder who is not served and joined as a party to a tax suit cannot have his lien extinguished by the tax sale E. holding that in an action to quiet title by aggrieved tax payer against government seeking to recover automobiles sold to satisfy tax lien purchasers of automobiles were necessary parties

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that in an action to quiet title by aggrieved tax payer against government seeking to recover automobiles sold to satisfy tax lien purchasers of automobiles were necessary parties
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: when you register with yahoo , you acknowledge that in using the yahoo services to send electronic communications ( including but not limited to email , search queries , sending messages to yahoo chat or yahoo groups , uploading photos and files to flickr , and other internet activities ) , you will be causing communications to be sent through yahoo 's computer networks , portions of which are located in california , texas , virginia , and other locations in the united states and portions of which are located abroad .

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: declaratory judgment. The parties agreed to a bench trial as to the issue of the amount, if any, of reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees that should be awarded to Air Routing under the Theft Act. Britannia and Air Routing agree that the Theft Act requires the trial court to award Air Routing reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees for defending Britannia’s Theft Act claim. The Theft Act is unusual in Texas law in that it requires the court to award attorney’s fees to a party who successfully defends a Theft Act claim, without any prerequisite that the claim is found to be groundless, frivolous, or brought in bad faith. See Tex. Civ. PRAC. & Rem Code Ann. § 134.005(b) (Vernon 1997); Johns v. Ram-Forwarding, Inc., 29 S.W.3d 635, 637-38 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Scott A. Brister, Proof of Attorney’s Fees in Options: A. holding that indemnitee may recover attorneys fees incurred in defending indemnity agreement B. holding defendant could not recover attorneys fees under predecessor to statute 38001 when defendant did not present contract claim C. holding defendant that did not present its own claim under chapter 38 could not recover attorneys fees D. holding theft act entitles defendant to recover reasonable and necessary attorneys fees in successfully defending theft act claim even if defendant does not recover any actual damages E. holding that beneficiaries of an alleged will may recover reasonable expenses and attorneys fees when defending a will in good faith

assistant: The best answer is D. holding theft act entitles defendant to recover reasonable and necessary attorneys fees in successfully defending theft act claim even if defendant does not recover any actual damages
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall use the net proceeds from the sale of the Securities hereunder for working capital purposes, as approved by the Board of Directors, including the repayment of short-term loans other than the Notes. The Company shall not use such proceeds for the redemption of any Common Stock or Common Stock Equivalents.

assistant: Use Of Proceeds
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: as the facts underlying the statement are true. See Yagman, 55 F.3d at 1438. 3. Underinclusive Myers further argues that both Canon 4.1(A)(10) and Rule 8.2(a) aré underinclusive because Canon 4.1(A)(10) does not apply to statements made prior to attorneys announcing their candidacy and Rule 8.2(a) applies only to attorneys. “Un-derinclusivity creates a First Amendment concern when the State regulates one as pect of a problem while declining to regulate a different aspect of a problem that affects its stated interest in a comparable way.”- Williams-Yulee, 135 S.Ct. at 1670 (emphasis in original). The Supreme Court recognizes that a law can violate the First Amendment by abridging “too little speech.” Id. at 1668 (emphasis in original); see also White, 536 U.S. at 783, 122 S.Ct. 2528 (<HOLDING>). However, the Court has upheld laws the could Options: A. holding that the judges restriction of the class was not an abuse of discretion B. holding that resigntorun requirement in delaware judges code of judicial conduct did not violate first amendment interests of judges C. holding that judges have immunity from suit for judicial acts D. recognizing that the magistrate judges actions effectively severed claims against only certain defendants E. holding the announce clause of minnesotas code of judicial conduct was not narrowly tailored because it was woefully underinclusive prohibiting announcements by judges and wouldbe judges only at certain times and in certain forms

