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: was “fading in and out.” (Docket No. 85 at 7). Despite these impairments, he argues, his requests to go to the hospital were denied prior to his incarceration at the Allegheny County Jail. (Id. at 8). Notwithstanding the same, Plaintiff acknowledges that he did not request medical treatment until he was being transported to ACJ, but, he contends that because he could not obtain treatment until he was discharged from ACJ, there is sufficient record evidence establishing that Defendant Officers violated his Eighth Amendment rights. (Docket No. 92 at 4). The Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment applies only to individuals who have already been convicted of a crime. See City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244, 103 S.Ct. 2979, 77 L.Ed.2d 605 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Because Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee, Options: A. holding that the eighth amendment applies only after the state has secured a formal adjudication of guilt in accordance with the due process of law B. holding that the fourteenth amendment only applies to state action C. holding that fourteenth amendment only applies to state action D. holding that the law of the state of incorporation applies E. holding that although state is not required to operate welfare program it must do so in accordance with the due process clause

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the eighth amendment applies only after the state has secured a formal adjudication of guilt in accordance with the due process of 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: Rodriguez, 110 F.3d at 311 n. 16. Plaintiff’s claims herein were of such a nature. 183 . Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, allows a district court to dismiss a case when the plaintiff fails to prosecute his case. Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 771 (5th Cir.1997), (habeas corpus action); Dorsey v. Scott Wetzel Services, Inc., 84 F.3d 170, 171 (5th Cir.1996), quoting Salinas v. Sun Oil Co., 819 F.2d 105, 106 (5th Cir.1987). The court may dismiss for want of prosecution either on a motion of a defendant or sua sponte when the court determines dismissal is necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388-89, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962); Clofer v. Perego, 106 F.3d 678, 679 (5th Cir.1997), (<HOLDING>); Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d at 771; Long v. Options: A. holding that district courts possess the inherent authority to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute with or sans notice to the parties B. recognizing district courts inherent authority to dismiss with prejudice for abuse of judicial process C. holding that a court may sua sponte dismiss pursuant to rule 41b for failure to comply with a court order D. recognizing that a district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to serve after notice to the plaintiff E. recognizing a district judge may dismiss a case sua sponte under either rule 41b or its inherent authority to manage its docket

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that district courts possess the inherent authority to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute with or sans notice to the 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: from the scene.” Id. “As Plaintiff drove away, [Sgt. Sloan] jumped onto Plaintiff's car and fell off the vehicle as Plaintiff ultimately left the scene.” Id. Plaintiff attributed defendants’ actions on February 13, 2004 to "retaliation for the earlier incident in which Plaintiff drove away from his home, causing Defendant Sloan to fall off of Plaintiff’s vehicle.’’ Id. ¶ 21 (emphasis in original). 2 . Because plaintiff's common law claims are dismissed as untimely, the Court need not determine whether plaintiff complied with the mandatory notice requirements of D.C.Code § 12-309. Plaintiff's compliance or lack thereof has no impact on his constitutional claims. Brown v. United States, 742 F.2d 1498, 1510 (D.C.Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1073, 105 S.Ct. 2153, 85 L.Ed.2d 509 (1985) Options: A. holding that plaintiffs noncompliance with dccode 12309 cannot bar federal claims B. holding that a procedural rule that is not firmly established and regularly followed cannot bar federal court review C. holding that federal evidentiary standard for impeachment by prior conviction should apply to dccode offenders tried in federal court D. holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law E. holding that 1997ee did not bar plaintiffs first amendment claims

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that plaintiffs noncompliance with dccode 12309 cannot bar federal 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: The court noted that the worker’s medical exams “revealed no abnormalities” and there was no “data concerning the level or amount of chemicals to which [she] was exposed or the mechanism of exposure.” Kuxhausen, 241 P.3d at 81. Like Dr. Keifer, Kuxhausen’s doctor testified only that there were substances listed on the Material Safety Data Sheets “that can make people sick,” with no supporting basis for concluding that those materials did make the claimant sick. Kuxhausen, 241 P.3d at 81. The court held that the doctor’s opinion was based on the logical fallacy that because the symptoms followed the exposure, they must be caused by it. “Such reasoning is nothing more than speculation.” Kuxhausen, 241 P.3d at 81; see also Elshaug v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2003 ND 177, 671 N.W.2d 784 (<HOLDING>). ¶27 According to Potter, such criticisms Options: A. holding that a pharmacologists sensitivity to chemicals which prevented her from working in a lab did not substantially limit her employment opportunities B. holding sufficient evidence supported the departments conclusion that the worker failed to prove her sensitivity to chemicals was fairly traceable to her employment C. holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext which included but was not limited to her supervisors statement that she had enough of the plaintiff going to her supervisor about her was not sufficient to preclude summary judgment D. holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment E. holding that the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding her retaliation claim because she failed to offer any evidence of a causal relationship between her involvement in protected activity and the adverse employment action

