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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to Section 9 hereof, to the extent that the Option has become vested and exercisable with respect to a number of shares of Common Stock as provided herein, the Option may thereafter be exercised by the Participant, in whole or in part, at any time or from time to time prior to the expiration of the Option as provided herein and in accordance with Section 6.3 of the Plan, including, without limitation, by the delivery of any form of exercise notice as may be required by the Committee and payment in full of the Per Share Exercise Price multiplied by the number of shares of Common Stock underlying the portion of the Option exercised.

assistant: Payments
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: Use the proceeds of the Revolving Loans and the Swingline Loans and request the issuance of Letters of Credit solely for general corporate purposes (including to finance the Transactions and for capital expenditures, Permitted Acquisitions, the repayment or refinancing of Indebtedness and the making of Investments and Restricted Payments, in each case to the extent not prohibited hereunder).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The December 31, 2017 audited consolidated financial statements of the REIT and its Subsidiaries, and their unaudited financial statements dated as of September 30, 2018, heretofore delivered to the Lenders were prepared in accordance with GAAP as in effect on the date such statements were prepared and fairly present in all material respects the consolidated financial condition and operations of the REIT and its Subsidiaries at such date and the consolidated results of their operations for the period then ended.

assistant: Financial Statements
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: IRCTC may modify any of the terms and conditions contained in this API Agreement, at any time and in its sole discretion, by posting a change notice to your account, changing the agreement, emailing the email address of your account or otherwise notifying you. The changes to this API Agreement will not apply retroactively and will become effective 7 days after posting. However, changes specific to new functionality or changes made for legal reasons will be effective immediately upon notice. IF ANY MODIFICATION IS UNACCEPTABLE TO YOU, YOUR ONLY RECOURSE IS TO TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT. YOUR CONTINUED USE OF THE IRCTC API, CONTINUED POSSESSION OF A COPY OF THE API SPECIFICATIONS OR CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT OR DISTRIBUTION OF AN API CLIENT FOLLOWING A NOTIFICATION OF A CHANGE AS DESCRIBED ABOVE WILL CONSTITUTE BINDING ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHANGE.

assistant: Modifications
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: None of the Products covered by this Agreement or any Terminal Service Order shall be derived from any Product which was produced or withdrawn from storage in violation of any federal, state or other governmental law, nor in violation of any rule, regulation or promulgated by any governmental agency having jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: created from a design defect.” Id. ¶ 11. We are unwilling to insert Van Duyne into the Romero analysis as a pre-adoption home “design defect” that continued post-adoption as a dangerous condition, as Plaintiff suggests. Further, unlike in Cobos, Plaintiff has not shown that CYFD had any obligation or right to inspect, approve, disapprove, or otherwise control, operate, or maintain any aspect of the adoptive home. {30} We see no reasonable basis, and Plaintiff has provided us with no persuasive argument, much less authority, to broaden the waiver in Section 41-4-6 to apply to the post-adoption knowledge and negligent failure to disclose or the urging of adoptive parents to take their adopted son back into their home after a CYFD evaluation. See Espinoza, 120 N.M. at 683, 905 P.2d at 721 (<HOLDING>); cf. Whitley v. N.M. Children, Youth & Options: A. recognizing torts of negligent hiring supervision and retention B. holding that section 4149 did not apply to the plaintiffs state law claims of breach of duty to protect foster care children from harm and of negligent supervision negligent entrustment and negligent failure to warn C. holding that immunity is not waived for injury or death caused by negligent supervision D. holding that section 41 16 does not grant a waiver for claims of negligent supervision E. holding that negligent supervision is inseparable from the use of the motor vehicle