assistant: The best answer is E. holding the announce clause of minnesotas code of judicial conduct was not narrowly tailored because it was woefully underinclusive prohibiting announcements by judges and wouldbe judges only at certain times and in certain forms
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: thus the claims against them were properly dismissed. V. Dismissal of the Malicious Prosecution Claim The District Court dismissed the malicious prosecution claim because the allegedly malicious prosecution had not terminated in McGee’s favor, as required by New York law. We agree. The prosecution against McGee terminated when, pursuant to N.Y. CPL § 170.30(l)(a), the accusatory instrument was dismissed as facially insufficient to state a claim for witness tampering. A55-56. We have held that a dismissal under CPL § 170.30 for facial insufficiency is “not a decision on the merits, an essential element of a cause of action for malicious prosecution.” Breen v. Garrison, 169 F.3d 152, 153 (2d Cir.1999); see also MacFawn v. Kresler, 88 N.Y.2d 859, 644 N.Y.S.2d 486, 666 N.E.2d 1359 (1996) (<HOLDING>). McGee relies upon Smithy-Hunter v. Harvey in Options: A. holding that action could not form the basis of a malicious prosecution claim where criminal information was dismissed as insufficient to support the charges without prejudice and the prosecutors did not amend or refile B. holding that a claim dismissed as malicious under the ifp statute should be with prejudice C. holding that the defendant could not be liable for malicious prosecution where the plaintiff presented no evidence suggesting that defendants conspired with influenced or even participated in the prosecutors decision to bring charges against him D. holding that a claim for malicious prosecution is not available when a prosecutor makes an independent determination of whether to pursue criminal charges E. holding the same for malicious prosecution

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that action could not form the basis of a malicious prosecution claim where criminal information was dismissed as insufficient to support the charges without prejudice and the prosecutors did not amend or refile
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that the burglary occur in a dwelling.” Wenner, 351 F.3d at 973. Taylor sets forth a categorical approach, which “generally requires the trial court to look only to the fact of conviction and the statutory definition of the prior offense.” 495 U.S. at 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143. Using that approach, Rodriguez’s California first degree burglary conviction does not constitute generic burglary because California Penal Code Sections 459 and 460 do not require “unlawful or unprivileged entry” for a burglary conviction. See Taylor, 495 U.S. at 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (“A few States’ burglary statutes, however, define burglary more broadly, e.g., by eliminating the requirement that the entry be unlawful.”); see also People v. Frye, 18 Cal.4th 894, 954, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183 (Cal. 1998) (<HOLDING>). Where, as here, the state burglary statute is Options: A. holding that in california one may be convicted of burglary even if he enters with consent B. holding a defendant may not be convicted of more than one count of dissemination of matter harmful to minors based on one occurrence even if there was more than one victim C. holding that iowa burglary is not categorical burglary as the elements of iowa burglary law are broader than those of generic burglary D. holding that a california burglary conviction was burglary under a modifiedcategorical approach because velascomedina pled guilty where the indictment alleged unlawful entry E. holding that possession of burglary tools is an offense separate from burglary

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that in california one may be convicted of burglary even if he enters with consent
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Lender, other than Bank of America, that is designated in connection with this credit facility as an “Arranger,” “Bookrunner” or “Administrative Agent” of any kind shall have no right or duty under any Loan Documents other than those applicable to all Lenders, and shall in no event have any fiduciary duty to any Secured Party.

assistant: Titles
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: Walker, Inc., 878 F.2d 729, Fed.Sec.L.Rep. (CCH) 1f 94,449 (3d Cir. June 29, 1989), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected the notice argument advanced by defendants here. Holding the exclusionary language binding, despite the rescission of Rule 15c2-2, the Court noted that the language was “unequivocal” and a customer reading the language “could not be expected to be aware of the regulatory background or to understand that the language may become meaningless with the winds of change in the law.” Concluding that the securities claims were not arbitrable, the Court pointed out that defendant could not be relieved from the agreement simply by arguing that it did not mean what it said. Accord Leicht v. Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc., 848 F.2d 130, 133 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). A similar conclusion was reached in Brick v. Options: A. holding that the federal arbitration act requires piecemeal resolution when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement and mandates enforcement of an arbitration agreement notwithstanding the presence of other persons who are parties to the underlying dispute but not to the arbitration agreement emphasis added B. recognizing that the broad language in herring signals a dramatic restriction in the application of the exclusionary rule and represents a significant recasting of modern exclusionary rule theory C. holding that arbitration award is binding on the parties D. holding that an arbitration in accordance with aaa rules is a binding arbitration E. holding exclusionary language in an arbitration agreement binding despite the rescission of rule 15c22

