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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: these terms and conditions , its subject matter and duolingo 's and your respective rights under these terms and conditions , as well as and any claim , cause of action or dispute ( `` claim '' ) arising out of or related to these terms and conditions , shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the commonwealth of pennsylvania , united states of america , excluding the conflict of law provisions of that or any other jurisdiction , regardless of your country of origin or where you access the service .

assistant: Choice 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: Information to Establish Prior Convictions under 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1) (authorizing increased punishment for prior convictions if notice provided before trial). Thus, Cook received proper notice. Cook also contends his sentence cannot be enhanced, because he was convicted and sentenced on the same day for both prior felony convictions. During trial and at sentencing, Cook admitted he was convicted of two separate drug offenses on October 10, 1997. Specifically, Cook was convicted of an April 9, 1997 possession of cocaine offense, and an October 7, 1997 possession of cocaine offense. It does not matter that Cook was convicted and sentenced on the same day. What matters is he was convicted of two separate criminal episodes. See United States v. Gray, 152 F.3d 816, 821-22 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we hold the district court properly Options: A. holding a sentence enhancement for two prior convictions must be based on separate criminal episodes B. holding that application of career offender enhancement falls within exception for prior convictions where facts are undisputed making it unnecessary for district court to engage in further fact finding about prior convictions C. holding that evidence of a defendants prior criminal convictions could be introduced for the purpose of sentence enhancement if the jury was instructed that the evidence could not be used for the purposes of determining guilt D. holding that the evidence supported two separate convictions and punishments for two attempted robberies of two different victims who suffered separate and distinct harms E. holding separate convictions for drug transactions occurring four or five days apart were properly counted as separate convictions

assistant: The best answer is A. holding a sentence enhancement for two prior convictions must be based on separate criminal episodes
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 contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the Parties regarding the subject matter of this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly stated herein. Any prior agreements, promises, negotiations or representations, either oral or written, relating to the subject matter of this Agreement not expressly set forth in this Agreement are of no force or effect.

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: Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 148, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21 (1982) (employing principles applicable to waiver of federal and state immunity to tribal immunity). The Supreme Court has acknowledged that tribes could use their immunity as a sword rather than a shield, as is alleged here, writing that “immunity can harm those who are unaware that they ai-e dealing with a tribe, who do not know of tribal immunity, or who have no choice in the matter, as in the case of tort victims.” Kiowa Tribe, 523 U.S. at 758, 118 S.Ct. 1700. Despite these concerns with the assertion of immunity, the Court has held fast to its position that such concerns are not the province of the courts, but of Congress or of the tribe itself. Id. at 758-60, 118 S.Ct. 1700; see also Ute Distrib., 149 F.3d at 1267 (<HOLDING>); Pan Am. Co. v. Sycuan Band of Mission Options: A. holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit B. holding that as a general rule interlocutory trial court orders rejecting defenses of common law sovereign immunity governmental immunity public official immunity statutory immunity or any other type of immunity are not appealable under the maryland collateral order doctrine C. holding that there can be no waiver of tribal immunity based on policy concerns perceived inequities arising from the assertion of immunity or the unique context of a case D. holding that the tribal defendants removal of the case amounted to a clear and unequivocal waiver of immunity in federal court E. holding that tribal sovereign immunity did not bar rico suit only after concluding that sue and be sued clause in tribal ordinance unequivocally expressed waiver of sovereign immunity

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that there can be no waiver of tribal immunity based on policy concerns perceived inequities arising from the assertion of immunity or the unique context of a case
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 Executive agrees that in the event of any breach or threatened breach by the Executive of any covenant contained in Section 9(a), 9(b), or 9(c) hereof, the resulting injuries to the Employer would be difficult or impossible to estimate accurately, even though irreparable injury or damages would certainly result. Accordingly, an award of legal damages, if without other relief, would be inadequate to protect the Employer. The Executive, therefore, agrees that in the event of any such breach, the Employer shall be entitled to obtain from a court of competent jurisdiction an injunction to restrain the breach or anticipated breach of any such covenant, and to obtain any other available legal, equitable, statutory, or contractual relief. Should the Employer have cause to seek such relief, no bond shall be required from the Employer, and the Executive shall pay all attorney’s fees and court costs which the Employer may incur to the extent the Employer prevails in its enforcement action.