assistant: The best answer is B. holding sufficient evidence supported the departments conclusion that the worker failed to prove her sensitivity to chemicals was fairly traceable to her employment
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: During the Term, the Company shall pay the Executive a base salary (“ Base Salary ”) in an amount established and approved by the Compensation and Personnel Committee of the Board (“ Compensation Committee ”); provided, however, that such Base Salary shall be established at a rate of not less than $1,000,000 per year, except as otherwise provided in this Section 5.1 below. This Base Salary shall be subject to all appropriate federal and state withholding taxes and payable in accordance with the normal payroll practices of the Company. The Compensation Committee shall review and adjust the Base Salary as it deems appropriate at least annually during the Term; provided, however, that the Executive’s Base Salary shall not be decreased without the Executive’s written consent, other than across-the-board reductions applicable to all senior officers of the Company. If adjusted, the Base Salary shall be so adjusted for all purposes of this Agreement.

assistant: Base Salary
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: agreed contract provides a clear and specific right of subrogation.” Id. at 651. As we indicated in Fortis Benefits, equitable doctrines conform to contractual and statutory mandates, not vice versa. Id. at 648. We further clarified that “contract-based sub-rogation rights should be governed by the parties’ express agreement and not invalidated by equitable considerations that might control by default in the absence of an agreement.” Id. at 650. Fortis Benefits eliminated the basis for the trial court’s judgment in this case, as Ortiz dealt with equitable subrogation, not, as here, contractual subrogation. Nonetheless, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, appearing to rely in part on the “made whole” doctrine but without expressly claiming to. 315 S.W.3d at 70 (<HOLDING>). Under Fortis Benefits, the “made whole” Options: A. holding trial court erred in finding purported wife unavailable to testify and admitting her sworn prior statements in lieu of her live testimony where record did not support courts ruling in light of its own finding that remarriage of wife and defendant was fraudulent and wife did not refuse to testify if claim of privilege was denied B. holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife C. holding that because the wife failed to present any evidence as to the legal services performed in the trial court the wife was not entitled to a second hearing to establish attorneys fees D. holding trial court did not abuse discretion in setting aside inheritance exclusively to wife where it was kept in wifes name separate from husband and husband did nothing to contribute to the accumulation of the funds which were not treated as marital property or commingled with other marital assets E. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion since there were not enough settlement funds to compensate sigmundiks wife and sons and thus in the words of sigmundiks wife there is nothing left for the estate alteration in original

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion since there were not enough settlement funds to compensate sigmundiks wife and sons and thus in the words of sigmundiks wife there is nothing left for the estate alteration in original
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If Executive’s employment is terminated by his death, the Bank will pay in a lump sum to Executive’s beneficiary, legal representatives or estate, as the case may be, any earned or accrued amounts due to Executive at the time of his death.

assistant: Death
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: There is no Action which (i) adversely affects or challenges the legality, validity or enforceability of any of the Transaction Documents or the Shares or (ii) if there were an unfavorable decision, individually or in the aggregate, result in a loss or liability in an amount in excess of $10,000 or have or reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. No Existing Company Entity, nor any director or officer thereof (in his or her capacity as such), is or has been the subject of any Action involving a claim of violation of or liability under federal or state securities laws or a claim of breach of fiduciary duty, except as specifically disclosed in the SEC Reports. There has not been, and to the knowledge of the Company, there is not pending any investigation by the Commission involving any Existing Company Entity or any of their respective current or former directors or officers (in his or her capacity as such). The Commission has not issued any stop order or other order suspending the effectiveness of any registration statement filed by the Company or any Subsidiary under the Exchange Act or the Securities Act.

