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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 380 U.S. 448 85 S.Ct. 1102 14 L.Ed.2d 151 CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY CO., appellant,v.CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. et al. No. 21.—October Term, 1964. April 5, 1965. Rehearing Denied May 3, 1965. See 381 U.S. 907, 85 S.Ct. 1445. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. John C. Danielson, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Frank M. Long, Chicago, Ill., for appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is reversed. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co., 270 U.S. 266, 278, 46 S.Ct. 263, 266, 70 L.Ed. 578.

assistant: 8
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: 52(a). 3 . Although there has been some discussion of a Circuit split regarding the definition of "medical assistance” in cases involving claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it does not bear upon this Court’s conclusion. To illustrate: section 1396n(g)(2), which authorizes reimbursement for case management services, allows states to provide targeted assistance in gaining access to medical, educational or social services. Two interpretations of section 1396n(g)(2) are possible: (1) the case management statute provides either that states must assist eligible individuals in gaining access to actual medical, social, or educational services, or (2) it provides that states must provide access to payment for such services. Compare Bruggeman v. Blagojevich, 324 F.3d 906, 910 (7th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Mandy R. ex rel. Mr. & Mrs. R. v. Owens, 464 Options: A. holding a claim for medicaid assistance provided to the decedent was not proven by the state and the estate was not required to present any evidence to defeat the states claim B. holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record C. holding that plaintiffs medicaid claim failed because medicaid is a payment scheme not a scheme for stateprovided medical assistance and that the statutory reference to assistance appears to have reference to financial assistance rather than to actual medical services D. holding that a defendant must show actual prejudice to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim E. recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that plaintiffs medicaid claim failed because medicaid is a payment scheme not a scheme for stateprovided medical assistance and that the statutory reference to assistance appears to have reference to financial assistance rather than to actual medical services
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: 12 . “[A] rule which would require the Union to divine the legal complexities of the contractual relationship on a construction site, at the risk of committing an unfair labor practice, would be unfair and unrealistic.” J.F. Hoff Electric Co., 642 F.2d at 1274. 13 . The statute provides a cause of action to “[w]hoever shall be injured in his business or property by reason of any violation of [section 8(b)(4)].” Once again, however, the courts have declined to give a literal meaning to the words of the statute, and in this context have set far more restrictive “standing” requirements than the statutory language, taken alone, would support. See Fulton v. Plumbers & Steamfitters, 695 F.2d 402 (9th Cir.1982), petition for cert. filed, 51 U.S.L.W. 3775 (U.S., March 25, 1983) (No. 82-1678) (<HOLDING>). The issue of whether or not David Butler, Options: A. holding that courts should look to the standing principles developed under section 4 of the clayton act for guidance in interpreting section 303s standing requirements id at 406 for a recent discussion of standing under the clayton act see associated general contractors v california state council of carpenters us 103 sct 897 74 led2d 723 1983 B. holding that standing to raise a claim under 2a of robinsonpatman act is derived from section 4 of the clayton act C. recognizing that 1404a allows for the transfer of clayton act suits D. holding that the lack of shareholder standing under texas law does not implicate constitutional standing E. holding that standing existed

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that courts should look to the standing principles developed under section 4 of the clayton act for guidance in interpreting section 303s standing requirements id at 406 for a recent discussion of standing under the clayton act see associated general contractors v california state council of carpenters us 103 sct 897 74 led2d 723 1983
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: States v. Garcia, 672 F.2d 1349, 1357 (11th Cir. 1982) (concluding that the “point of origin has no bearing on the reasonableness of a [border] search so long as a border crossing has been established”). Here, the Government does not dispute that D.E. did not cross the border and was not in the process of crossing the border when his vehicle was searched. C. Reasonable Suspicion Was Required for the Search of D.E.’s vehicle When CBP officials seek to search an item or person on the basis of general “contact with the border area,” without evidence that the item or person has crossed the border or is in the process of crossing, reasonable suspicion is required. United States v. Glaziou, 402 F.2d 8, 13-14 (2d Cir. 1968), cert denied, 393 U.S. 1121, 89 S.Ct. 999, 22 L.Ed.2d 126 (1969) (<HOLDING>); United States v. McGlone, 394 F.2d 75, 78 Options: A. holding that certain police stops of limited duration that are reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation are legal B. holding that lprs are entitled to full procedural due process at the border even when returning to the united states C. holding states are not persons for the purposes of section 1983 D. holding that persons who have direct contact with a border area or whose movements are reasonably related to the border area are not subject to search absent suspicion E. holding that claims are related if they involve a common core of facts or they are based on related legal theories