assistant: Enforcements
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: if you do not object to the amended terms of use within one ( 1 ) month following the special notice , your continued use of world of warcraft will mean that you accept the amended terms of use .

assistant: Contract by using
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: Nothing contained herein shall relieve Assignor of any obligation or liability imposed by any documents which confer the Mineral and Mining Rights, or by any laws or regulations pertaining thereto. The Assignor shall indemnify and hold Assignee harmless from and against any such obligations or liabilities, claims, actions, proceedings, damages, penalties, costs, interest and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees arising or incurred by Assignee from this Assignment of Mineral and Mining Rights. Assignee shall in no event be obligated to perform any actions or incur any obligations or liabilities whatsoever unless Assignee affirmatively elects to do so.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you may elect to cancel your request for services or goods from a third party provider at any time prior to such third party provider 's arrival , in which case you may be charged a cancellation fee .

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of evidence of criminal activity." hi at 671, 529 S.E.2d at 778. The Court held that the search warrant was not stale because the fact that DNA evidence obtained at the crime scene "matched” the defendant's DNA database profile, the information upon which probable cause was based, was "not subject to change over the 32-day period at issue.” Id. 7 . Cases from other jurisdictions support this result. See 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.7(a), at 462 & n.2 (5th ed. 2012); see also State v. One 1981 BMW Auto., 15 Conn.App. 589, 546 A.2d 879, 883 (1988) (noting that "probable cause to arrest, once found, cannot be dissipated by the passage of time” because "[s]tale does not simply mean old”); People v. Geier, 407 Ill.App.3d 553, 348 Ill.Dec. 552, 944 N.E.2d 793, 799 (2011) (<HOLDING>); Graves v. State, 112 Nev. 118, 912 P.2d 234, Options: A. holding that probable cause existed to arrest for a seatbelt violation under state law B. holding that mere delay in pulling a defendant over for a traffic violation does not dissipate probable cause to arrest C. holding that probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest D. holding invalid warrant did not create probable cause for arrest E. holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that mere delay in pulling a defendant over for a traffic violation does not dissipate probable cause to arrest
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: (D.C.Cir.1990) (declining to defer to Secretary’s interpretation of the litigation interest provision of the Act because "the Secretary has never issued any regulation, ruling or policy statement indicating the ... construction now urged upon the Court”). 4 . The Hospitals also argue that 1 U.S.C. § 1 is inapplicable because Congress employed the definite article "the,” rather than the indefinite article "an," to modify the words "amount in controversy.” In their view, the court should not construe a single noun to include the plural if the noun is preceded by the definite article “the.” We reject this argument because it is overly formalistic and inconsistent with Supreme Court case law. See, e.g., Barr v. United States, 324 U.S. 83, 90-92, 65 S.Ct. 522, 525-526, 89 L.Ed. 765 (1945) (<HOLDING>). 5 . The jurisdictional provision of the Act Options: A. 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 B. holding that the buying rate for foreign currency under the tariff act of 1930 31 usc 372 included more than one buying rate C. holding under texas version of the recognition act that public policy exception is not triggered simply because the body of foreign law upon which the judgment is based is different from the law of the forum or because the foreign law is more favorable to the judgment creditor than the law of the forum D. holding that it was plain error for trial court to allow more than one conviction of grossly negligent operation of a vehicle where more than one person was injured E. holding that a defendant may not be convicted of multiple offenses under 922g on the basis that he belonged to more than one prohibited class or that he simultaneously possessed more than one firearm