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that section 41 16 does not grant a waiver for claims of negligent supervision
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: cert. denied, 425 U.S. 974, 96 S.Ct. 2173, 48 L.Ed.2d 798 (1976). See also Buschi v. Kirven, 775 F.2d 1240, 1251-52 (4th Cir.1985) (applying the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine to a Section 1985 conspiracy alleging violation of plaintiffs’ First Amendment and due process rights). See also Doherty, 728 F.2d at 339-40 (applying the intracorpo-rate conspiracy doctrine to a Section 1985(2) case alleging a corporate conspiracy to coerce plaintiff-employee to enter nolo contendere plea to federal bribery charges). For public policy reasons, however, the First and Third Circuits have refused to apply the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine to Section 1985 cases alleging conspiracies to discriminate on the basis of race or sex. See Stathos v. Bowden, 728 F.2d 15, 20-21 (1st Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, the Third Circuit rejected the Options: A. holding the logic of the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in antitrust cases does not warrant its extension to civil rights cases B. recognizing that the preponderance of the evidence is the quantum of proof in civil cases C. holding that the workproduct doctrine applies in criminal cases because its role in assuring the proper functioning of the criminal justice system is even more vital than its role in civil cases D. holding that the 1992 amendment to article 5 of the maryland declaration of rights permits a six person jury in all cases except criminal cases E. holding that 60day time limit for notice of appeal in civil cases not 10day limit in criminal cases applies to 2255 proceedings

assistant: The best answer is A. holding the logic of the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in antitrust cases does not warrant its extension to civil rights cases
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: doubts as to the victim’s veracity.’ ” Fulton v. Robinson, 289 F.3d 188, 195 (2d. Cir.2002) (quoting Singer, 63 F.3d at 118); see also Martinez v. Simonetti 202 F.3d 625, 634 (2d Cir.2000). Moretti acted based on a sworn complaint that alleged several crimes against plaintiff. Before Moretti arrested plaintiff, she first verified the existence of an Order of Protection and reviewed the alleged threatening emails sent to DeQuatro. Plaintiff argues Moretti should have recognized the emails to be fakes, sent by someone else under plaintiffs email address. The law, however, does not require Moretti to be an expert nor that Moretti investigate every potential explanation or scenario as plaintiff seems to argue. See Ricciuti v. New York City Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123, 128 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). All the law requires is that an officer have Options: A. holding that a claim must be facially plausible in order to survive a motion to dismiss B. holding that petitioners challenge to jury instructions in light of some new cases did not demonstrate his actual innocence because petitioner only asserts legal innocence not actual innocence C. holding that police officer is not required to explore and eliminate all theoretically plausible claims of innocence D. holding that police officer was not required to eliminate every theoretically plausible claim of innocence before effectuating arrest for animal cruelty E. holding police are not required to explore and eliminate every potentially plausible claim of innocence as part of their prearrest investigation

assistant: The best answer is E. holding police are not required to explore and eliminate every potentially plausible claim of innocence as part of their prearrest investigation
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: in such event , you will not be entitled to compensation for such suspension or termination , and you acknowledge that linden lab will have no liability to you in connection with such suspension or termination .

assistant: Limitation of 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties hereto recognize that the Company or an Affiliate may be obligated to withhold federal and state taxes or other taxes upon the vesting of the Restricted Shares, or, in the event that Recipient elects under Section 83(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended from time to time (together with any regulations promulgated thereunder, the “ Code ”) to report the receipt of the Restricted Shares as income in the year of receipt. Recipient agrees that, at such time, if the Company or an Affiliate is required to withhold such taxes, Recipient will promptly pay, in cash upon demand (or in any other manner permitted by the Company), to the Company or an Affiliate such amounts as shall be necessary to satisfy such obligation. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, in the event and to the extent that the Company or an Affiliate is required to withhold for federal and state taxes or other taxes upon the vesting of the Restricted Shares then Recipient may, to the extent permitted by applicable law, satisfy the obligation for the payment of such taxes by directing the Company to retain Restricted Shares otherwise deliverable under this Agreement (up to Recipient’s minimum required tax withholding rate) based upon the then trading market value of such shares. Recipient further acknowledges that the Company has directed Recipient to seek independent advice regarding the applicable provisions of the Code, the income tax laws of any municipality, state or foreign country in which Recipient may reside, and the tax consequences of Recipient’s death.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that Ocwen’s reporting was “incomplete or inaccurate” regarding his personal liability for the foreclosure deficiency stated a claim under CCRAA § 1785.25. We note that unlike the company in Wang v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, which faced only the potential of the debtor raising a statute of limitations defense, Ocwen itself had made an election of remedies when it sold Kuns’s home in a non-judicial foreclosure, thereby changing the collectibility of the debt. 681 F.Supp.2d 1143 (N.D.Cal.2010). The anti-deficiency laws’ protection against post-foreclosure personal liability is complete and nonwaivable, in contrast to the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations that the debtor in Wang could raise. See DeBerard Props. v. Lim, 20 Cal.4th 659, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 292, 976 P.2d 843 (1999) (<HOLDING>). Because Kuns’ complaint stated a claim under Options: A. holding the statutory scheme of two federal laws was not void for vagueness and did not violate equal protection or due process even though the defendants conduct violated both laws B. holding that segregation in public education is a denial of equal protection of the laws C. holding that antideficiency laws protection is nonwaivable D. holding that a temporarily totally disabled person may invoke protection under disability discrimination laws E. holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that antideficiency laws protection is nonwaivable
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 prohibited by the restrictions provided in this Section 14(a), Section 14(b) and Section 14(c), the Company shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Adviser, the Sub-Adviser and their Affiliates, including their respective officers, directors, equity holders, partners, members and employees, from all liability, claims, damages or losses arising in the performance of their duties hereunder and under the Sub-Advisory Agreement, and related expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, to the extent such liability, claims, damages or losses and related expenses are not fully reimbursed by insurance.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All of the direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Company are set forth on Schedule 3.1(a) . The Company owns, directly or indirectly, all of the capital stock or other equity interests of each Subsidiary free and clear of any Liens, and all of the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of each Subsidiary are validly issued and are fully paid, non-assessable and free of preemptive and similar rights to subscribe for or purchase securities. If the Company has no subsidiaries, all references to Subsidiaries in the Transaction Documents shall be disregarded except to the extent such reference speaks to a time in the past or future when the Company has had or will have a subsidiary, as the case may be.