assistant: The best answer is E. holding exclusionary language in an arbitration agreement binding despite the rescission of rule 15c22
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 and all notices or other communications or deliveries required or permitted to be provided hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed given and effective on the earliest of: (a) the date of transmission, if such notice or communication is delivered via email at the email address set forth on the signature pages attached hereto at or prior to 5:30 p.m. (Eastern time) on a Business Day, (b) the next Business Day after the date of transmission, if such notice or communication is delivered via email at the email address set forth on the signature pages attached hereto on a day that is not a Business Day or later than 5:30 p.m. (Eastern time) on any Business Day, (c) the second (2nd) Business Day following the date of mailing, if sent by U.S. nationally recognized overnight courier service or (d) upon actual receipt by the party to whom such notice is required to be given. The address for such notices and communications shall be as set forth on the signature pages attached hereto.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement, the rights and obligations of the parties hereto, and any claims or disputes relating thereto, shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas (but not including any choice of law rule thereof that would cause the laws of another jurisdiction to apply). The Company and the Executive irrevocably consent to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the federal and state courts in Harris County, Texas for the resolution of any disputes arising under or with respect to this Agreement, and each of the Company and the Executive agrees to waive and does hereby waive any defenses and/or arguments based upon improper venue and/or lack of personal jurisdiction. The Executive and the Company hereby waive their respective rights to trial by jury in any action concerning this Agreement or the Continuing Obligations any and all matters arising directly or indirectly out of this Agreement or the Continuing Obligations. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, a Company Releasee may seek to enforce this Agreement in the federal or state courts located in New York County, New York, and the Executive hereby agrees to the jurisdiction of such courts and further agrees to waive any defenses and/or arguments based upon improper venue and/or lack of personal jurisdiction with respect to such courts. The Executive represents that the Executive has consulted with counsel of the Executive’s choice or has chosen voluntarily not to do so specifically with respect to this jury trial waiver.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: was unable to perform all of the material duties of any occupation for which plaintiff was or might have reasonably become qualified based upon her education, training or experience or that solely due to her arthritis, arthralgia and/or myalgia she was unable to earn more than 80% of her Indexed Covered Earnings. Aplt. App. Vol. 7 at 701560. Ms. Null argues that medical records alone could not establish her ability to perform different occupations and that the testimony of a vocational expert was required to establish that fact. She asserts that it was LINA’s obligation to secure such evidence. Normally, with an initial disability claim, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that she is unable to perform in any occupation. Torix v. Ball Corp., 862 F.2d 1428, 1431 (10th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). There is authority, however, that the burden Options: A. holding a state cannot impose an income tax on indians whose income is solely from reservation sources B. holding that a claimant is required to establish a physical inability to follow any occupation from which he can earn a reasonably substantial income rising to the dignity of an income or livelihood although the income may not be as much as was earned prior to the disability C. holding that net farm income when applied to a producer in the fishing industry means net income from all fishing activity not just that income from a particular commodity and further providing that the regulations make it reasonably clear that the determination of net fishing income is not to be made solely on the basis of tax return information if other information is relevant to determining the producers net income from all fishing sources D. holding that trial judge has discretion to not include bonuses as part of gross income if he or she determines that the bonus income is not dependable or would place a hardship on a parent E. holding that in determining the amount of income to impute to a party the court does not necessarily have to impute the amount of income the party would earn by his or her best efforts to gain employment equal to the parties capabilities