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the buying rate for foreign currency under the tariff act of 1930 31 usc 372 included more than one buying rate
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 practicing a patented process” is liable for contributory infringement if: (1) the component constitutes “a material part of the invention”; (2) the alleged infringer knows that the component is “especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of [the] patent”; and (3) the component is “not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(c); see also i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 850-851 (Fed.Cir.2010) (discussing the legal elements of a contributory infringement claim). As with induced infringement, a plaintiff must also show direct infringement by a third party in order to succeed on a claim of contributory infringement. See Anton/Bauer, Inc. v. PAG, Ltd., 329 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed.Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). D-Link Systems and ZyXEL Options: A. holding that copyright infringement defendant failed to prove the affirmative defense of unclean hands which was based on the patent holders marking of its product with an expired patent because there was no evidence that the patent holder had acted with the requisite intent to deceive B. holding that knowledge of the patent is required for willful infringement C. holding that contributory trademark infringement requires some predicate act of infringement D. holding that the plaintiff must prove that the end users directly infringed its patent in order to succeed on its claim of contributory infringement E. holding in a patent infringement case that plaintiff lacked standing where it held a conditional right to license a patent and enforce license agreements but did not have the right to transfer the patent

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the plaintiff must prove that the end users directly infringed its patent in order to succeed on its claim of contributory infringement
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: Seller has not paid and has not and will not become obligated to pay any fee or commission to any broker, finder or other intermediary in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Agreement for which the Purchaser, Oncor or any of their Affiliates will have any liability or responsibility whatsoever.

assistant: Fees
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 Borrower and each other Credit Party irrevocably and unconditionally agrees that it will not commence any action, litigation or proceeding of any kind or description, whether in law or equity, whether in contract or in tort or otherwise, against the Administrative Agent, any Lender, the Issuing Lender, the Swingline Lender, or any Related Party of the foregoing in any way relating to this Agreement or any other Loan Document or the transactions relating hereto or thereto, in any forum other than the courts of the State of New York sitting in New York County, and of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and any appellate court from any thereof, and each of the parties hereto irrevocably and unconditionally submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts and agrees that all claims in respect of any such action, litigation or proceeding may be heard and determined in such New York State court or, to the fullest extent permitted by Applicable Law, in such federal court. Each of the parties hereto agrees that a final judgment in any such action, litigation or proceeding shall be conclusive and may be enforced in other jurisdictions by suit on the judgment or in any other manner provided by law. Nothing in this Agreement or in any other Loan Document shall affect any right that the Administrative Agent, any Lender, the Issuing Lender or the Swingline Lender may otherwise have to bring any action or proceeding relating to this Agreement or any other Loan Document against the Borrower or any other Credit Party or its properties in the courts of any jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Thus, unless the initial request for dismissal is transparent, the court will likely prove unable to establish conclusively the reasons underlying it. Given these circumstances, we must hold that if the record evidence discloses any possibility that the request to discharge stems from the juror’s view of the sufficiency of the government’s evidence, the court must deny the request. Cf. Essex, 734 F.2d at 843 (finding a violation of the defendant's right to a unanimous verdict because there was a “possibilit[y]” that the absent juror was “a lone holdout for innocence in the face of a hostile pro-conviction majority” and that the prosecution had not carried its “burden of convincing the entire membership of the jury”); United States v. Stratton, 779 F.2d 820, 832 (2d Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, - U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 2285, 90 Options: A. holding that the discharge of a juror to observe a religious holiday was proper when the record did not present even the slightest basis to believe that juror no 10 posed an obstacle to reaching a unanimous verdict B. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when the trial judge questioned the juror extensively enough to satisfy itself that the juror was not biased emphasis added C. holding that the district courts dismissal of a juror after five weeks of deliberations violated the defendants right to a unanimous jury because the record evidence suggested the juror found the evidence insufficient for a conviction D. holding that a defendant did not waive his right to be present at an ex parte encounter between the judge and juror because he was not present at the time of the communication and therefore had no opportunity to object when the error was committed E. holding that though judge did not question juror individually note from juror to judge requesting private meeting to ask legal question did not suggest juror would not base verdict on evidence