assistant: Litigations
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: judgment pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 60(b)(1) and (6) (1999). Following a hearing on 2 January 2001, the trial court denied this motion pursuant to an order filed on 8 January 2001. Mr. Sellers appeals. On appeal, Mr. Sellers argues that the trial court erred in concluding that his Rule 60(b) motion was not made within a reasonable time; and, he contends that he showed excusable neglect. We hold it dispositive that even if we assume both of those contentions to be true, Mr. Sellers is still not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b) because he failed to demonstrate prima facie evidence of a meritorious defense. See Higgins v. Michael Powell Builders, 132 N.C. App. 720, 515 S.E.2d 17 (1999); see also Wynnewood Corp. v. Soderquist, 27 N.C. App. 611, 219 S.E.2d 787 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Sides v. Reid, 35 N.C. App. 235, 241 S.E.2d Options: A. holding that the bia may deny a motion to reopen on the ground that the movant has not established prima facie eligibility for the underlying relief sought B. holding that to obtain relief under rule 60b1 on grounds of excusable neglect the movant must also demonstrate prima facie evidence of a meritorious defense C. holding that a rule 60b6 movant must show the existence of a meritorious prima facie defense D. holding that the states failure to object to a late petition for appeal of a termination order granted by the trial court on the basis of excusable neglect constituted a waiver of the states right to contest excusable neglect on appeal to the court of appeals E. holding that the bia may deny a motion to reopen based on its finding that the movant has not established his prima facie eligibility for relief

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that to obtain relief under rule 60b1 on grounds of excusable neglect the movant must also demonstrate prima facie evidence of a meritorious defense
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: viber also offers you the opportunity to become a premium `` viber out '' user , which allows you to call non-viber users ( landlines or mobiles ) around the world at such rates as presented herein https://account.viber.com/en/rates/ .

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 dispute. Appellees argued at trial that under the exception to the doctrine, the testimony was admissible. On appeal, Appellees maintain that the admission of Vega’s testimony was proper, but that if the court erred in admitting it, any error was harmless because the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s judgment without Vega’s testimony. We agree. The general rule in Texas is that evidence of other acts by a party with persons not a party to the lawsuit are irrelevant, immaterial, unfairly prejudicial, and thus, inadmissible. See Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Vollmer, 805 S.W.2d 825, 831 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied); see also Tex.R. Evid. 403; Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Roberts, 849 S.W.2d 367, 369 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1993, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). This Court noted the exception to the Options: A. holding that proof of a continuous chain of custody is relevant only as to the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence B. holding that the rules of evidence normally applicable in criminal trials do not operate with full force at hearings before the judge to determine the admissibility of evidence there is therefore much to be said for the proposition that in proceedings where the judge himself is considering the admissibility of evidence the exclusionary rules aside from rules of privilege should not be applicable and the judge should receive the evidence and give it such weight as his judgment and experience counsel C. holding that the doctrine of res inter alios acta no longer exists independent of texas rules of evidence 401404 governing the admissibility of relevant and character evidence D. holding that hgn evidence is scientific and therefore must satisfy the pertinent delaware rules of evidence governing the admission of such evidence E. holding that any relevant mitigating evidence concerning a defendants character should not be excluded

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the doctrine of res inter alios acta no longer exists independent of texas rules of evidence 401404 governing the admissibility of relevant and character evidence
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 and other communications provided for hereunder shall, unless otherwise stated herein, be in writing and mailed or telecommunicated, or delivered as to each party hereto, at its address set forth below or at such other address as shall be designated by such party in a written notice to the other parties hereto. All such notices and communications shall not be effective until received by the party to whom such notice or communication is addressed.

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: AND WAIVER . The terms of this Warrant may be amended or waived (either generally or in a particular instance and either retroactively or prospectively) only with the written consent of the Company and the Holder.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In order to induce Purchasers and Agent to execute and deliver this Amendment, Seller hereby represents to Purchasers and Agent that as of the date hereof, (i) Seller is in full compliance with all of the terms and conditions of the Program Documents and remains bound by the terms thereof, and (ii) no Default or Event of Default has occurred and is continuing under the Program Documents.