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a claimant is required to establish a physical inability to follow any occupation from which he can earn a reasonably substantial income rising to the dignity of an income or livelihood although the income may not be as much as was earned prior to the disability
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: adherents believe their faith commands them to sacrifice animals. But the Court did not do so, instead deeming it sufficient that they had a sincere desire to sacrifice animals for religious reasons. See Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 531, 113 S.Ct. 2217. Additionally, if anything turned on whether a religious practice is “mandatory” or “optional,” courts would have to question “the validity of particular litigants’ interpretations of [their] creeds” and perhaps even adjudicate “controversies over religious authority or dogma,” tasks that are “not within the judicial ken.” Smith, 494 U.S. at 877, 887, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (internal quotation marks omitted); cf. Presbyterian Church in U.S. v. Mary Elizabeth Hull Mem’l Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 449-50, 89 S.Ct. 601, 21 L.Ed.2d 658 (1969) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. Options: A. holding that courts can adjudicate property disputes as well as exercise jurisdiction over the narrow issue of whether bylaws of the church were properly adopted B. holding that members of a church congregation lacked sufficient interest to support intervention in an action by the church itself challenging the designation of the church as a landmark C. holding that denial of tax exemption for part of church property that was not necessary for occupancy and enjoyment of church did not violate first amendment D. holding the application of agediscrimination law in the ministers lawsuit against his church violative of the free exercise clause E. holding that the free exercise clause prohibits courts from deciding church property disputes by resolving underlying conflicts over the interpretation of particular church doctrines and the importance of those doctrines to the religion

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the free exercise clause prohibits courts from deciding church property disputes by resolving underlying conflicts over the interpretation of particular church doctrines and the importance of those doctrines to the religion
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: CURIAM. In this direct appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in revoking his probation based upon new law violations that were not charged in the affidavit of violation of probation. However, Appellant neither lodged contemporaneous objection to the revocation nor filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) motion to preserve this error for appeal. Brannon v. State, 850 So.2d 452, 456 (Fla.2003) (<HOLDING>); Jones v. State, 876 So.2d 642, 644-45 (Fla. Options: A. holding that issues must be briefed to be preserved on appeal B. holding that it is an abuse of discretion to make errors of law or clear errors of factual determination C. holding that to establish prejudice the defendant must show a reasonable likelihood that the sentencing courts obvious errors affected his sentence D. holding that all sentencing errors must be preserved E. holding that claim was preserved for subsequent appeal by objection at original sentencing hearing

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that all sentencing errors must be preserved
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of this Section 4.3 shall survive the Closing. Sellers shall prepare a statement of the prorations and adjustments required by this Agreement (the “ Joint Closing Statement ”) and submit it to Purchaser for approval at least three (3) Business Days prior to the Closing Date. The items listed below are to be prorated or adjusted as of the close of business on the Closing Date (it being understood that, for purposes of prorations and adjustments, Sellers shall be deemed the owner of the Property on the day immediately preceding the Closing Date and Purchaser shall be deemed the owner of the Property as of the day of the Closing Date (the “ Adjustment Date ”); provided, however, that in the event any of the Leases provide that a tenant is to directly pay any of the expenses set forth below in this Section 4.3 to a third party other than a Seller, then such amount shall not be prorated). The provisions of this Section 4.3 shall survive the Closing.

assistant: Adjustments
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: At any time upon the request of the Administrative Agent, Borrower will, promptly and at its expense, execute, acknowledge and deliver such further documents and perform such other acts and things as the Administrative Agent may reasonably request to evidence the Loans made hereunder and interest thereon in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The Administrative Agent has agreed in some instances that the maximum amount secured by a Deed of Trust may be limited in order to reduce fees or taxes paid by the Borrower in a particular jurisdiction.