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the discharge of a juror to observe a religious holiday was proper when the record did not present even the slightest basis to believe that juror no 10 posed an obstacle to reaching a unanimous verdict
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be terminated by any Purchaser, as to such Purchaser’s obligations hereunder only and without any effect whatsoever on the obligations between the Company and the other Purchasers, by written notice to the other parties, if the Closing has not been consummated on or before December 31, 2017; provided , however , that no such termination will affect the right of any party to sue for any breach by any other party (or parties).

assistant: Terminations
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: 13 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5800. The exception also embodied the bankruptcy policy that “[i]n general, tax claims which are nondischargeable, despite a lack of priority, are those to whose staleness the debtor contributed by some wrong-doing or serious fault.” S.Rep. No. 95-989, at 14, reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5800. After Congress enacted § 523(a)(1)(B), several courts considered whether a failure to file reports similar to the one § 13-409 requires constituted the failure to file “a return,” such that the corresponding tax liability would be excepted from discharge, and almost all of them determined that § 523(a)(1)(B) did not except the tax liability from discharge. Compare Dahmer v. United States (In re Dahmer), 336 B.R. 784, 789 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.2006) (<HOLDING>), State of Cal. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Jerauld Options: A. holding that a binding settlement on a tax liability must follow the requirements of the tax code which include the execution of a closing agreement B. holding that the united states court of federal claims does not have jurisdiction to enter declaratory judgment that taxpayers were not liable for any type of federal income tax or to issue injunction permanently removing the tax liens on property and levies on wages C. holding that taxpayers failure to follow state requirement that he report change in federal income tax did not except state tax liability from discharge D. holding the rule against taxpayer standing applies both to federal taxpayers and state taxpayers challenging state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as state taxpayers E. holding that failure to report a change in federal taxable income as required by state law excepted state tax liability from discharge

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that taxpayers failure to follow state requirement that he report change in federal income tax did not except state tax liability from discharge
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: convinced us that such a search is ever necessary to protect arresting officers or preserve destructible evidence.” Wurie, 728 F.3d at 13; see also, United States v. Dixon, 984 F.Supp.2d 1347, 1350-53, 2013 WL 6055396, at *4-*6 (N.D.Ga. Nov. 15, 2013) (finding federal agent’s extraction of data from the defendant’s cell phone, conducted in the agent’s office while the defendant was being booked at a different location, could not be justified as a warrantless search incident to an arrest, where the intrusion on the defendant’s privacy “involved much more than just a limited search for the phone’s log history or recent calls,” and where there was no “viable threat that the phone data could be remotely wiped or destroyed”); Schlossberg v. Solesbee, 844 F.Supp.2d 1165, 1170-71 (D.Ore.2012) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Quintana, 594 F.Supp.2d Options: A. holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant B. holding that while search incident to arrest could not justify search in that case probable cause plus exigency justified search C. recognizing that a search incident to a lawful arrest permits a law enforcement officer to conduct a warrantless search of a container located in the area of the arrestees immediate control D. holding that the warrantless search of an electronic device such as the digital camera at issue in that case is not reasonable incident to a valid arrest absent a showing that the search was necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence to ensure officer safety or that other exigent circumstances exist footnote omitted E. holding warrantless search of motel room after occupant was arrested outside room for drug possession could not be justified as search incident to arrest absent other exigent circumstances