assistant: Subsidiaries
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: Tenant’s indemnity of Landlord as set forth in the Lease shall also apply with respect to any and all costs, losses, damages, injuries and liabilities related in any way to any act or omission of Tenant or Tenant’s Parties, or any one directly or indirectly employed by any of them, or in connection with Tenant’s non-payment of any amount arising out of the Tenant Improvements and/or Tenant’s disapproval of all or any portion of any request for payment.

assistant: Indemnity
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: with the exception of any acts or omissions of willful misconduct , any indemnification obligations hereunder , and any claim of breach of the confidentiality obligations set forth herein , to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law , crowdtangle parties disclaims all liability , whether based on warranty , contract , tort ( including but not limited to negligence , gross negligence or willful misconduct ) , product liability , strict liability , statutory liability , breach of a fundamental term , fundamental breach , or any other legal theory , for any loss or damages of any kind ( including , without limitation any ( i ) direct , indirect , special , consequential , exemplary or punitive loss or damage , ( ii ) lost profits or savings , ( iii ) business interruption , ( iv ) loss of programs or data ( including any content ) , ( v ) lost revenue or failure to realize expected savings , ( vi ) loss of use , ( vii ) personal injury , ( viii ) fines , fees , penalties , or ( vi ) any other losses or damages whether or not crowdtangle is advised of the possibility of such damages , resulting from the use of , or the inability to make use of , the services .

assistant: Limitation of 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: of Blakely. But “[wjithout an express waiver by the state, a federal court is allowed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) to grant a state prisoner’s habeas petition only if the petitioner has exhausted all available state remedies.” Bronshtein v. Horn, 404 F.3d 700, 725 (3d Cir.2005). Here, it is clear that Sharrieff has not exhausted all available state remedies. He does not dispute the State’s assertion that he could obtain relief through state post-conviction proceedings. And since the Supreme Court of New Jersey exercises discretionary review, N.J. Ct. R. 2:12-4, it was not enough for Sharrieff to assert, for the first and only time in state court, his Blakely claim in his petition for certification. See Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351, 109 S.Ct. 1056, 103 L.Ed.2d 380 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, even though the State concedes Options: A. holding that the injunction did not constitute a claim B. holding that the submission of a new claim to a states highest court on discretionary review does not constitute a fair presentation of that claim for exhaustion purposes C. holding that presentation of an untimely petition to the states highest court satisfied the exhaustion requirement D. holding that the united states court of federal claims does not have jurisdiction over a new claim or a claim of different scope that was not previously presented and certified to the contracting officer for decision E. holding by implication that where a claimant fails to return to the secretary a formal claim application within one year of the submission of his informal claim his informal claim is not a cognizable claim for effective date purposes