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that persons who have direct contact with a border area or whose movements are reasonably related to the border area are not subject to search absent suspicion
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 the event of any stock split, reverse stock split, stock dividend or other change set forth in Section 6.1.1 of the Plan, the number of Shares covered by this Option and the exercise price of this Option shall be appropriately adjusted for any such stock split, reverse stock split or stock dividend; provided , that the Company shall not be required to issue fractional shares as a result of any such adjustment.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Harrington, 562 U.S. at 102, 131 S.Ct. 770. As the majority notes, there is no Supreme Court precedent importing the test for ineffective counsel, announced in Strickland, into the Faretta context. Maj. Op. at 161-62. Instead, the cases speak purely in terms of deciding whether a waiver of the right to counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. See Tovar, 541 U.S. at 88, 124 S.Ct. 1379. The cases that are actually binding upon us, and which were decided post-AEDPA, strictly abide by this requirement and talk purely in terms of unpreparedness, not incompetence. In fact, the leading case on this issue from our Court, James v. Brigano, fails to use the word “competence,” or any of its derivatives, even once in the entire opinion. See also Akins, 648 F.3d at 397 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, in this context, the proper Options: A. holding counsels failure to object to victim impact testimony and evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel when the trial record was silent as to counsels strategy B. recognizing that in order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel a movant must show that he was prejudiced by his counsels performance C. holding that a defendants waiver was invalid where he was required to choose between proceeding with unprepared counsel or no counsel D. holding that defendant failed to show that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate the case because record demonstrated that counsel did in fact prepare for trial and interview witnesses E. holding that although akinss letters reveal that he was worried about his counsels preparation for trial the record does not show that his counsel was unprepared for trial

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that although akinss letters reveal that he was worried about his counsels preparation for trial the record does not show that his counsel was unprepared for trial
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: 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 89 . 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). 90 . Ploof II, 856 A.2d 539, 541 (Del.2004). 91 . Opening Br. 18 ("Many issues were raised or came up during Mr. Ploof’s trial, which [sic] could have been raised on appeal. See appellate counsel deficiency issues raised supra and infra."). 92 . See supra Part III.C.3. 93 . Although we do not reach whether Appellate Counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, we note that other courts have rejected Ploof's contention that his counsel's failure to appeal all "arguably meritorious” issues constitutes per se deficient performance. See, e.g., Fautenberry v. Mitchell, 515 F.3d 614, 642 (6th Cir.2008) (citing Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 752, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983)) (<HOLDING>). While the ABA Guidelines for the Appointment Options: A. recognizing the right to counsel on appeal B. holding in a death penalty case that the mere fact that appellate counsel confined their appeal to seven issues does not establish that counsel were ineffective it is often best to filter out less meritorious issues so that counsel can emphasize those that present the best opportunity for relief on appeal C. holding that appellate counsel is not required to raise meritless issues on appeal D. holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel E. recognizing that ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims not premised on procedurally barred claims can be raised for the first time on appeal by new appellate counsel and are not limited to habeas review

assistant: The best answer is B. holding in a death penalty case that the mere fact that appellate counsel confined their appeal to seven issues does not establish that counsel were ineffective it is often best to filter out less meritorious issues so that counsel can emphasize those that present the best opportunity for relief on appeal
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: scintilla of evidence in the record to support Bailey’s claim that it was in the best interests of the child to change his surname. Bailey was given ample opportunity to present evidence before the trial judge on this issue. Indeed, following presentation of the last witness, the trial judge inquired of the parties as to whether they had any further testimony to present in the case. None was presented. The record does not reflect, nor does Bailey argue on appeal, that if given another opportunity, additional evidence could be presented in support of this issue. Therefore, a new evidentiary hearing is not warranted. IV. Written Order. A written order or final judgment must conform to the oral pronouncement of the trial court. See Goosby v. Lawrence, 711 So.2d 577, 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(<HOLDING>). The trial court in the instant case ordered Options: A. holding that a trial courts changing of the written sentence to conform with the oral pronouncement of sentence is ministerial B. holding that in cases of direct conflict between a courts oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment the oral pronouncement controls C. holding that written judgment controlled over oral pronouncement D. holding that the failure of a written sentence to conform to the courts oral pronouncement cannot be raised in a rule 3800a motion E. holding that the trial courts oral pronouncement must conform to the written judgment