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the warrantless search of an electronic device such as the digital camera at issue in that case is not reasonable incident to a valid arrest absent a showing that the search was necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence to ensure officer safety or that other exigent circumstances exist footnote omitted
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights, interests or obligations under this Agreement shall be assigned, in whole or in part, by operation of law or otherwise by any of the Parties without the prior written consent of the other Parties. Any purported assignment without such consent shall be void. Subject to the preceding sentences, this Agreement will be binding upon, inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by, the Parties and their respective successors and assigns.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: on a previous Agency decision that has become final. See Jarrell v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 326, 332 (2006) (en banc) (noting a request for revision on the basis of CUE “is a collateral attack on an otherwise final benefits decision on the basis of a specific allegation of CUE”). It is not a claim for benefits, although it is related to benefits, and the duty to assist does not apply. See Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334, 1341 (Fed.Cir.2002) (en banc). There can be no dispute that a request for waiver of indebtedness is related to VA benefits. The indebtedness in this case arose from an overpayment of benefits, 06) (remanding for the Board or regional office to give a sympathetic reading to pro se application for benefits); see also Moody v. Principi, 360 F.3d 1306, 1310 (Fed.Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). B. The $12,347 Indebtedness At oral argument, Options: A. holding an administrative interpretation cannot change the meaning of a statute or control the courts interpretation of it B. holding that the interpretation of a veterans filings is a factual inquiry C. holding that a claim that is constitutional in name only does not create jurisdiction over an appeal from the veterans court D. holding erisa plan interpretation is simply one of contract interpretation E. holding that whether a sympathetic reading of a veterans filings raises a claim is a factual inquiry

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the interpretation of a veterans filings is a factual inquiry
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 Ms. Copper. Respondent’s Misconduct Based upon our de novo review of the hearing judge’s remaining conclusions of law, we conclude that Respondent violated MLRPC 1.1; MLRPC 1.3; MLRPC 1.4(a) and (b); MLRPC 1.15(a), (c), and (d); MLRPC 1.16(d); MLRPC 8.1(a) and (b); MLRPC 8.4(a), (c), and (d); and Maryland Rule 16-604. MLRPC 1.1 MLRPC 1.1 states that “[a] lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client.” We have held that “[a] failure to make the proper and required filings in a client matter demonstrates a lack of the appropriate preparation and thoroughness necessary to provide competent representation.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Shakir, 427 Md. 197, 205, 46 A.3d 1162 (2012); see also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209, 223, 46 A.3d 1169 (2012) (<HOLDING>). Respondent violated MLRPC 1.1, in connection Options: A. holding that an attorney violated mlrpc 84d by faffing to inform his client of the dismissal of his clients complaint B. holding that the attorney violated mlrpc 81b when he failed to respond to two letters from the attorney grievance commission C. holding that an attorney violated mlrpc 11 by failing to take the necessary fundamental steps to further the clients case D. holding attorney violated rule 3213 when he neglected clients dissolution of marriage proceeding by failing to make filings and by failing to appear at the scheduled trial E. holding that the attorney violated mlrpc 13 when he did not prosecute his clients claim after filing a complaint or protect against expiration of the statute of limitation for his clients complaint and caused discovery sanctions to be filed for his failure to respond to discovery requests

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an attorney violated mlrpc 11 by failing to take the necessary fundamental steps to further the clients case
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: he contends that he alleged that the Department stripped him of the “integral and material responsibilities of a detective.” According to Thompson, he no longer functions as a detective; he has been effectively demoted to the position of an assistant detective. This court has recognized that the mere “loss of some job responsibilities” does not constitute an adverse employment action. See Williams v. U.S. Dept, of Navy, 149 Fed.Appx. 264, 269-70 (5th Cir.2005); Hernandez v. Crawford Bldg. Material Co., 321 F.3d 528, 532 n. 2 (5th Cir.2003) (citing Mota v. Univ. of Tex. Hous. Health Sci. Ctr., 261 F.3d 512, 521 (5th Cir.2001) for the proposition that the “loss of some job duties” is not an ultimate employment decision); Watts v. Kroger Co., 170 F.3d 505, 511-12 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Other circuits similarly agree that “a mere Options: A. holding that transfer involving no reduction in pay and only a minor change in working conditions does not rise to the level of a material adverse employment action B. holding that defendants decision to change the office schedule without allowing plaintiff leave to alter his personal schedule did not constitute an adverse action although plaintiff alleged that because of the schedule revisions he was forced to come in two hours early for his shift a mere inconvenience is not sufficiently adverse to sustain a prima facie case C. recognizing that a set of actions may constitute an adverse employment action when considered collectively even though some actions do not rise to the level of an adverse employment action individually D. holding a transfer or reassignment may rise to the level of an adverse employment condition if it is a significant change in working conditions E. holding that a change in work schedule and request that an employee perform two additional tasks did not rise to the level of an adverse employment action