assistant: Representations
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: Upon a Change in Control that occurs while Employee is employed by the Company or its subsidiaries, the RSUs shall, subject to Section 18 of the Plan, continue to vest based on Employee’s continued employment with the Company (including any successor to the Company resulting from the Change in Control) and its subsidiaries in accordance with the vesting schedule set forth in Section 2 and all other terms and conditions of this Agreement; provided, however, that if, on or within two (2) years after the date of the Change in Control and prior to when the RSUs have been settled in full, the Employee’s status as an employee of the Company (including any successor to the Company resulting from the Change in Control) or any of its subsidiaries is terminated by the Company or any of its subsidiaries without Cause, or as a result of the Employee’s death or Disability or pursuant to Section 3(a) above, then any unvested RSUs (and any related Dividend Equivalents) shall automatically vest in full as of the Employment Termination Date and shall be settled on or as soon as administratively practicable (but, subject to Section 18 below, in no event later than 2.5 months) after the Employment Termination Date.

assistant: Change In Control
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: doubts”); Haley v. State, 289 Ga. 515, 521-522 (712 SE2d 838) (2011). In sum, it is generally illegal to drive in Georgia without having been issued a valid driver’s license, and it is generally illegal to drive in Georgia without having been issued a valid Georgia driver’s license where the driver has been a Georgia resident for at least 30 days. Licensees must keep their drivers’ licenses in their immediate possession when driving, and the failure to do so gives rise to a statutory presumption that the driver is driving without being licensed. However, production in court of a Georgia driver’s license that was valid at the time of the citation rebuts this presumpt ed as a suspect class in constitutional analysis. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U. S. 202, 223 (102 SC 2382, 72 LE2d 786) (1982) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, our review is limited to Options: A. holding that motion to dismiss cannot be treated as summary judgment B. holding that undocumented aliens cannot be treated as a suspect class C. recognizing that strict scrutiny applies to facial discrimination against a suspect class D. holding that convicted sex offenders are not a suspect class E. holding that to maintain a class action the existence of the class must be pleaded and the limits of the class must be defined with some specificity

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that undocumented aliens cannot be treated as a suspect 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 PARTY HERETO HEREBY WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN RESPECT OF ANY LITIGATION DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF, UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS. EACH PARTY HERETO (A) CERTIFIES THAT NO REPRESENTATIVE, AGENT OR ATTORNEY OF ANY OTHER PARTY HAS REPRESENTED, EXPRESSLY OR OTHERWISE, THAT SUCH OTHER PARTY WOULD NOT, IN THE EVENT OF LITIGATION, SEEK TO ENFORCE THE FOREGOING WAIVER AND (B) ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT AND THE OTHER PARTIES HERETO HAVE BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATIONS IN THIS SECTION 7.10.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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 GRANTOR AND, BY ACCEPTANCE OF THE BENEFITS HEREOF, EACH OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT, THE COLLATERAL AGENT AND EACH OTHER SECURED PARTY, HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVES TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LEGAL ACTION OR PROCEEDING RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY OR THEREBY AND FOR ANY COUNTERCLAIM THEREIN.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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: United States, No. 13-11603 (11th Cir. June 21, 2013). II. DISCUSSION The denial of a § 2255 motion to vacate presents a mixed question of law and fact, and we review the district judge’s factual conclusions for clear error and questions of law de novo. Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289, 1290 (11th Cir.2009) (per curiam). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and, consequently, must be construed liberally. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir.1998) (per curiam). District judges must resolve all claims for relief raised in habeas proceedings, regardless of whether relief is granted or denied. Clisby, 960 F.2d at 935-36 (involving a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition filed by a state prisoner); Rhode, 583 F.3d at 1291 (<HOLDING>). When a district judge fails to address all of Options: A. holding 2254 applies to administrative proceedings B. holding that 60day time limit for notice of appeal in civil cases not 10day limit in criminal cases applies to 2255 proceedings C. holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings D. holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings E. holding clisby applies to 2255 proceedings

assistant: The best answer is E. holding clisby applies to 2255 proceedings
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: for asylum. This court previously affirmed the BIA’s decision that Veksler failed to establish past persecution, and remanded for a determination of whether he had established a well-founded fear of future persecution. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Veksler failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his Jewish heritage. In order to establish a well-founded fear, a petitioner cannot simply show that there exists a generalized possibility of persecution; he must show that he is at particular risk. Compare Mgoian v. INS, 184 F.3d 1029, 1035 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>) with Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Options: A. holding that no wellfounded fear was established where the attacks on family members failed to show a pattern of persecution tied to the petitioners B. holding that an applicants wellfounded fear claim was speculative at best when he failed to present solid support that he would be persecuted for violating family planning policy upon his return to china C. holding that potential class members are similarly situated to the named plaintiffs if they are similarly situated with respect to their job requirements and pay provisions D. holding that where similarly situated family members continued to live in aliens native country claim of future harm was diminished E. holding that wellfounded fear was established where all of petitioners similarly situated family members were persecuted

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that wellfounded fear was established where all of petitioners similarly situated family members were persecuted
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: please refer to our trainer guidelines ( https://pokemongo.nianticlabs.com/support/guidelines/en ) for information about the kinds of conduct and user content that are prohibited while using the services .