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the trial courts oral pronouncement must conform to the written judgment
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: For purposes of this Agreement, the notice address of each party hereto shall be as set forth in the Existing Credit Agreement and the initial notice address of each New Extending Term Facility Lender shall be set forth below its signature hereto.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: religion. We deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) finding that Petitioner was not credible. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2010) (explaining standard of review for credibility findings under the REAL ID Act). The BIA identified two examples of non-trivial inconsistent testimony, including testimony regarding why Petitioner required a friend’s help to obtain a passport and whether his mother attended a home church. Petitioner was alerted to his change in testimony and had a chance to explain the inconsistencies, but failed to do so. 2. The immigration judge did not abuse his discretion by excluding documentary evidence offered by Petitioner. See Vatyan v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Because the only source of authentication for Options: A. recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard B. holding that we review for abuse of discretion a decision to exclude a document for lack of authentication C. holding a trial courts decision involving withdrawal or discharge of counsel is subject to review for abuse of discretion D. holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion E. holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that we review for abuse of discretion a decision to exclude a document for lack of authentication
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: he received and read the letter. „ He further testified that he was able to read the determination and understand that he disagreed with its conclusions. He argues only that he failed to properly comprehend the notice of his rights to appeal. In support, the only evidence regarding good cause for the late filing was Westbrook’s own testimony, and we defer to the Commission regarding witness credibility. Lucido, 441 S.W.3d at 174 (citation omitted). Although Westbrook broadly argues that it is “illogical” for the Appeals Tribunal to make assumptions based on “facts that are ... not in the record,” we find nothing in the decision that is illogical or based o d not establish good cause by showing he misplaced the document); Taylor v. St. Louis Arc, Inc., 285 S.W.3d 775 (Mo.App.E.D.2009) (<HOLDING>). Because competent and substantial evidence Options: A. holding that claimant did not establish good cause because she erroneously thought the determination was not final B. holding that claimant did not establish good cause by showing he was unable to comprehend the determination C. holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law D. holding that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she was unable to present evidence that she was qualified for the position E. holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that claimant did not establish good cause because she erroneously thought the determination was not final
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in order to repair the hand truck”). By Marks’s own repeated assertions, in other words, approval of a service technician to come out would have fully satisfied his claim for an accommodation. His problem is that unrefuted evidence in the record shows that Defendant did approve this request in early April, as explained more fully below. As a result, all that remains of either part of Marks’s claim is a theory that the Company’s delay in granting his requests denied him a reasonable accommodation. To be sure, an employer’s “unreasonable” delay may constitute the denial of an accommodation in some circumstances. Valle-Arce v. Puerto Rico Ports Auth., 651 F.3d 190, 200 (1st Cir. 2011); Astralis Condo. Ass’n v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 620 F.3d 62, 68-69 (1st Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>); see also Mogenhan v. Napolitano, 613 F.3d Options: A. holding that denial of request for accommodation of religion is a discrete act under morgan B. holding condominium associations delay of more than a year in deciding on request for designated handicapped parking spaces constituted a denial of accommodation request C. holding that teachers request for four months leave was not a reasonable accommodation D. holding failure to immediately approve request for accommodation even for employee with known disability did not constitute denial of reasonable accommodation where employer was working on solution over several months E. holding that denial of untimely request was not abuse of discretion