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

user: 2. The Receiving Party shall with regard to any Information disclosed pursuant to this Agreement by or on behalf of a Disclosing Party on or after the Effective Date: a. hold the Information in confidence and, except as is otherwise stated herein or agreed in writing by the Disclosing Party, shall not disclose or make available the Information by publication or otherwise to any third party (including for the avoidance of doubt, disclosure in any patent application or to any patent office) and shall use any Information disclosed to it pursuant to this Agreement only for carrying out the Purpose;

assistant: Yes
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: amended Exemption 7 in 1986 to make clear that 7(E) “was not limited to records or information addressing only individual violations - of the law.” Id. at 79. More recently, in Blackwell v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Court of Appeals held that the FBI had properly withheld methods of data collection, organization, and presentation contained in certain reports under Exemption 7(E). 646 F.3d at 42. The methods were developed for the FBI to meet the agency’s “investigative needs,” rather than linked to a specific investigation. Id. Moreover, as Defendant correctly points out, Def.’s Mot. at 11, 13-14, courts in this District repeatedly have held that information connected to law enforcement databases qualifies for exemption under 7(E). See, e.g., Long, 149 F.Supp.3d at 44 (<HOLDING>); Strunk v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 906 F.Supp.2d Options: A. holding that computer transaction and function codes that reveal how to navigate and retrieve information from a law enforcement database were properly withheld under exemption 7e B. holding that user access codes that facilitated access to a law enforcement database were properly redacted under exemption 7e C. holding that records concerning polygraph examination procedures and other law enforcement techniques are protected from disclosure under exemption 7e D. holding that numerical codes used to identify information and individuals as well as codes related to procedures concerning the use of law enforcement resources and databases and case program and access codes were properly withheld under exemption 7e E. holding that requests for metadata and database schema of law enforcement information databases qualify for exemption under 7e

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that requests for metadata and database schema of law enforcement information databases qualify for exemption under 7e
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: rules). Neither party raised a choice-of-law question, and the parties’ briefs both assume that New York substantive law applies. Under New York tort law, whether a dangerous or defective condition exists so as to create liability in negligence “depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury.” Trincere v. County of Suffolk, 90 N.Y.2d 976, 665 N.Y.S.2d 615, 688 N.E.2d 489, 490 (N.Y.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, a property owner may not be held hable in damages for “trivial defects on a walkway, not constituting a trap or nuisance, as a consequence of which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his toes, or trip over a raised projection.” Marin .2d 595, 706 N.Y.S.2d 156 (NY.App.Div.2000) (<HOLDING>). New York courts often rely on the judge’s Options: A. holding that although the alleged defect was only onehalf inch deep plaintiffs raised triable issue of fact as to whether the color of the carpet and poor lighting in the room presented a trap for the unwary B. holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal C. holding that the defendants failed to establish an entitlement to dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint when the alleged fraud was immaterial to any issue that would ultimately be presented to the fact finder D. holding that where an issue is raised in the district court but raised late and the district court declines to deem the issue waived the issue may be raised on appeal E. holding no triable issue of fact existed where employee had not asked for accommodation

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that although the alleged defect was only onehalf inch deep plaintiffs raised triable issue of fact as to whether the color of the carpet and poor lighting in the room presented a trap for the unwary
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 re N.Y. Times Co., 878 F.2d 67 (2d Cir.1989) (per curiam); ABC, Inc. v. Stetvart, 360 F.3d 90, 97 (2d Cir.2004). The Court finds these eases inapposite, and reviews Judge Tomlinson’s Order under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 2. The First Amendment’s Restrictions on the Protective Order Rule 26(c) provides that “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” It is well-settled that courts have broad power to enter protective orders under Rule 26(c) that prohibit parties from sharing discovery materials with non-litigants (such orders are typically referred to as “confidentiality orders”). See, e.g., AT & T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 562 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, a confidentiality order limits Options: A. holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause B. recognizing the validity of a rule 26c confidentiality order entered on good cause C. recognizing validity of cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress D. recognizing validity of rule stated in marhal E. recognizing rule