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the submission of a new claim to a states highest court on discretionary review does not constitute a fair presentation of that claim for exhaustion purposes
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 Lease incorporates the Terms and Conditions, and all exhibits attached hereto, as if set forth in full in the body of this Lease. Capitalized terms used but not defined in the Terms and Conditions have the respective meanings given to them above.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 378 U.S. 553 84 S.Ct. 1904 12 L.Ed.2d 1033 Richard H. M. SWANNv.Tom ADAMS, Secretary of State of Florida, et al. No. 297. Supreme Court of the United States June 22, 1964 Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, 1964. See 85 S.Ct. 15. Wm. Reece Smith, Jr., for appellant. Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen. of Florida, C. Graham Carothers, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edward S. Jaffry and Joseph C. Jacobs, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment below is reversed. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views stated in our opinions in Reynolds v. Sims and in the other cases relating to state legislative apportionment decided along with Reynolds. 2 Mr. Justice CLARK would reverse on the grounds stated in his opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 587, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1395. 3 Mr. Justice STEWART would remand for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in his dissenting opinion in Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U.S. 713, 744, 84 S.Ct. 1459, 1477. 4 Mr. Justice HARLAND dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 589, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1395.

assistant: 2
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: On the Closing Date, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the Company shall sell, and the Purchaser shall purchase, Securities comprising 555,555 Series B Shares and Warrants to purchase 555,555 shares of Common Stock for an aggregate purchase price of $4,999,995, or $9.00 per Unit of Securities. The Purchaser shall deliver to the Company immediately available funds equal to the Purchaser’s Subscription Amount as set forth on the signature page hereto executed by the Purchaser. The Company shall deliver to the Purchaser, its Securities, and the Company and the Purchaser shall deliver the other items set forth in Section 2.2 deliverable at the Closing. Upon satisfaction of the covenants and conditions set forth in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, the Closing shall occur at the offices of the Company or such other location, including virtually, as the parties shall mutually agree.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed and delivered (including by email transmission in .pdf format) by the Parties in separate counterparts, each of which when executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original but both of which taken jointly shall constitute one and the same agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that the appeal was rendered moot by the government’s removal of Jimenez-Barrera, citing In re Luis-Rodriguez, 22 I. & N. Dec. 747 (BIA 1999). Luis held that “where a controversy has become so attenuated or where a change in the law or an action by one of the parties has deprived an appeal or motion of practical significance, considerations of prudence may warrant dismissal of an appeal or denial of a motion as moot.” Id. at 753 (emphasis added). Luis does not stand for the proposition that a forcible removal of a petitioner from the United States by the government automatically moots a pending appeal. In fact, the holding in Luis was that the departure of the petitioner in that case did not moot the appeal. Id. at 754; see also Matter of Bulnes-Nolasco, 25 I. & N. Dec. 57 (BIA 2009) (<HOLDING>); In re Morales, 21 I. & N. Dec. 130, 147 (BIA Options: A. holding that aliens must be permitted to unilaterally withdraw voluntary departure requests in order to pursue motions to reopen B. holding the bia did not err in denying aliens motion to stay voluntary departure period pending determination on the motion to reopen C. holding that when an ij issues a decision granting an aliens application for withholding of removal without a grant of asylum the decision must include an explicit order of removal designating a country of removal D. holding that the 180day filing deadline applicable to motions to reopen from removal orders filed in absentia is not jurisdictional E. holding that an aliens departure based on an in absentia removal order does not necessarily deprive an ij of jurisdiction to decide a motion to reopen