assistant: The best answer is B. holding condominium associations delay of more than a year in deciding on request for designated handicapped parking spaces constituted a denial of accommodation request
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, any Note and any other Loan Document or other agreement, document or instrument attached hereto or executed on or as of the Original Closing Date (as such documents may have been amended or replaced) and the Closing Date integrate all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto and supersede all oral representations and negotiations and prior writings with respect to the subject matter hereof.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Second Amendment may be executed in counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same original and binding instrument and shall become effective when all counterparts have been signed by each party and delivered to the other parties hereto, it being understood that all parties hereto need not sign the same counterpart.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: By accepting the RSUs, you acknowledge and agree your agreement to comply with applicable Brazilian laws and to pay any and all applicable taxes associated with the vesting of the RSUs, the issuance and/or sale of Shares acquired under the Plan and the receipt of any dividends.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) Commitment Fee . The Company agrees to pay to the Administrative Agent for the account of each Lender a commitment fee on the aggregate amount of such Lender’s Unused Commitment from the date hereof in the case of each Initial Lender and from the effective date specified in the Assignment and Assumption pursuant to which it became a Lender in the case of each other Lender until the Termination Date at a rate per annum equal to the Applicable Percentage in effect from time to time, payable in arrears quarterly on the last day of each March, June, September and December, commencing September 30, 2016, and on the Termination Date, provided that no Defaulting Lender shall be entitled to receive any commitment fee for any period during which that Lender is a Defaulting Lender (and the Company shall not be required to pay such fee that otherwise would have been required to have been paid to that Defaulting Lender).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Schedule 4.22(i) sets forth an accurate and complete list of all insurance policies covering the Acquired Companies, each of their directors, officers, agents, consultants or employees, their assets and properties and the Business, copies of all of which have been provided to Buyer. Except as set forth on Schedule 4.22(ii) , with respect to each such insurance policy: (a) the policy is legal, valid, binding, enforceable, and in full force and effect; and (b) the policy will not continue to cover the Acquired Companies after the Closing. The Acquired Companies are not in breach or default (including with respect to the payment of premiums or the giving of notices) in any material respect, and no event has occurred which, with notice or the lapse of time, would constitute a breach or default in any material respect, or permit termination, modification, or acceleration under the policy. To the knowledge of Seller, no other party is in breach or default (including with respect to the payment of premiums or the giving of notices) in any material respect, and no event has occurred which, with notice or the lapse of time, would constitute, and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby will not constitute, a breach or default in any material respect, or permit termination, modification, or acceleration, under the policy; and no other party to the policy has repudiated any provision thereof. There is no material claim pending under any of such policies as to which coverage has been questioned, denied or disputed by or on behalf of the underwriters of such policies or any other Person. Except as set forth in Schedule 4.22(iii) , no policy currently in force or issued to the Acquired Companies in the past is subject to any retrospective rating or retrospective premium provision, premium recapture provision, or similar provision.

assistant: Insurances
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: value is outweighed by certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury,” Holmes, 547 U.S. at 326, 126 S.Ct. 1727; see also Egelhoff, 518 U.S. at 42-43, 116 S.Ct. 2013 (plurality opinion) • (describing “familiar and unquestionably constitutional eviden-tiary rules [that] authorize the exclusion of relevant evidence,” including Federal Rule of Evidence 403). Therefore, we review “all evidentiary .rulings—including constitutional challenges to evidentiary rulings— under the abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Schreane, 331 F.3d 548, 564 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 141, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997)); see also United States v. McDaniel, 398 F.3d 540, 544 (6th Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). . Further, even if we assume that the Options: A. holding counsel cannot be ineffective based on errors that the appellate court determined on direct appeal were not errors plain or otherwise B. holding that federal habeas relief is not available to correct errors of state law C. holding that noneonstitutional errors in civil suits are harmless only if it is highly probable that the errors did not affect the outcome of the case D. holding that it is an abuse of discretion to make errors of law or clear errors of factual determination E. holding that instructional errors that are trial errors are subject to harmless error analysis

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that it is an abuse of discretion to make errors of law or clear errors of factual determination
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall cooperate with Holder in supplying such information as may be reasonably necessary for Holder to complete and file any information reporting forms presently or hereafter required by the SEC as a condition to the availability of an exemption from the Securities Act for the sale of any Warrant or any Warrant Shares.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the Plan contain the entire agreement and understanding of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter contained herein and supersede all prior communications, representations and negotiations with respect thereto. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any employment agreement between the Participant and the Company (the “ Employment Agreement ”), Participant acknowledges and agrees that the terms of the Option shall be governed by this Agreement, rather than the relevant provisions of the Employment Agreement and, in the event of a conflict between the Employment Agreement and this Agreement, this Agreement shall control. If requested by the Company, Participant agrees that he shall enter into any such amendments to the Employment Agreement as may be necessary to reflect and effectuate the foregoing.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As an independent contractor, the Consultant will be responsible for payment of all applicable taxes relating to her services, including income taxes, and payment of employment taxes for its employees. OneMain may report all payments made under this Agreement to the appropriate Federal and state taxing authorities, as it believes necessary or appropriate, including applicable “1099” reporting.

