flwrlabs/fed-legal huggingface dataset:
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the lands to be purchased ... made by said Delawares in any part of the Cherokee reservation east of said line of 96[.]” (emphasis added). The Delawares paid $157,600 (one dollar per acre) for such occupancy rights and a preferred allotment position. The “Delawares further agreefd], that there shall be paid ... a sum of money, which shall sustain the same proportion to the existing Cherokee National fund, that the number of Delawares registered as 27, 135, 24 S.Ct. 342, 48 L.Ed. 646 (1904) (reaffirming the purpose of the 1867 Agreement was “to incorporate the registered Delawares into the Cherokee Nation, with full participation in the political and property rights of citizens of that nation.”); Cherokee Nation, 944 F.Supp. at 982 rev’d on other grounds 117 F.3d 1489 (D.C.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Cherokee Nation, 117 F.3d at 1503 (holding Options: A. holding that because the due process clause in the federal constitution is applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment the right is also guaranteed to defendants pursuant to the identical provision in article i section 5 of the hawaii constitution B. holding that the fourteenth amendment precludes peremptory challenges predicated upon race and that once a defendant in a criminal case makes a prima facie showing of discrimi nation the burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate a neutral explanation for the challenges C. holding that the plaintiff was required to arbitrate his claim which accrued before he became bound by the arbitration rules of the new york stock exchange because he was fully aware of the existing claim at the time he became a member of the exchange and became bound by its arbitration rules D. holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them E. holding the delawarefs settled in cherokee nation territory pursuant to the first provision of article 15 under which the settling delaware became full and equal cherokee nation citizens

assistant: The best answer is E. holding the delawarefs settled in cherokee nation territory pursuant to the first provision of article 15 under which the settling delaware became full and equal cherokee nation citizens
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: where government employer “faces nothing more than the same minimum-wage and overtime, obligations that hundreds of thousands of other employers, public as well as private, have to meet”), overruling Nat’l League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 96 S.Ct., 2465, 49 L.Ed.2d 245 (1976). When Congress lawfully exercises its power under the Commerce Clause, state and local governments cannot avoid complying with the resulting. regulation simply by pointing to a “sacred province of state autonomy.” Id, (quotation ojnitted); see also, e.g., Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Neusser, 810 F.2d 550, 555 n. 2 (6th Cir.1987) (explaining that “[t]he traditional concept of state sovereignty is, of course, no longer the focus of this analysis”); Dressman v. Costle, 759 F.2d 548, 557 (6th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Instead, states must seék relief from federal Options: A. holding that case law from other circuits squarely precluded jurisdiction over preenforcement ruling under the clean air act B. holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act C. holding that the same standards apply for setting reasonable attorneys fees under the clean air acts fee shifting provision as under 42 usc 1988 D. holding the epa could regulate air pollutants under the clean air act solely on the basis of the pollutants risk to human health E. holding that kentucky counties tenthamendment challenge to the clean air act obviously fails under garcia