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an aliens departure based on an in absentia removal order does not necessarily deprive an ij of jurisdiction to decide a motion to reopen
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: dead by a group of thieves. Luke 10:30-37 (King James). Although the Good Samaritan is viewed as a behavioral model, the common law devolved no duty on a bystander to provide affirmative aid to an injured person, even if he or she had the ability to do so. Lundy v. Adamar of New Jersey, Inc., 34 F.3d 1173, 1178 (3d Cir.1994) (citing W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, § 56, at 375 (5th ed.1984)); see also Malloy v. Fong, 37 Cal.2d 356, 232 P.2d 241, 247 (1951) (“[N]o one is obliged by law to assist a stranger, even though he can do so by a mere word, and without the slightest danger to himself.”) (alteration in original) (quoting Silva v. Providence Hosp., 14 Cal. 2d 762, 97 P.2d 798, 804 (1939)); Hurley v. Eddingfield, 156 Ind. 416, 59 N.E. 1058, 1058 (1901) (<HOLDING>). However, once a bystander endeavored to help, Options: A. holding physician in action based on illegal cavity search to standard of a reasonable physician B. holding physician not liable for injuries sustained by a third party when physician did not notify penndot of his patients poor vision C. holding physician entitled to recover attorneys fees actually paid by malpractice insurer because physician was personally liable in the first instance D. holding with no analysis that any person or organization who may be legally liable therefor applies to a person legally liable for injuries caused by an accident 4 when under the facts of the case the only person to whom the clause could have applied was a tortfeasor E. holding that only physician available in town not liable for refusing request to come to assist seriously ill person who subsequently died from lack of medical attention

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that only physician available in town not liable for refusing request to come to assist seriously ill person who subsequently died from lack of medical attention
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 joinder agreement (the “ Joinder Agreement ”) to the Amended Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of New York, without regard to any conflicts of law provisions which would require the application of the law of any other jurisdiction.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No Loan Party nor any of its Subsidiaries (a) is in violation of any applicable laws, rules, regulations, executive orders, or codes (including Environmental Laws) that, individually or in the aggregate, could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Change, or (b) is subject to or in default with respect to any final judgments, writs, injunctions, decrees, rules or regulations of any court or any federal, state, municipal or other governmental department, commission, board, bureau, agency or instrumentality, domestic or foreign, that, individually or in the aggregate, could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Change.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Pichardo, 356 Or 574. On remand, the Court of Appeals adhered to its initial conclusion that defendant’s consent had not attenuated the illegality. Pichardo, 275 Or App at 58. On review, the state raises two issues. It argues initially that Long’s request for consent did not unlawfully extend the stop because the request was reasonably related to the stop. Alternatively, it argues that, if Long’s request did unlawfully extend the stop, defendant’s consent was sufficient, in the context of this case, to attenuate that illegality. We begin with the first issue that the state raises. The state’s argument on that issue is narrow. The state does not dispute that, as a factual matter, Long’s request for consent extended the stop. Cf. State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366, 372, 182 P3d 209 (2008) (<HOLDING>), aff'd sub nom State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Options: A. holding that police officers are entitled to conduct an investigatory stop of a motorist if they have reasonable suspicion that the motorist has committed a traffic violation B. holding that it was impermissible for an officer to question a driver about matters unrelated to the traffic stop after the officer had fulfilled the purpose of the stop by issuing a written warning to the driver C. holding that a traffic stop is reasonable under the fourth amendment when police have probable cause to believe a traffic infraction has occurred D. recognizing that an officer is free to question a motorist about matters unrelated to the traffic infraction during an unavoidable lull in the investigation E. holding that an officer may order a passenger out of a vehicle during a stop for a traffic infraction

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that an officer is free to question a motorist about matters unrelated to the traffic infraction during an unavoidable lull in the investigation
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 arbitrator’s decision on the common law grounds that it was arbitrary and capricious and the decision was contrary to public policy because it diminished Macias’s rights under Texas law. The Supreme Court held in Hall Street that the grounds found in Section 10 are the exclusive grounds for vacating an arbitration award under the FAA. Hall Street, 552 U.S. at 586, 128 S.Ct. at 1404. The cases relied on by Macias in support of her common law grounds pre-date Hall Street. See Bro 08-00243-CV, 2009 WL 3109875, at *2, (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] September 17, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (complaint that arbitration award violates public policy is not viable ground for vacating an award under the FAA); see also Citigroup Global Markets., Inc. v. Bacon, 562 F.3d 349, 350 (5th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we conclude that the common law Options: A. holding that hall street restricts the grounds for vacatur to those set forth in section 10 of the faa B. holding that plea in bar may be based only on grounds set forth in statute C. holding that arbitrary and capricious ground for vacatur recognized along with the four grounds for vacatur specified in chapter 1 of the faa could not be used to vacate award under the convention D. holding that common law grounds such as manifest disregard of law and gross mistake were not valid grounds for vacatur of arbitration award as hall street forecloses any common law grounds for vacatur E. holding section 10 of faa is procedural and does not preempt state common law