assistant: Taxes
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: jury to conclude that their testimony was part of a conspiracy. Finally, relying on White v. Frank, 855 F.2d 956 (2d Cir.1988) and Krohn v. United States, 742 F.2d 24 (1st Cir.1984), Cignetti claims that Gelinas, Fitzgerald and the other defendants do not have absolute immunity for their testimony because they are “complaining witnesses” who knowingly initiated a baseless prosecution. Prosecutors and witnesses both enjoy absolute immunity at common law. The enactment of § 1983 did not abrogate these common law immunities. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983) (ruling that witnesses, including police officer-witnesses, are entitled to absolute immunity from § 1983 liability); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Absolute immunity even applies to those who Options: A. holding that prosecutors have absolute immunity B. recognizing the availability of summary judgment based on absolute prosecutorial immunity C. holding that absolute prosecutorial immunity extends to civil forfeiture proceedings D. recognizing that absolute immunity is immunity from charges of either constitutional or statutory violations E. holding that the considerations underlying absolute prosecutorial immunity at common law dictate the same absolute immunity under 1983

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the considerations underlying absolute prosecutorial immunity at common law dictate the same absolute immunity under 1983
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: them because it was made while Kevin was under arrest but before he was informed of his Miranda rights. They further argue that the public safety exception to Miranda as announced by the United States Supreme Court in Quarles does not apply in the instant case because the threat of exposure to the contents of the gassing generator was not an imminent threat to public safety. [¶ 22] Generally, a defendant who is in custody must be advised of his or her Miranda rights prior to an interrogation by law enforcement in order for statements made during the interrogation to be admissible against him or her in the defendant’s subsequent trial. State v. Dion, 2007 ME 87, ¶ 21, 928 A.2d 746. Statements made by a defendant in custody before being given a Miranda warning may still b Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Bilynsky, 2007 ME 107, ¶¶ Options: A. recognizing the public interest exception B. holding that officers premiranda questions concerning active methamphetamine production were within the public safety exception C. holding that a nexus exists if the weapons were there to protect an active methamphetamine manufacturing operation D. holding that questions about the location of a gassing generator and other equipment related to the production of methamphetamine fall within the protective sweep exception to miranda E. holding that questions concerning the place and date of birth fall within the routine booking question exception to miranda

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that officers premiranda questions concerning active methamphetamine production were within the public safety exception
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: 289, 292 (5th Cir.1981)] or (3) when the government no longer has a mortgage or a lien upon the property in dispute when the suit was filed, [citing Koehler, 153 F.3d at 266-67].” Hussain, 311 F.3d at 629-30. Furthermore, if the complaint or pleading does not set forth with particularity the nature of the government’s interest showing that it has or claims to have a lien or mortgage against the property that is the subject of the suit, the complaint fails to satisfy the conditions necessary to waive the sovereign immunity of the United States and invoke federal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 2410(b) (“The complaint or pleading shall set forth with particularity the nature of the interest or lien of the United States.”); see also Dahn v. United States, 127 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Macklin v. United States, 300 F.3d 814, 821 Options: A. holding that the united states is liable for interest only in the event of a clear statutory waiver of sovereign immunity B. holding that a complaint that fails to meet the pleading requirements does not invoke the statutory waiver of sovereign immunity C. holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal D. holding that the ada does not contain a waiver of sovereign immunity and thus does not apply to the federal government E. holding where party fails to challenge specificity of pleading it waives right to claim that pleading fails to meet legal requirements

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a complaint that fails to meet the pleading requirements does not invoke the statutory waiver of sovereign immunity
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 amendment eliminating the forty-five-day limit “was intended only to eliminate an artificial time limit, and no more[,]” so that the provisions of the Code would comport with normal trade credit cycles which often exceeded the forty-five day period. Id. It therefore held that the debtor’s payments to the bank on its long-term loans were not covered under § 547(c)(2), because long-term loans “are not [within] the ordinary course of business of the debtor within the meaning of Section 547(c)(2).” See also Ragsdale v. Citizens & So. Nat’l Bank (In re Control Elec., Inc.), 91 B.R. 1010, 1016-17 (Bankr.N.D. Ga.1988); Gosch v. Burns (In re Finn), 86 B.R. 902, 906 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.1988). But see Rinn v. MTA Employees Credit Union, Inc. (In re Butler), 85 B.R. 34, 36 (Bankr.D.Md.1988) (<HOLDING>). As our discussion above indicates, we believe Options: A. holding commercial franchises are not covered by new jersey consumer fraud act because they are businesses and not consumer goods B. holding one of the trustees duties is to investigate the financial affairs of the debtor C. holding that the phrase statement respecting the debtors financial condition should be narrowly interpreted D. holding that student loans for debtors sons education were for family purposes and should be considered consumer debt E. holding that longterm loans are unquestionably within a consumer debtors ordinary financial affairs