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that kentucky counties tenthamendment challenge to the clean air act obviously fails under garcia
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: at 1474. Whether ERISA preempts a plaintiffs state law claims is a question of law we review de novo. Ward v. Management Analysis Co. Employee Disability Benefit Plan, 135 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir.1998); Spain v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 11 F.3d 129 (9th Cir.1993). A. Government Exemption The Basts first argue that the district court improperly granted summary judgment because there is an issue of fact as to whether the Plan was managed by an agency of the government. ERISA exempts from preemption any plan that is established or maintained by the U.S. government, a state government or by any agency or instrumentality of the government. 29 U.S.C. § 1002(32); 29 U.S.C. § 1003(b)(1). The Basts argue that during the relevant time period, the Plan was “maintained” by the R 1253 (10th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Cole’s employee benefit plan is not a Options: A. holding that a public trust that exercised control over the beneficiarys employment did not change the benefit plan into a government plan because the trust did not establish the plan or control it B. holding that plan did not comply C. holding that professionals who advised the plan were not fiduciaries because they had no decision making authority over the plan or plan assets also noting that the power to act for the plan is essential to status as a fiduciary D. holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan E. holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a public trust that exercised control over the beneficiarys employment did not change the benefit plan into a government plan because the trust did not establish the plan or control it
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive acknowledges that the Company will provide Executive with Confidential Information and has previously provided Executive with Confidential Information. In return for consideration provided under this Agreement, Executive agrees that Executive will not, while employed by the Company or any affiliate and thereafter, disclose or make available to any other person or entity, or use for Executive’s own personal gain, any Confidential Information, except for such disclosures as required in the performance of Executive’s duties with the Company or as may otherwise be required by law or legal process (in which case Executive shall notify the Company of such legal or judicial proceeding as soon as practicable following Executive’s receipt of notice of such a proceeding, and permit the Company to seek to protect its interests and information). Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing contained herein shall prohibit Executive from reporting possible violations of federal law or regulation to any governmental agency or entity or making other disclosures that are protected under the whistleblower provisions of applicable law or regulation, provided that Executive promptly notifies the Company of the required disclosure and uses reasonable efforts to afford the Company a reasonable opportunity to seek a protective order narrowing the scope of such disclosure and provided further , that Executive complies with any protective order imposed on such disclosure.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise provided in the Plan, the Committee may unilaterally amend the terms of this Agreement, but no such amendment shall materially impair your rights with respect to your Stock Units without your consent, except such an amendment made to cause the Plan or the Agreement to comply with applicable law, applicable rule of any securities exchange on which the Common Stock is listed or admitted for trading, or to prevent adverse tax or accounting consequences for you or the Company or any of its Affiliates. The Company shall give written notice to you of any such alteration or amendment of this Agreement by the Committee as promptly as practical after the adoption thereof. The foregoing shall not restrict the ability of you and the Company by mutual consent to alter or amend this Agreement in any manner that is consistent with the Plan and approved by the Committee.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 232 (2005) (recognizing Restatement [Second] of Torts § 314A[3] imposes a duty upon one in possession of land); Gragg v. Wichita State Univ., 261 Kan. 1037, 1045-46, 934 P.2d 121 (1997) (same); Gardin v. Emporia Hotels, Inc., 31 Kan. App. 2d 168, 171-72, 61 P.3d 732, rev. denied 275 Kan. 963 (2003) (same). Thus, although not in the same context, Kansas has recognized and implemented § 314A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Moreover, and in a factual scenario very similar to the one presented here, two cases from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas have specifically applied Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A(4) to hold that prison officials owed inmates the duty to prevent self-harm. Estate of Sisk v. Manzanares, 262 F. Supp. 2d 1162, 1185-87 (D. Kan. 2002) (<HOLDING>); Griffin v. United States, 2000 WL 33200259 Options: A. holding that city policymakers who owed an independent duty to pretrial detainees were individually liable under 1983 for prisoner suicide even though factfinder determined that the turnkey had not violated prisoners constitutional rights B. holding doc and its personnel had independent legal duty to prevent prisoner from committing suicide C. holding no legal duty exists to prevent unforeseeable criminal acts D. holding united states marshal service had legal duty of care with respect to suicidal prisoner who escaped from custody and then committed suicide by jumping from the fourth floor atrium of united states courthouse E. holding that instructing the jury on a legal duty theory when appellant had no legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense was error

assistant: The best answer is B. holding doc and its personnel had independent legal duty to prevent prisoner from committing suicide
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: performance. Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 348-50, 100 S.Ct. 1708. A showing of prejudice from any such adverse effect is not required. See United States v. Hearst, 638 F.2d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir.1980). An “actual conflict” results when counsel “actively represented conflicting interests.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (internal quotation marks omitted). An actual conflict need not be a direct conflict, and it need not be established separately from adverse effect. See Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 172 n. 5, 122 S.Ct. 1237, 152 L.Ed.2d 291 (2002). Instead, an actual conflict “is a conflict of interest that adversely affects counsel’s performance.” Id. Successive representation is sufficient to establish a conflict, see Belmontes v. Brown, 414 F.3d 1094, 1118 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>), cert. granted sub nom. Ornaski v. Belmontes, Options: A. holding that the most significant relationship test as espoused in the restatement of conflicts governs conflicts cases sounding in tort in case where automobile collision occurred in mexico B. holding that strickland applies to cases involving successive representation C. holding that conflicts of constitutional magnitude can arise from cases of successive representation D. recognizing adequacy of notice as a matter of obvious constitutional magnitude E. holding that the failure to optout precluded challenge to adequate representation based upon purported conflicts of interest between subclasses