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a change in work schedule and request that an employee perform two additional tasks did not rise to the level of an adverse employment 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: prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In this case, the district court held a hearing that focused on the second Strickland factor, by wading into the hypothetical merits of the would-be motion to suppress. It did not, however, address the first factor and even specifically noted on the record that the hearing was not “a 2255 hearing,” meaning it was not intended to fully address the merits of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Typically, we do not address ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal because the trial court record often does not contain the attorney’s rationale for the challenged action or inaction. See United States v. McCarty, 628 F.3d 284, 295-96 (6th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). In this case, only Mullikin testified at the Options: A. holding that we review ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal only in the unusual cases where the record is sufficiently developed or the legal representation is so obviously inadequate that it denies a defendant his sixth amendment right to counsel B. holding that the record on direct appeal was insufficiently developed to permit the appellate court to assess the merits of the claim C. holding exception to the waiver rule exists when the issue presented is purely one of law and either does not depend on the factual record developed below or the pertinent record has been fully developed D. holding that when the appellate record consists largely of unsubstantiated allegations without affidavits from defense counsel or the defendant it is not adequately developed E. holding that we review ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal only in the unusual cases where the record is suffi ciently developed or the legal representation is so obviously inadequate that it denies a defendant his sixth amendment right to counsel

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that when the appellate record consists largely of unsubstantiated allegations without affidavits from defense counsel or the defendant it is not adequately developed
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the district court lacked authority to transfer the case elsewhere; when venue is proper in multiple counties, the plaintiff may choose where to file and the district court lacks the discretion to transfer the case pursuant to rule 1.808. See id.. If venue was not proper in Johnson County, we must decide whether it was proper in Grundy County. Id. To answer the foregoing questions, we must apply the various provisions of Iowa Code chapter 616. Id. We first analyze Iowa Code section 616.17, our general venue statute. We then consider two specific venue provisions, which the parties variously claim have applicability in this case. A. Iowa Code § 616.17 In Iowa, there is a long-standing preference for trying cases in the county of a defendant’s residence. Tull v. Honda Res 90 (1885) (<HOLDING>). Here venue was proper in both Story and Polk Options: A. holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim B. holding that it could not disregard the express pleadings alleging negligence by specific parties C. holding a negligence action arising out of an allterrain vehicle accident was a personal action D. holding that ordinary negligence and gross negligence are not separate causes of action E. holding petition alleging negligence was a personal action

assistant: The best answer is E. holding petition alleging negligence was a personal 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company has all corporate power and authority and has taken all requisite action on the part of the Company, its officers, directors and stockholders necessary for (i) the authorization, execution and delivery of the Transaction Documents, (ii) the authorization of the performance of all obligations of the Company hereunder or thereunder, and (iii) the authorization, issuance and delivery of the Shares, and no further filing, consent or authorization is required by the Company, its Board of Directors or its stockholders. This Agreement and the other Transaction Documents have been duly executed and delivered by the Company, and assuming due execution and delivery thereof by each of the other parties thereto, the Transaction Documents constitute the legal, valid and binding obligations of the Company, enforceable against the Company in accordance with their terms, except as such enforceability may be limited by applicable laws relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or other similar legal requirement relating to or affecting creditors’ rights generally and except as such enforceability is subject to general principles of equity (regardless of whether enforceability is considered in a proceeding in equity or at law).