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that hall street restricts the grounds for vacatur to those set forth in section 10 of the faa
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: was imposed by a district judge who, before Booker, treated the Guidelines as mandatory but would have imposed a materially different sentence had the judge known that the Guidelines were advisory. 409 F.3d at 1084-85. Having considered Huerta-Pimental’s argument, we conclude that Booker has no effect on the revocation of supervised release. It is clear from Booker that there is no Sixth Amendment Apprendi violation so long as the Guidelines are advisory. 543 U.S. at 226-27, 125 S.Ct. 738. Because the revocation of supervised release and the subsequent imposition of additional imprisonment is, and always has been, fully discretionary, it is cons mpact on supervised release revocation comports with that of our sister circuits that have addressed the issue. See Work, 409 F.3d at 492 (<HOLDING>); United States v. McNeil, 415 F.3d 273, 276 Options: A. recognizing that under the booker remedial regime the guidelines are no longer mandatory but are only advisory B. holding that because the portions of the guidelines dealing with revocation of supervised release were deemed advisory even before booker and remain so resort to them cannot constitute booker error C. holding booker error is avoided when district court calculates proper guidelines sentencing range treats guidelines as advisory and imposes reasonable sentence D. holding sentencing under the acca not to be a booker error E. holding that even without booker constitutional error in the district courts application of the guidelines there could be nonconstitutional error where the court applied the guidelines in a mandatory fashion

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that because the portions of the guidelines dealing with revocation of supervised release were deemed advisory even before booker and remain so resort to them cannot constitute booker error
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: plaintiff can show that the third party breached a duty recognized by law. Id. In the absence of affirmative conduct such as an agreement, contract, statute, or other special circumstance, negligence law generally does not impose affirmative duties, such as the duty to preserve evidence. Id. The question “ ‘[w]hether a duty exists is ultimately a question of fairness. The inquiry involves a weighing of the relationship of the parties, the nature of the risk and the public interest in the proposed solution.’ ” Id. (quoting Cruet v. Certain-Teed Corp., 432 Pa.Super. 554, 639 A.2d 478, 479 (1994)). There are two possible duties to consider in the context of this case: 1) duty of a third-party company to its customers, and 2) duty of a third-party employer to its employ d 615 (Ala.1983) (<HOLDING>). On remand from the Eighth Circuit Court of Options: A. holding that no independent commonlaw duty exists on the part of an employer to preserve evidence for an employees potential civil action against third parties B. holding that an employer through its employees did not breach an independent duty to power company not to come in contact with power companys transmission lines because such a duty is a general duty not an independent one C. recognizing that the compensation that an employer pays may exceed an employees recovery from third parties D. holding there is no duty to third parties on the part of a premises owner who could not have foreseen the criminal acts of third parties E. holding that such a duty exists

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that no independent commonlaw duty exists on the part of an employer to preserve evidence for an employees potential civil action against third parties
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Headings are given to the paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Agreement solely as a convenience to facilitate reference. Such headings shall not be deemed in any way material or relevant to the construction or interpretation of this Agreement or any provision thereof.