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that conflicts of constitutional magnitude can arise from cases of successive representation
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: Jam Productions, Ltd., 843 F.2d 1024, 1032 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 909, 109 S.Ct. 261, 102 L.Ed.2d 249 (1988). In making its determination, the court’s sole function is to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to support a verdict in the non-movant’s favor. Credibility determinations, weighing evidence, and drawing reasonable inferences are jury functions, not those of a judge when deciding a motion for summary judgment. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. at 2513. With these standards in mind, we address the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. COUNT III: § 198S Plaintiffs seek recovery under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants, under the color of state law, violated their equal protec .Ct. 783, 788, 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951) (<HOLDING>)- Although § 1983 does not on its face admit a Options: A. recognizing legislative immunity of state legislators in 1983 suits for both damage and equitable relief B. holding that legislative immunity shields an official from liability if the act in question was undertaken in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity C. holding witnesses are absolutely immune from suit for damages with respect to testimony D. holding michigan friend of the court employees absolutely immune from suit under 1983 E. holding that state legislators are absolutely from suit under 1983 for actions in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that state legislators are absolutely from suit under 1983 for actions in the sphere of legitimate legislative 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of this Final Order and any actions taken pursuant hereto shall: (a) survive the Termination Declaration Date and entry of any order: (i) converting any of the Chapter 11 Cases to a case under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code; (ii) substantively consolidating any of the Debtors or their respective estates; or (iii) dismissing or closing any of the Chapter 11 Cases; and (b) shall continue in full force and effect notwithstanding the Termination Declaration Date or entry of any such order described in this paragraph.

assistant: Survival
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 most marginal of cases, because of their fact intensive nature, retaliation claims should survive summary judgment. 4. Posi-Burlington Northern federal caselaw. Burlington Northern was something of a bombshell in the employment law world. As a general matter, there seemed to be little question that under Burlington Northern, more retaliation cases would survive summary judgment. Further, most of the post-Burlington Northern federal caselaw recognized that in determining whether a plaintiff has suffered disparate treatment, the “terms, conditions, and privileges of employment” test was not applicable in retaliation cases. The lower federal courts widely came to recognize that in retaliation cases, a lesser standard applies. See Powell v. Lockhart, 629 F.Supp.2d 23, 41 (D.D.C. 2009) (<HOLDING>). Burlington Northern emphasized the proper Options: A. holding estoppel claim could not lie in tort where the facts that support the claim could not support a claim for fraud or misrepresentation B. holding a broad claim with no factual support was insufficient to satisfy rule 9b C. holding that general employment practices are relevant to eeoc investigation of individual disparate treatment claim D. holding that statistical evidence that was too broad to support a prima facie case of systemic disparate treatment was nevertheless admissible in plaintiffs individual disparate treatment case but noting that a valid statistical analysis must encompass the rel evant labor market E. holding that placing employee on performance improvement plan was insufficient to support disparate treatment claim but could support retaliation claim because of lesser standard

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that placing employee on performance improvement plan was insufficient to support disparate treatment claim but could support retaliation claim because of lesser standard
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: Under the circumstances, dismissal was a justifiable sanction for Shelley’s failure to prosecute his case. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the following six relevant factors: (1) the extent of the party’s personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense. Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir.1984). See also Curtis T. Bedwell & Sons, Inc. v. Int'l Fidelity Ins. Co., 843 F.2d 683, 696 (3d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The evaluation of the first Poulis factor Options: A. holding a sentencing court is not obligated to expressly weigh on the record each of the factors set out in 3553a B. holding that ninemonth period not sufficient to weigh in favor of finding closedended continuity C. holding that not all poulis factors must weigh in favor of dismissal D. recognizing trial court should not weigh evidence E. holding upward deviation reasonable where supported by proper factors even though some 3553a factors operated in defendants favor