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that longterm loans are unquestionably within a consumer debtors ordinary financial affairs
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: ( iv ) calling numbers ( whether singly , sequentially or automatically ) to generate income for yourself or others as a result of merely placing the call , other than for your individual business communications ( and subject to paragraph 4.1 of the terms of use ) ; and

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

user: 5. The ETI shall be entitled to disclose or make available any Information it receives from the Respondent to: a. such of the ETI Affiliates, and either the ETI’s or the ETI Affiliates’ employees, officers, secondees, agents, consultants, sub-contractors, proposed sub-contractors, professional advisers and proposed professional advisers where such disclosure is necessary for the Purpose, provided that all such aforementioned persons to whom any Information is disclosed by the ETI are bound by obligations of confidentiality and the ETI shall be responsible for breaches of the obligations by such persons and each ETI Affiliate may enforce this clause in accordance with the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999; and 7. Each Respondent shall be entitled to disclose or make available any Information it receives from the ETI or any other Respondent to such of its employees, officers, consultants, sub-contractors, proposed sub-contractors, proposed funders, proposed owners or lessors of sites for the Project, owners or licensors of Third Party IP and professional advisers where such disclosure is necessary for the Purpose provided that all such persons to whom any Information is disclosed are bound by written obligations that are no less restrictive than those in this Agreement. 8. Each Respondent shall be entitled to disclose or make available any Information it receives from the ETI to any other Respondent where it is necessary for the Purpose.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Agent represents and warrants that it is duly registered as a broker-dealer under FINRA, the Exchange Act and the applicable statutes and regulations of each state in which the Placement Shares will be offered and sold, except such states in which the Agent is exempt from registration or such registration is not otherwise required. The Agent shall continue, for the term of this Agreement, to be duly registered as a broker-dealer under FINRA, the Exchange Act and the applicable statutes and regulations of each state in which the Placement Shares will be offered and sold, except such states in which the Agent is exempt from registration or such registration is not otherwise required, during the term of this Agreement. The Agent will comply with all applicable law and regulations in connection with the Placement Shares, including but not limited to Regulation M.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Manufacturing Agreement may only be terminated by either party upon a material breach of the Manufacturing Agreement by the other party after giving such other party written notice specifying the nature of and the basis for the material breach and providing such other party a 60 day opportunity to cure the material breach. The terms of Section 8.2(b) of the Business Agreement shall not apply to this Manufacturing Agreement. If Client terminates this Manufacturing Agreement as permitted in this Section 4(b), the exclusivity under Section 3.f. shall also terminate on the effective date of termination of the Manufacturing Agreement. Either party may only terminate a Purchase Order (i) upon a material breach of the Purchase Order by the other party after giving such other party written notice specifying the nature of and the basis for the material breach and providing such other party a 60 day opportunity to cure the material breach, or (ii) by giving written notice to the other party if such other party has given notice as to an event of force majeure in accordance with Section 9.6 of the Business Agreement and such other party has suspended its performance hereunder for more than [***] ([***]) days in any six month period. For clarity, there is no right to cancel a Purchase Order for convenience hereunder.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Rangen, 351 F.2d at 858; Fitch v. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power, 136 F.2d 12 (6th Cir.1943). But see Seaboard Supply Co. v. Congoleum Corp., 770 F.2d 367, 372 (3d Cir.1985) (“There is good reason to question whether Congress intended to sweep commercial bribery within the ambit of section 2(c).”). The Second Circuit has never reached the question of whether — and under what circumstances — commercial ■ bribery can form the basis of a claim under § 2(c). And we find that we need not decide the issue here. Even assuming that' a § 2(c) claim could be based on commercial bribery, a necessary requirement for stating such a claim would be allegations sufficient to establish commercial bribery. See, e.g., Excel Handbag Co. v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc., 630 F.2d 379, 387-88 (5th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the allegations in the Blue Options: A. holding lease of property was a commercial transaction where the property was for commercial ranching but a residence was maintained on the property B. holding that a competitive commercial purpose is not of itself improper C. holding that a 2c claim based on commercial bribery requires proof of commercial bribery D. holding that evidence did not establish commercial bribery because there was no proof of inducement E. holding that injury to business or property was not limited to commercial interests