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: and a consumer services division in Atmore, Florida. Plaintiff offers services throughout the United States. SBC Communications, Inc. (hereinafter, collectively referred to with its co-defendant subsidiaries as “Defendant” or “Defendants”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Antonio, Texas. Defendant seeks a transfer of this case from its current setting in the Texarkana Division to the San Antonio Division of the Western District of Texas. Defendant maintains that the Eastern District of Texas has no connection to the facts at issue in this case, while the San Antonio Division of the Western District of Texas is intimately connected. In response, Plaintiff details specific acts on the part of both Plaintiff and Defendant occurring in the Eas ir.1966) (<HOLDING>). In determining whether to grant a motion to Options: A. holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving outside contact with the jury B. holding that the defendant bears the burden under plainerror review C. holding that the moving party for summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial D. holding that an appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error on appeal E. holding that the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the action should be transferred

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the action should be transferred
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: 14(a). As noted above, however, Cronenwett eventually did bring a third-party action against Fidelity when she filed her “amended cross-claim/third-party Complaint,” asserting her ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claim against Fidelity, General Motors Corporation and General Motors Investment Management Corporation. (Doc. #43). Unfortunately for Cronenwett, however, Rule 14(a) only permits a defendant/third-party plaintiff to file a third-party complaint against “a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to the third-party plaintiff for all or part of the [original] plaintiffs claim against the third-party plaintiff.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 14(a); see also 6 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure, Civil 2d § 1441 at 295 (1990) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, Cronenwett does not Options: A. holding that a defendants counterclaim that is based on the breach of the same maritime insurance contract as the main claim cannot be granted a jury trial because the resolution of the defendants claim would dispose of all or part of the plaintiffs action the net result would be to resolve the case in a jury trial despite the plaintiffs 9h election B. holding that the elements of a claim under 3729a2 are 1 that the defendant made used or caused to be made or used a record or statement to get a claim against the united states paid or approved 2 the record or statement and the claim were false or fraudulent and 3 the defendant knew that the record or statement and the claim were false or fraudulent emphasis added C. recognizing that impleader under rule 14a is available only against persons who are or may be liable to defendant for part or all of plaintiffs claim it cannot be used as a way of combining all controversies having a common relationship in one action D. holding that no judgment can be rendered against defendant who cannot be held liable E. holding that a municipality may not be held liable under section 1983 under a theory of respondeat superi or but may be liable for policies or customs that violate an employees constitutional rights

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that impleader under rule 14a is available only against persons who are or may be liable to defendant for part or all of plaintiffs claim it cannot be used as a way of combining all controversies having a common relationship in one action
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: “limited, supervised discretion under explicitly neutral guidelines” did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 220, 494 S.E.2d at 147. Therefore, roadblock jurisprudence does not prohibit all discretion by the field officer but only “unbridled” discretion. “Unbridled” means “completely at liberty: unrestrained, ungoverned, unchecked.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2484 (1993). See also Crouch, 26 Va.App. at 219 n. 2, 494 S.E.2d at 147 n. 2 (“We reject appellant’s argument that [the officer’s] ability to choose which direction of traffic to stop gave him excessive discretion. The designation of a specific pre-approved site for the detail was sufficient guidance with respect to location.”); Wesley v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 128, 134, 554 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2001) (<HOLDING>). The fact that on the day of the roadblock in Options: A. holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion B. holding that leaving the duration of the roadblock up to a twohour maximum to the officers discretion was not unbridled discretion that would render the checkpoint unconstitutional C. holding creditors can reach assets of trust to the same extent as the maximum amount that would be payable to the beneficiary in the trustees discretion D. holding that the trial judge retains the discretion to exclude dna evidence if errors in the laboratory procedures render it so unreliable that it would not be helpful to the trier of fact but that trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting that evidence E. holding that the lack of statutory limitations does not give the trial court unbridled discretion as the trial court has a special duty to exercise such an extraordinary power with the utmost sense of responsibility and circumspection