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that not all poulis factors must weigh in favor of dismissal
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: violated neither the Double Jeopaidy Clause of the Constitution nor the ex post facto clause. Id. at 361, 117 S.Ct, 2072. It was “unpersuaded . .. that Kansas has established criminal proceedings.” Id. Other decisions, including some from Wisconsin itself, have also rejected the argument that statutes like chapter 980 create criminal offenses. See, e,g., Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 121 S.Ct. 727, 148 L.Ed.2d 734 (2001) (recognizing that Washington State’s Community Protection Act of 1990, which is virtually indistinguishable from Wisconsin’s chapter 980 statute, was civil as opposed to criminal and rejecting contention that a habeas petitioner could mount a challenge that the Act was “criminal as applied”); Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364, 106 S.Ct. 2988, 92 L.Ed.2d 296 (1986) (<HOLDING>); State v. Carpenter, 197 Wis.2d 252, 541 Options: A. holding that proceedings under the illinois sexually dangerous persons act were not criminal for purposes of fifth amendments prohibition of compulsory selfincrimination B. holding that the fifth amendments protection against selfincrimination is applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment C. holding municipalities are not persons within the meaning of the due process clause of the fifth or fourteenth amendments D. holding that neither the fifth amendment nor due process requires application of privilege against selfincrimination in sexually dangerous persons proceedings E. holding that adam walsh act violates the eighth amendments prohibition against excessive bail and the fifth amendments guarantee of procedural due process

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that proceedings under the illinois sexually dangerous persons act were not criminal for purposes of fifth amendments prohibition of compulsory selfincrimination
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: 4 . In the argument section of his brief pertaining to the issue of the violation of the Act, Baltrip states the following: The Board met in private with the attorney who was prosecuting the evidence on which she sought dismissal before the Board of Education. No one,could seriously argue that a District Attorney General, prosecuting a criminal in a court of Tennessee, could meet with a jury to discuss the sentencing options prior to the jury rendering a verdict. Baltrip does not raise this matter as an issue in the issues section of his brief; nor does he cite any authority suggesting that the dual role of the Board’s attorney amounts to reversible error. In fact, there is authority suggesting to the contrary. See, e.g ., Cochran v. Board of Educ., 815 S.W.2d 55, 60 (Mo.Ct.App.1991)(<HOLDING>). In any event, since this matter has not been Options: A. holding that the state courts factfinding procedure was adequate even though it did not hold an evidentiary hearing because hearing as used in 2254d does not require a trialtype hearing at which live testimony is presented and the accused has the opportunity to crossexamine witnesses B. holding that appearance at the scheduled hearing demonstrates actual notice of the hearing C. holding mere fact that school boards attorney actively participated in dismissal hearing did not render hearing unfair D. holding no restitution hearing is mandated when defendant did not object to order of restitution or request a hearing E. holding trial court abused its discretion by refusing to conduct hearing and render decision on motion

assistant: The best answer is C. holding mere fact that school boards attorney actively participated in dismissal hearing did not render hearing unfair
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 are no brokers or finders known to BSN to be involved with the transactions contemplated hereunder and BSN has not made any agreement or taken any other action which might cause any Person to become entitled to a broker’s or finder’s fee or commission as a result of the transactions contemplated hereby.

assistant: Brokers
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: to another, usually his assignor. Such contracts are most frequently found as a reservation in an assignment of a lease. The provision creates in the owner of such royalty an interest in the lease. Edward v. Prince, 221 Mont. 272, 276, 719 P.2d 422, 424 (1986). Because it is carved out of the lessee’s interest, it cannot be of greater duration than the lease. Edward, 221 Mont. at 276, 719 P.2d at 424 (citing Eugene O. Kuntz, The Law of Oil and Gas, vol. 5, § 63.2 (Anderson Pub. Co. 1991)). We conclude that an overriding royalty applies only to the lease out of which it was created. See Kuntz, The Law of Oil and Gas at § 63.2. This comports with our general rules governing a grantor’s reservation of an interest. City of Missoula v. Mix, 123 Mont. 365, 369, 214 P.2d 212, 214 (1950) (<HOLDING>); 26A C.J.S. Deeds §279 (2001) (stating “[a] Options: A. holding that a legal malpractice claim arising from errors by an attorney in rendering estateplanning services is properly brought by the personal representative of the estate when excess estate taxes are paid by the estate in contravention of the decedents intended estate plan B. holding that the defendant who owned the premises could discharge its duty by either warning the plaintiff or making the premises reasonably safe C. holding that a retained equity interest is property even if it has no market value D. holding the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the premises owner when the evidence showed no one had been injured by the condition in question and the premises owner had received no complaints about the condition in question during a tenyear period E. holding that a reservation is some right interest or estate retained by the grantor in the granted premises

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a reservation is some right interest or estate retained by the grantor in the granted premises
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: Except as set forth in the next sentence hereof, it is expressly understood that Purchaser may not assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of Seller, which consent may be withheld in Seller’s sole discretion. Notwithstanding the above, Purchaser may assign this Agreement to an entity authorized to do business in the State of North Carolina which is owned and/or controlled by Purchaser (a “ Permitted Assignee ”), however an assignment of this Agreement by Purchaser to a Permitted Assignee shall in no way relieve Purchaser of its obligations hereunder, and Purchaser shall remain liable for same.