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a 2c claim based on commercial bribery requires proof of commercial bribery
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: As of the Cutoff Date, the 2017-2 Lease Agreement is not a Liquidated Lease, a Defaulted Lease or a Delinquent Lease and, except as permitted in this paragraph, to the best of the Seller’s and Servicer’s knowledge, no default, breach, violation or event permitting acceleration under its terms has occurred; and to the best of the Seller’s and Servicer’s knowledge, no continuing condition that with notice or the lapse of time would constitute a default, breach, violation or event permitting acceleration under its terms has arisen; and GM Financial has not waived, and shall not waive, any of the foregoing.

assistant: No Defaults
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in assessing whether use of copyrighted material is fair. 17 U.S.C. § 107. Universal’s policy was expressly to determine whether a video made “significan ew to conclude that Universal’s takedown notice was a knowing misrepresentation. Based on Rossi’s holding that a subjective good-faith belief in infringement is sufficient to satisfy § 512(c)(3)(A)(v), 391 F.3d at 1005, the majority disagrees. But the majority’s reading of Rossi would insulate from liability any subjective belief in infringement, no matter how poorly formed. Rossi did not abrogate the statutory requirement that the belief be held in good faith. I would therefore hold that a belief in infringement formed consciously without considering fair use is no good-faith belief at all. See Cooper, 111 U.S. at 155, 4 S.Ct. 360 (<HOLDING>). And to assert in good faith that a use is not Options: A. holding that the test for good faith is the actual belief of the party and not the reasonableness of that belief B. holding misrepresentation claim to be preempted C. holding that such a belief is a knowing misrepresentation D. holding negligent misrepresentation sufficient E. holding that misrepresentation was essential to plaintiffs claim

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that such a belief is a knowing misrepresentation
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 Agreement are separable and severable. Wherever possible, each provision hereof shall be interpreted in such a manner as to be effective and valid under Applicable Law. If any one or more of the provisions contained herein is, for any reason, held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in whole or in part by any court of law or equity, then such provision or provisions shall be ineffective to the extent, but only to the extent, of such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability without invalidating the remainder of such provision or provisions or any other provisions hereof, unless such a construction would be unreasonable.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: even when the state legislature has enacted an anti-discrimination statute which limits the size of the employer covered by the statute. See, e.g., Molesworth v. Brandon, 341 Md. 621, 672 A.2d 608 (1996) (upholding Maryland’s common law cause of action for wrongful discharge of an employee based on sex discrimination against an employer with less than 15 employees where public policy against sex discrimination was evidenced by constitutional amendment, statutes, and executive order); accord Thurdin v. SEI Boston, LLC, 452 Mass. 436, 895 N.E.2d 446 (2008) (concluding employee may bring claim for sex discrimination under state equal rights act where employer was not covered by Massachusetts’ state employment discrimination law); Collins v. Rizkana, 73 Ohio St.3d 65, 652 N.E.2d 653 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Williamson v. Greene, 200 W.Va. 421, 490 Options: A. recognizing that a texas common law claim for retaliatory discharge is a claim sounding in tort B. recognizing tort of wrongful discharge C. recognizing tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy D. recognizing common law tort claim for wrongful discharge in violation of ohio public policy based upon statutory and judicial sources E. recognizing the difference between statutory cause of action for retaliation and common law tort of retaliatory discharge

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing common law tort claim for wrongful discharge in violation of ohio public policy based upon statutory and judicial sources
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: 379 U.S. 26 85 S.Ct. 183 13 L.Ed.2d 173 BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES petitioner,v.UNITED AIR LINES, INC. No. 31. Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1964. November 9, 1964 James L. Highsaw, Jr., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Sol. Gen. Archibald Cox for United States, amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. Stuart Bernstein, Chicago, Ill., for respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. PER CURIAM. 1 The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. 2 Mr. Justice HARLAN, believing that the questions which brought this case here should be decided, dissents from the dismissal of the writ. 3 Mr. Justice GOLDBERG took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

assistant: 9