assistant: Authorizations
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 required or permitted under this Agreement must be in writing and personally delivered or sent by mail and shall be deemed to be delivered on the date on which it is actually received by the Person to whom it is properly addressed or if earlier, the date it is sent via certified United States mail or reputable overnight delivery service (charges prepaid).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 156 F.3d at 1291, it “[ujsually ... will be enough to get a plaintiffs claim to a jury,” George, 407 F.3d at 413 (internal quotation marks omitted). Reviewing the evidence ourselves, we conclude that the district court got it right the first time when it denied the Board’s motion for summary judgment. We start with Jones’s prima facie evidence of the temporal proximity between his September 2000 request for a hearing and the October 2000 evaluation. According to the Board, this timing of events cannot support an inference of retaliatory motive for two reasons. The Board first claims that the temporal proximity evidence is worthless absent additional evidence that Jones’s supervisors knew of his September 2000 request— knowledge the Board insists they lacked. We agree that Jon r.2006) (<HOLDING>); Singletary v. District of Columbia, 351 F.3d Options: A. holding in a discrimination case that a close temporal proximity sufficient to survive summary judgment existed where the challenged employment action occurred one month after the protected activity B. holding that temporal proximity between the alleged retaliators knowledge of a protected activity and an adverse employment action may be sufficient to establish causal connection or retaliatory motive in some cases C. holding that a three to four month period between the protected activity is not enough to show very close temporal proximity D. recognizing temporal proximity when agency had knowledge of employees protected activity E. holding that a temporal proximity of one month between the plaintiffs protected activity and adverse employment action was sufficient to establish a causal connection

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing temporal proximity when agency had knowledge of employees protected activity
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: cannot grant a new trial on its own motion. Only a defendant can request and receive a new trial in a criminal case. Nor, even if we were to construe Appellant’s letters as a motion for new trial, are the bare assertions contained in them sufficient to create a record supporting involuntariness where none exists in the appellate record before us. We overrule Appellant’s second issue. Conclusion Having overruled Appellant’s two issues, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. 1 . Tex Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 § 5(b) (West Supp.2013). 2 . Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim.App.1984). 3 . Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). 4 . Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-94 (Tex.Crim.App.1978); see Gobell v. State, 528 S.W.2d 223, 224 (Tex.Crim.App.1975) (<HOLDING>); Ross v. State, 523 S.W.2d 402, 404 Options: A. holding drivers license revocation was not moot because collateral consequences of revocation may be substantial including higher insurance rates and adverse employment consequences B. holding that there is no significant conceptual difference between the revocation of probation or parole and the revocation of supervised release C. holding hearsay admissible in revocation hearings D. holding revocation proper because even if his contentions were correct gobells revocation was based on two offenses and he challenged only one E. holding that revocation of the harriss parole like revocation of a defendants probation did not subject him to double jeopardy under the united states constitution because of similarities between the two

assistant: The best answer is D. holding revocation proper because even if his contentions were correct gobells revocation was based on two offenses and he challenged only one
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No party may assign either this Agreement or any of its rights, interests or obligations hereunder without the prior written approval of the other party and any such assignment by a party without prior written approval of the other parties will be deemed invalid and not binding on such other parties; provided, however, that the Company may assign all (but not less than all) of its rights, obligations and interests hereunder to any direct or indirect successor to all or substantially all of the business or assets of the Company by purchase, merger, consolidation or otherwise and will cause such successor to be bound by and expressly assume the terms and provisions hereof. All of the terms, agreements, covenants, representations, warranties and conditions of this Agreement are binding upon, and inure to the benefit of and are enforceable by, the parties and their respective successors, permitted assigns, heirs, executors and personal and legal representatives. There are no third party beneficiaries having rights under or with respect to this Agreement. The Company shall require and cause any successor (whether direct or indirect by purchase, merger, consolidation or otherwise) to all, substantially all or a substantial part, of the business and/or assets of the Company, by written agreement in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the Indemnitee, expressly to assume and agree to perform this Agreement in the same manner and to the same extent that the Company would be required to perform if no such succession had taken place. The indemnification provided under this Agreement shall continue as to Indemnitee for any action taken or not taken while serving in an indemnified capacity pertaining to any indemnifiable event hereunder even though Indemnitee may have ceased to serve in such capacity at the time of any Proceeding.