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that leaving the duration of the roadblock up to a twohour maximum to the officers discretion was not unbridled discretion that would render the checkpoint unconstitutional
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: v. Greene, 332 N.C. 565, 577-78, 422 S.E.2d 730, 737 (1992), whether the suspect is in the presence of uniformed officers, Garcia, 358 N.C. at 397, 597 S.E.2d at 737, and the nature of any security around the suspect, State v. Jackson, 348 N.C. 52, 56, 497 S.E.2d 409, 411, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 943, 142 L. Ed. 2d 301 (1998). Defendant is an adult male with prio leave the interview room without supervision or escort, we believe it unlikely that any civilian would be allowed to stray through a police station. Defendant was in an area not open to the public, and the prevention of unsupervised roaming in such a space is hardly the type of restriction that a reasonable person would associate with a formal arrest. See State v. Medlin, 333 N.C. 280, 290-92, 426 S.E.2d 402, 407-08 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Thus, under the totality of the Options: A. holding that the defendant who was constantly in the presence of officers and escorted to the rest room was not in custody and it is also unlikely that anyone would have been permitted to wander unmonitored around police headquarters B. holding a defendant was not in custody for purposes of miranda after he consented to go to police headquarters C. holding that it was reasonable for police officers to take all the arrested couples personal belongings from a hotel room and bring the belongings to police headquarters D. holding that public safety exception applies if and only if two conditions are satisfied 1 that the defendant might have or recently have had a weapon and 2 that someone other than police might gain access to that weapon and inflict harm with it and that while second prong would not apply for instance if the police entered a defendants room handcuffed him and placed him on a chair in the hallway outside his room it might apply if defendant was unrestrained and had turned back into his room to retrieve his identification when questioned by the police E. holding that a vehicle was readily mobile even though it was locked and its owner was in police custody because other individuals might also have access to the car

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the defendant who was constantly in the presence of officers and escorted to the rest room was not in custody and it is also unlikely that anyone would have been permitted to wander unmonitored around police headquarters
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, including its incorporated Exhibit A , constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, and all prior understandings, agreements or undertakings between the parties concerning Executive’s employment, termination of employment or the other subject matters of this Agreement (including, without limitation, the Employment Agreement (other than the Restrictive Covenants, which, as modified herein, shall remain in full force and effect)) are superseded in their entirety by this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: has committed an act in furtherance of the conspiracy. We see no reason why a constructive presence should not be assigned to conspirators as well as to other criminals; and we certainly cannot assent to the proposition that it is not competent for Congress to define what shall constitute the offense of conspiracy or when it shall be considered complete, and do with it as with other crimes which are commenced in one place and continued in another. Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347, 363-64, 32 S.Ct. 793, 56 L.Ed. 1114 (1912); see also United States v. Ochoa, 229 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir.2000) (stating the traditional rule that a conspiracy charge may be tried in any district in which an overt act of conspiracy occurred); United States v. Dabbs, 134 F.3d 1071, 1078 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); U.S. v. Bascope-Zurita, 68 F.3d 1057, 1062 Options: A. holding criminal conspiracy is sustained where the commonwealth establishes the defendant entered into an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another person with a shared criminal intent and an overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy a coconspirator may commit the overt act and conspirators are liable for acts of the coconspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy B. holding that venue for a conspiracy prosecution was proper in a district where an overt act took place although defendant had never been there and the conspiracy was not formed there C. holding that in a conspiracy case venue lies where the conspiracy agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators D. holding that venue is proper in any district where any act in furtherance of the conspiracy took place E. holding that a prosecution for a criminal conspiracy may be brought in the county where the unlawful combination is formed or in any county where the overt act is committed by any of the conspirators in furtherance of the unlawful confederacy