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: at 840. Furthermore, Ruby’s lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. The Workers’ Compensation Act is contractual in nature. See Aranda v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 748 S.W.2d 210, 212 (Tex.1988). The carrier agrees to compensate the employee for injuries sustained in the course of employment and the employee agrees to relinquish his common law rights against the employer. See id. The Regislature’s aim is to assure the injured employee that he will be fairly and reasonably compensated for his injuries while saving the employer the time, expense and uncertainty of litigation. Ruby’s will forever lose the benefit of that bargain if forced to trial and then the Commission subsequently decides Gaetjen’s claim is compensable. Cf. Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272-73 (Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>). Such a result would nullify the very purpose Options: A. holding that purpose of stay pending arbitration is twofold it relieves the party entitled to arbitrate of the burden of continuing to litigate the issue while the arbitration process is ongoing and it entitles that party to proceed immediately to arbitration without the delay that would be occasioned by an appeal of the district courts order to arbitrate B. holding denial of mandamus challenging arbitration order did not bar appeal of that order after arbitration was completed C. holding that the federal arbitration act requires piecemeal resolution when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement and mandates enforcement of an arbitration agreement notwithstanding the presence of other persons who are parties to the underlying dispute but not to the arbitration agreement emphasis added D. holding that a party who is erroneously deprived of the benefits of an arbitration contract under the federal arbitration act is without adequate remedy by appeal and entitled to mandamus relief E. holding that rookerfeldman precludes jurisdiction over a federal lawsuit to compel arbitration under the federal arbitration act because the action was inextricably intertwined with the plaintiffs failed statelaw action to compel arbitration under the louisiana arbitration act

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a party who is erroneously deprived of the benefits of an arbitration contract under the federal arbitration act is without adequate remedy by appeal and entitled to mandamus relief
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: its right of judicial review, PLM was required to file the instant lawsuit before this Court within sixty days of the TTAB ruling. See 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b). Although PLM is nominally the “plaintiff and counter-defendant” on the case caption, it is Prolacto who initiated the overall legal dispute here. Moreover, Prolacto has elected to cross-appeal to this Court for further review of the TTAB’s findings, as well as assert stand-alone causes of action under federal law and D.C. common law. Thus, Prolacto has availed itself of not only United States law, but of District of Columbia law. A party that chooses to initiate litigation and invoke the legal protections of the forum should expect to appear for deposition in that jurisdiction. See Cobell v. Norton, 213 F.R.D. 43, 47 (D.D.C.2003) (<HOLDING>); see also Dollar Sys., Inc. v. Tomlin, 102 Options: A. holding that an elderly named representative class member failed to present sufficient evidence that his health problems require holding his deposition in montana rather than washington dc B. holding evidence was sufficient to convict for robbery where two men approached an elderly man on the street grabbed both his arms and demanded his wallet C. holding that plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence to support a finding that a similar position existed after his termination D. holding that because plaintiff failed to allege invidious discrimination based upon his membership in a protected class his equal protection claim failed at its inception E. holding that the scope of crossexamination did not extend to any bad acts committed by the defendant during his life where defendant presented evidence of adverse circumstances that he experienced in his early childhood rather than evidence of his general good character