assistant: Binding Effects
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: 5 . As a part of these settlements, MG obtained releases pursuant to which customers specifically released Eastman, Cpyotech, and Mellon from liability arising out of the contaminated carbon dioxide. 6 . MG has broken down its duty argument into eight, rather than four, subtopics. For the sake of brevity and convenience, and because many of the issues of the subtopics are interrelated, we will address some of the subtopics along with their counterparts. 7 . See, e.g., Godwin Aircraft, Inc. v. Walker, C/A No. 02A01-9708-CV-00187, 1998 WL 612898, at *2 (Tenn.Ct.App.W.S., filed September 15, 1998) (stating that "clearly, appel-lee owed a duty of due care when leasing appellant the airplane in question”); Benlehr v. Shell Oil Co., 62 Ohio App.2d 1, 402 N.E.2d 1203, 1209 (Ohio Ct.App.1978) (<HOLDING>) (footnote omitted). 8 . In Nath, the issue was Options: A. holding that a public entitys property refers to the public entity that owns the property where a dangerous condition exists B. holding that if property is not property1 of the public entity then the public entity cannot be subject to suit under the dangerous condition waiver C. holding that even if the industry and federal regulations evidenced an inherent danger and the defendant knew or should have realized that the device was or was likely to be dangerous for the use for which it was supplied there was a complete absence of evidence that the defendant had reason to believe that the plaintiff or its employees would not realize the danger D. holding the better rule on the question of the divisibility of a contract of insurance for a gross premium on several items of property separately valued is that it depends upon the nature and entirety of the risk thus where the property is so situated that the risk of one item affects the risk on the other the contract is entire and not divisible E. holding that where a lessor seeks to lease property for a use which is inherently dangerous or has highly dangerous potentialities involving a substantial risk to the general public and such danger or risk to the public is such that it may be foreseen by the lessor the lessor owes a duty of reasonable care in selecting and entrusting such property to a lessee

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that where a lessor seeks to lease property for a use which is inherently dangerous or has highly dangerous potentialities involving a substantial risk to the general public and such danger or risk to the public is such that it may be foreseen by the lessor the lessor owes a duty of reasonable care in selecting and entrusting such property to a lessee
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 its agents. The pressure exerted against Naifeh to falsify records was no less intimidating because it was asserted by a fellow employee. Tanja had the power to terminate Naifeh and did so because she would not become a party to a criminal enterprise. Her conduct constitutes the very essence of the common law tort created by Sabine Pilot Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. 1 . Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex.1985). 2 . Other jurisdictions take varied approaches to claims of individual liability for wrongful termination. At one end of the spectrum, California, Illinois, and Kansas do not recognize liability for wrongful-discharge claims against individual non-employers. See Reno v. Baird, 18 Cal.4th 640, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 499, 957 P.2d 1333, 1334 (Cal.1998) (<HOLDING>); Buckner v. Atl. Plant Maint., Inc., 182 Options: A. recognizing tort of wrongful discharge B. holding that supervisors may not be sued individually under californias fair employment and housing act and stating that this holding also applies to common law actions for wrongful discharge C. recognizing cause of action for wrongful discharge D. holding that the test for preclusion of a common law wrongful discharge claim is disjunctive E. holding that the statute applies also to malicious prosecution actions

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that supervisors may not be sued individually under californias fair employment and housing act and stating that this holding also applies to common law actions for wrongful discharge