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that in a conspiracy case venue lies where the conspiracy agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators
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 U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 430 U.S. 723 97 S.Ct. 1439 52 L.Ed.2d 1 Oleta GRAVITT, etc., et al.v.SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY et al. No. 76-1036. April 25, 1977. Rehearing Denied June 13, 1977. See 431 U.S. 975, 97 S.Ct. 2941. PER CURIAM. 1 This tort action was removed from the Texas state courts to the United States District Court on the grounds of diversity of citizenship but was remanded as having been "improperly removed" when it seemed that there was not complete diversity among the parties. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, by mandamus, ordered the District Court to vacate its remand order because the latter had employed erroneous principles in concluding that it was without jurisdiction. 2 The Court of Appeals erred. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides for remanding a removed action when the district court determines that "the case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction"; and when a remand has been ordered on these grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) unmistakably commands that the order "remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise . . . ." The District Court's remand order was plainly within the bounds of § 1447(c) and hence was unreviewable by the Court of Appeals, by mandamus or otherwise. Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 96 S.Ct. 584, 46 L.Ed.2d 542 (1976), is not to the contrary, for there the District Court remanded "on grounds wholly different from those upon which § 1447(c) permits remand." Id., at 344, 96 S.Ct., at 589. Thermtron did not question but re-emphasized the rule that § 1447(c) remands are not reviewable. 3 The petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 4 Reversed and remanded.

assistant: 9
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 and the Employee Agreement collectively constitute the entire agreement between the parties and supersede all prior communications, agreements and understandings, written or oral, with respect to the terms and conditions of the Executive’s employment (except for the provisions of the Prior Agreement that expressly survive as provided for herein).

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you agree , to the extent permitted under applicable law , to indemnify , defend and hold harmless tinder , our affiliates , and their and our respective officers , directors , agents , and employees from and against any and all complaints , demands , claims , damages , losses , costs , liabilities and expenses , including attorney 's fees , due to , arising out of , or relating in any way to your access to or use of the services , your content , or your breach of this agreement .

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: Wrights also advanced a bailment theory as part of their breach of contract claim. The district court refused to address the bailment theory because it was not raised in a timely manner. In any event, the claim would fail because no bailment contract was formed. A bailment contract, like all other contracts, requires “a meeting of the minds as to the terms and conditions.” George v. Whitmer, 2006 Ohio 436, at ¶ 17 (Ohio Ct.App.2006) (citations omitted). The Wrights have not alleged facts to demonstrate a meeting of the minds. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that BOA agreed to take delivery, that there was any time-frame for the bailment, that there were any conditions for safeguarding the property, nor that there was any “particular purpose” for the bailment. Id. at ¶ 15 (<HOLDING>). B. The Wrights’ Claim for Negligence The Options: A. holding that a third party who receives trust property on inquiry notice that a trustee has misappropriated trust funds is also liable for breach of trust B. holding that employers ability to assign delivery duties to another employee does not make them nonessential C. holding that possessing property of another for the purpose of security on a debt does not give rise to probable cause to arrest D. holding that a bailment is a delivery of personal property to another to hold in trust for a particular purpose E. holding that property a debtor holds only in trust for another is not an interest of the debtor in property under 11 usc 547b which authorizes the trustee to avoid certain preferential payments to creditors made before bankruptcy

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a bailment is a delivery of personal property to another to hold in trust for a particular purpose
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: statements of non-party witnesses, the courts applied Federal Rule of Evidence 613 to bar extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements after the witnesses admitted making the statements. In contrast, Whitaker’s prior statement was admissible against him as substantive evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A) as the statement of a party opponent. See Bondie v. Bic Corp., 947 F.2d 1531, 1534 (6th Cir.1991). At the time of trial, Rule 613 expressly provided that “[t]his provision does not apply to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in rule 801(d)(2).” Fed.R.Evid. 613(b). Thus, the reliance by the defense on Rule 613, Rush, Greer, and Sisto is faulty. See United States v. Kenny, 645 F.2d 1323, 1340 (9 rwriters, Inc., 282 Fed. Appx. 406, 411-12 (6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). The defense further contends that Chapman did Options: A. holding letter from specialist to treating physician fell within business entry exception to the hearsay rule B. holding that the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment is not violated by the admission of hearsay statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule where the defendant was able to confront and crossexamine the witness who claimed that the statements at issue were made C. holding that the admission of evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for abuse of discretion D. holding transcript of witness interview taken by insurance agent fell within rule 8036 but no other hearsay exception applied to allow admission of the statements within the transcript as substantive evidence E. holding that even if the trial court erred in excluding a letter from evidence that fell within an exception to the hearsay rule the error was harmless where admission of the letter would not have had a substantial effect on a partys rights

assistant: The best answer is D. holding transcript of witness interview taken by insurance agent fell within rule 8036 but no other hearsay exception applied to allow admission of the statements within the transcript as substantive evidence