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing the validity of a rule 26c confidentiality order entered on good cause
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 notices, requests, demands and other communications provided for hereunder shall be in writing and, if to Borrower, mailed or delivered to it, addressed to it at the address specified on the signature pages of this Agreement, if to a Lender, mailed or delivered to it, addressed to the address of such Lender specified on the signature pages of this Agreement, or, as to each party, at such other address as shall be designated by such party in a written notice to each of the other parties. All notices, statements, requests, demands and other communications provided for hereunder shall be deemed to be given or made when delivered (if received during normal business hours on a Business Day, such Business Day, or otherwise the following Business Day), or two Business Days after being deposited in the mails with postage prepaid by registered or certified mail, addressed as aforesaid, or sent by facsimile or electronic communication, in each case of facsimile or electronic communication with telephonic confirmation of receipt. All notices pursuant to any of the provisions hereof shall not be effective until received. For purposes of Article II hereof, Agent shall be entitled to rely on telephonic instructions from any person that Agent in good faith believes is an Authorized Officer, and Borrower shall hold Agent and each Lender harmless from any loss, cost or expense resulting from any such reliance.

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: No amendment, modification, or waiver of any provision of this Revolving Secured Promissory Note nor consent to any departure by Borrowers therefrom shall be effective unless the same shall be in writing and signed by the Lender and then such waiver or consent shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose for which given.

assistant: Amendments
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: at *3-5 (D.D.C. February 16, 2006) (entering judgment in favor of the defendant where a plaintiff failed to file an EEO complaint regarding her claims of retaliation, and explicitly rejecting the argument that “a claimant need not exhaust her administrative remedies for a claim based on retaliation when that retaliation claim arises after an administrative complaint has already been filed”). A more recent view is that acts of alleged retaliation occurring after an EEO charge is filed need not be separately exhausted where they necessarily would have come within the “scope of any investigation that reasonably could have been expected to result from [the] initial [EEO] charge[.]” Hazel, 2006 WL 3623693, at *8 (internal quotation and citation omitted); see also Lewis, 535 F.Supp.2d at 7 (<HOLDING>); Pierce v. Mansfield, 530 F.Supp.2d 146, 154 Options: A. holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute B. holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute C. holding that a court cannot entertain claims arising from incidents omitted from an eeo complaint unless those incidents were within the scope of the investigation that would have followed the initial eeo charge D. holding plaintiffs claims could not succeed without proof that the city had knowledge of prior incidents E. holding that 8 incidents of assault theft robbery or burglary on the premises and 80 similar incidents within a 2bloek area within the prior 3 years did not constitute special circumstances giving rise to a duty to protect

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a court cannot entertain claims arising from incidents omitted from an eeo complaint unless those incidents were within the scope of the investigation that would have followed the initial eeo charge
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 immigration matters, the executive branch is accorded great deference, as evidenced by the statutory and regulatory schemes established for processing citizenship applications. Neither the CIS nor the district court is sufficiently informed to decide an application until the FBI completes the required criminal background check to determine whether an applicant presents any national security or public safety risk, nor are they equipped to conduct such investigations themselves. No. 06CV2732-LAB (NLS), 2007 WL 1971944, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 14, 2007). Remanding the matter with a specific deadline within which the USCIS or FBI must act, as urged by Plaintiffs, is impracticable and short-sited. See Yang v. Chertoff, No. 07CV240 WQH (NLS), 2007 WL 1830908, at *3 (S.D.Cal. June 25, 2007) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Ghazal, 2007 WL 1971944, at *3); Options: A. holding that an attorney is a necessary witness for purposes of tennessee rule of professional conduct 37a only if there are things to which he will be the only one available to testify B. recognizing only the fbi and the cis are in a position to know what resources are available to conduct a background check and whether an expedited background check is feasible or efficient in a particular case C. holding that views expressed by other courts on the merits and in particular a string of losses together with the actual merits of the governments litigating position are central to issue of whether position was substantially justified D. recognizing that a damages remedy is not ordinarily available where the alleged agreement is entirely concerned with the conduct of the parties in a criminal case E. holding that a contract whereby a foreign state grants a private party a license to exploit the states natural resources is not a commercial activity under the fsia since natural resources to the extent they are affected with the public interest are goods in which only the sovereign may deal

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing only the fbi and the cis are in a position to know what resources are available to conduct a background check and whether an expedited background check is feasible or efficient in a particular case