assistant: Headings
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 both AMTC and DSC will not violate Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7. The situation would be the same if the shoe were on the other foot. If the Wolf interests controlled AMTC and attorneys of Wolfs choice represented it, there is little chance that Wolf would be impleaded in the lawsuit, although DSC likely would find itself a party. DSC may then claim a conflict of interest if the lawyer Wolf selected would not bring Wolf into the case. No matter which entity controls AMTC, the likelihood of finding counsel that would be “neutral” would be quite remote. It is important to note that Wolfs claim of conflict of interest is not based on Clark Hill’s possession of confidential information, see Barkley v. City of Detroit, 204 Mich.App. 194, 204, 514 N.W.2d 242, 246 (1994) (<HOLDING>) (citing General Elec. Co. v. Valeron Corp., Options: A. holding client is not liable for actions of attorney who misled client as to the status of case B. holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client C. holding trial court erred when it sanctioned client where the evidence showed that the attorney filed frivolous pleadings on behalf of the client but the client did nothing more than rely on her attorneys advice D. holding that an attorney who breaches a fiduciary duty to a client forfeits his right to compensation without any requirement that the client prove actual harm E. holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client
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: head has reasonable suspicion that an employee is under the influence of a controlled substance, then the employee will be required to submit to testing. The policy also sets out the bases for searching the property of employees and the city. The policy does not, by its terms, limit drug screens and searches to work place accidents or impairment of employees. The trial court considered the pleadings, the documentary evidence attached, and the briefs of counsel, and it granted summary judgment in favor of the city. Hice appeals and argues to this court, as he did to the trial court, that (1) the city was not justified in terminating his employment because it violated the provisions of the personnel handbook upon which Hice was entitled to rely; (2) the dr 130, 728 S.W.2d 501 (1987) (<HOLDING>). And it is contrary to the dictates of Options: A. holding that a public employee who can be discharged only for cause is entitled to at least some informal due process before he can be terminated B. holding that a disclaimer setting forth policies for general guidance only which stated that it did not create a binding contract and that the employee could be terminated without notice and at will at any time for any reason unambiguously provided that employment was atwill C. holding that without a provision stating that an employee can be terminated only for cause the atwill doctrine permitted termination in the absence of any reason at all summary judgment and directed verdict in companion cases affirmed D. holding that an atwill employee can be discharged for any reason or no reason unless employee is discharged for reasons that contravene a clear mandate of public policy E. holding that although a reason was provided in the termination letter the without cause termination provision was applicable

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that without a provision stating that an employee can be terminated only for cause the atwill doctrine permitted termination in the absence of any reason at all summary judgment and directed verdict in companion cases affirmed
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, together with any Partner Agreements and, to the extent applicable, the Registration Rights Agreement, the Exchange Agreement, the Tax Receivable Agreement and the Class B Shareholders Agreement, constitutes the entire agreement among the Partners with respect to the subject matter hereof and, as amended and restated herein, supersedes any agreement or understanding entered into as of a date prior to the date hereof among or between any of them with respect to such subject matter, including (without limitation), the Limited Liability Company Agreement of the Original Company, the Initial Partnership Agreement, the Prior Partnership Agreement and all Supplementary Agreements.

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: 64 L.Ed.2d 795 (1980). We are faced with precisely such circumstances here. In their July 30 telephone conversation, Garcia negotiated with Papo for the purchase of heroin. He also instructed Papo to deliver the heroin to DeJe-sus, a direction that Papo clearly intended to carry out. Garcia’s instructions to Papo and Papo’s evident assent are independently admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 803(3). Under that rule, hearsay statements reflecting a declarant’s intentions or future plans are admissible to prove subsequent acts. Fed.R.Evid. 803 advisory committee note. Accordingly, the July 30 Garcia-Papo conversation is admissible to prove that Papo and Garcia intended to carry out a narcotics transaction in which DeJesus would serve as a middleman. See United States v. Cicale, 691 F.2d at 104 (<HOLDING>). The July 30 conversation also is arguably Options: A. holding coconspirators hearsay statements independently admissible under fedrevid 8033 to show declarants intent to engage in illicit drug transaction B. holding that statements made by a doctor to a patient are not admissible under fedrevid 8034 because the rule does not except statements by the person providing medical care C. holding rule 16a1a does not include statements made by coconspirators even if those statements can be attributed to the defendant for purposes of the rule against hearsay D. holding evidence of prior drug use admissible to show motive and the nature of the defendants relationship with coconspirators E. holding that evidence of prior drug transactions was admissible under rule 404b to show inter alia intent to enter into the drug conspiracy and knowledge of the conspiracy

assistant: The best answer is A. holding coconspirators hearsay statements independently admissible under fedrevid 8033 to show declarants intent to engage in illicit drug transaction
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In case one or more provisions of this Security Agreement shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect under any applicable Legal Requirement, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained herein shall not be affected or impaired thereby.

assistant: Severability
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: It is the intent of the parties that the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforced to the fullest extent permissible under Applicable Law and public policies applied in each jurisdiction in which enforcement is sought. If any particular provision or portion of this Agreement shall be adjudicated to be invalid or unenforceable, such provision or portion thereof shall be deemed amended to the minimum extent necessary to render such provision or portion valid and enforceable, and such amendment will apply only with respect to the operation of such provision or portion in the particular jurisdiction in which such adjudication is made.

assistant: Severability