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an elderly named representative class member failed to present sufficient evidence that his health problems require holding his deposition in montana rather than washington dc
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: b. The Information, including any material support containing Information, will remain the exclusive property of the disclosing Party and the receiving Party will not acquire any right, title, license or interest on or to the Information. This Agreement does not constitute a license by implication or otherwise to use the Information commercially or otherwise.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: purposes of the Fourth Amendment where the investigating officer did not take the license over to the squad car to run the warrants check. See id. at 124. Instead, the officer "stood beside the car, near where [the defendant] was standing, and used his walkie-talkie" to contact the dispatcher. Id. This cireumstance, among others, resulted in the determination that the consensual encounter did not escalate into a level two seizure. See id. Thus, in this case, Patrick's momentary use of Adams's identification for a warrants check does not compel the conclusion that a level two seizure occurred, especially because Patrick did not hold onto the identification any longer than was necessary. Cf. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 501-02, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (plurality opinion) (<HOLDING>); People v. Jackson, 39 P.3d 1174, 1188 Options: A. holding victims statement testimonial where it was elicited in response to structured police questioning pursuant to a police investigation B. holding that when the victim calmly responded to questions at the police station with officers often asking leading questions the statements were testimonial C. holding that police acted permissibly in approaching airtine traveler and asking for identification but when police retained travelers documentation while asking him to accompany them to a separate room for questioning police illegally seized traveler 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 police executed an illegal arrest when they took a teenage suspect from his home and brought him in handcuffs to the police station for questioning

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that police acted permissibly in approaching airtine traveler and asking for identification but when police retained travelers documentation while asking him to accompany them to a separate room for questioning police illegally seized traveler
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 Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. Borrower agrees that any action or proceeding against it to enforce the Note may be commenced in state or federal court in any county in the State of Florida, and Borrower waives personal service of process and agrees that a summons and complaint commencing an action or proceeding in any such court shall be properly served and shall confer personal jurisdiction if served by registered or certified mail in accordance with the notice provisions set forth herein.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Mel Marin appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Marin’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because Marin failed to verify his poverty adequately. See United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not Options: A. holding that a questionnaire may be used to assist the court in determining whether cases should be dismissed under 28 usc 1915 B. holding that order denying motion to dismiss a bankruptcy petition is final under 28 usc 1291 C. holding that plaintiffs claim properly belonged only in the court of federal claims under 28 usc 1491 D. holding that where jurisdiction was based on 28 usc 2201 venue was determined as per 28 usc 1391 E. holding that motion made under 28 usc 1915 was properly denied where appellants were unable or unwilling to verify their poverty

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that motion made under 28 usc 1915 was properly denied where appellants were unable or unwilling to verify their poverty
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 transformers were not within the scope of any demolition work. Shipp specifically informed Leo Gomez, AAA’s owner and Murillo’s worksite supervisor, to consider the transformers to be energized. The signage on the transformer box doors declared “DANGER, KEEP AWAY.” It warned that energized electrical equipment was inside and of the dire consequences that contact could cause. Oncor did not contemporaneously energize the transformer while Murillo worked, or tell anyone at the worksite that it had been switched off when in fact it was not. Without evidence of such acts, Oncor, as an electricity provider, had no general duty to recognize and prevent electrical contact during a construction project. See Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. Brooks, 161 Tex. 32, 336 S.W.2d 603, 606 (1960) (<HOLDING>). Because Oncor’s failure to turn off an Options: A. holding that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to the contractor where genuine issues of material fact existed regarding a duty to an injured construction worker B. holding that where electricity supplier had its employees on construction site from time to time in connection with supplying temporary electricity any knowledge suppliers employees had of building construction was incidental to supplying electricity thus construction worker who was injured when he contacted live highvoltage electrical transmission lines wholly failed to establish any reason why electricity supplier should have foreseen injury and no duty arises to act to prevent such unanticipated injury C. holding costs of providing power during construction delay were direct damages because contract provision specified that owner would provide electricity to construction site D. holding that electrical supplier owed no duty in general negligence to construction worker injured by contact with live highvoltage electrical transmission lines on construction site E. holding that time workers spent traveling on an employers boat to a construction site was not compensable under the act

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that where electricity supplier had its employees on construction site from time to time in connection with supplying temporary electricity any knowledge suppliers employees had of building construction was incidental to supplying electricity thus construction worker who was injured when he contacted live highvoltage electrical transmission lines wholly failed to establish any reason why electricity supplier should have foreseen injury and no duty arises to act to prevent such unanticipated injury
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 M.T. Cole “A” lease, we hold there is no evidence of the factors enumerated in section 2.03(a) of the Act of an intent of the parties to create a partnership for any business purpose other than the purpose that is unenforceable under the statute of frauds. There is no evidence that Phelps and Helms had a right to receive a share of profits from any business other than the development of the M.T. Cole “A” lease and there is no evidence of a written agreement to share any specific percentage of profits with respect to any specific ownership interest in the lease. There is no evidence of an intent to be partners in anything other the development of the field, which would require the establishment of a joint venture and a joint operating agreement, both 4 S.W.2d 334, 335 (1939) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we sustain issues four and six. Options: A. holding that there was no evidence or inferences to be drawn from the evidence to support the damage award B. holding that halper does not apply when a monetary damage award has not been imposed C. holding that property damage occurred when homeowners noticed damage not when house was improperly constructed D. holding damage award immaterial when no liability E. holding that to offset a jurys damage award a separate thirdparty insurance award must cover the same loss which served as the basis for the jury award

assistant: The best answer is D. holding damage award immaterial when no liability
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 facial applicability of § 2A3.1 but argues that the Sentencing Commission intended a different result for cases in which no actual minor was involved. However, this court has made clear that § 2A3.1 is appropriate for cases involving fictitious victims. In DeCarlo, this court considered DeCarlo’s argument that U.S.S.G. § 2A3.1 is reserved for cases involving actual minors. As the DeCarlo court emphasized, “[t]he critical fact that renders the defendant’s conduct criminal in this case is not the act or the resulting harm, but the intent with which the act was done.... The plain language of the statute makes the age of the intended victim an element of the crime, and it punishes attempts the same as completed acts.” Id. at 457-58 (emphasis added); see also Hochschild, 442 at 978-79 (<HOLDING>). We therefore find that the district court did Options: A. holding that the district court erred in imposing an enhancement under the 5k20 departure provision where an enhancement under the separate guidelines provision for restraining a victim during the course of an offense would have been appropriate B. holding that because it is not strictly necessary under the statute for a victim to fear death the guideline enhancement is not coterminous with the basic offense conduct C. holding a single vulnerable victim is sufficient to support application of the vulnerable victim enhancement D. holding that application of 2a31 is appropriate even when the victim is fictional as an enhancement for a fictitious victim is consistent with the utilitarian purpose of the enhancement E. holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that application of 2a31 is appropriate even when the victim is fictional as an enhancement for a fictitious victim is consistent with the utilitarian purpose of the enhancement
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: 341 U.S. 48 71 S.Ct. 552 95 L.Ed. 738 UNITED STATESv.ALCEA BAND OF TILLAMOOKS et al. No. 281. Argued March 2, 1951. Decided April 9, 1951. Mr. Philip B. Perlman, Sol. Gen., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Messrs. Edward F. Howrey, Louis A. Gravelle, Washington, D.C., for respondents. PER CURIAM. 1 The facts leading to this controversy are fully set forth in United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 1946, 329 U.S. 40, 67 S.Ct. 167, 91 L.Ed. 29, where this Court affirmed a judgment of the Court of Claims, 59 F.Supp. 934, 103 Ct.Cl. 494 that certain named Indian tribes 'are entitled to recover' compensation for the taking of original Indian title by the United States in 1855. The amount of recovery was reserved expressly for the further proceedings which are before the Court in this case. After the affirmance, the Court of Claims heard evidence on the amount of recovery and entered a judgment for the value of the lands as of 1855 plus interest from that date. 87 F.Supp. 938, 115 Ct.Cl. 463. We granted certiorari limited to the question presented by the award of interest. 1950, 340 U.S. 873, 71 S.Ct. 121. 2 It is the 'traditional rule' that interest on claims against the United States cannot be recovered in the absence of an express provision to the contrary in the relevant statute or contract. 28 U.S.C. (Supp. III), § 2516(a), 28 U.S.C.A. § 2516(a). United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel Co., 1947, 329 U.S. 585, 588, 67 S.Ct. 398, 399, 91 L.Ed. 521, and cases cited therein. This rule precludes an award of interest even though a statute should direct an award of 'just compensation' for a particular taking. United States v. Goltra, 1941, 312 U.S. 203, 61 S.Ct. 487, 85 L.Ed. 776. The only exception arises when the taking entitles the claimant to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Only in such cases does the award of compensation include interest. Seaboard Airline R. Co. v. United States, 1923, 261 U.S. 299, 43 S.Ct. 354, 67 L.Ed. 664; United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel Co., supra. 3 Looking to the former opinions in this case, we find that none of them expressed the view that recovery was grounded on a taking under the Fifth Amendment. And, since the applicable jurisdictional Act, 49 Stat. 801 (1935), contains no provision authorizing an award of interest, such award must be reversed. 4 Reversed. 5 Mr. Justice JACKSON took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

assistant: 2