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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Hughes refers us to, is KRE 403, which permits the exclusion of relevant evidence if its “probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice.” Here, to be sure, as the majority observes, the hospital picture does not depict Ashley dressed as she was when Hughes met her in November 2008 or with make up as she may have been wearing at the time but the fact that the picture does not depict those details did not prejudice Hughes. He was free to argue, as his counsel did argue, that the hospital photo did not represent Ashley’s appearance on the night of their encounter. That argument goes, not to the admissibility of the photo evidence, but to its weight, a matter properly addressed to the jury. See, United States v. White Calf, 634 F.3d 453, 460 (8th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Allen v. Commonwealth, 395 S.W.3d 451 Options: A. holding that evidence that the defendant had stalked threatened and assaulted the victim his exgirlfriend was evidence as to the nature of the defendants relationship with the victim and that it was relevant to establish motive B. holding in a very similar underagesex case that a school photo of the victim taken three months after the alleged crime plainly was relevant to the defendants mistakenage defense and did not prejudice the defendant because he was free to challenge the weight of the photo evidence by arguing that it did not show the victim as she had appeared on the night in question C. holding that the admission of a family photo was harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence in support of the conviction D. holding that the photo lineup was not unduly suggestive where the defendants photo was the only one that included his name E. holding that a defendant who alleges selfdefense can show through the testimony of another witness that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor a defendants prior knowledge of the victims reputation for violence is irrelevant because the evidence is offered to show the conduct of the victim rather than the defendants state of mind

assistant: The best answer is B. holding in a very similar underagesex case that a school photo of the victim taken three months after the alleged crime plainly was relevant to the defendants mistakenage defense and did not prejudice the defendant because he was free to challenge the weight of the photo evidence by arguing that it did not show the victim as she had appeared on the night in question
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: Any and all notices or other communications or deliveries to be provided by the Holder hereunder, including, without limitation, any Notice of Conversion, shall be in writing and delivered personally, by facsimile, or sent by a nationally recognized overnight courier service, addressed to the Company, at the address set forth above, or such other facsimile number or address as the Company may specify for such purposes by notice to the Holder delivered in accordance with this Section 9(a). Any and all notices or other communications or deliveries to be provided by the Company hereunder shall be in writing and delivered personally, by facsimile, or sent by a nationally recognized overnight courier service addressed to each Holder at the facsimile number or address of the Holder appearing on the books of the Company, or if no such facsimile number or address appears on the books of the Company, at the principal place of business of such Holder, as set forth in the Purchase Agreement. Any notice or other communication or deliveries hereunder shall be deemed given and effective on the earliest of (i) the date of transmission, if such notice or communication is delivered via facsimile at the facsimile number set forth on the signature pages attached hereto prior to 5:30 p.m. (New York City time) on any date, (ii) the next Trading Day after the date of transmission, if such notice or communication is delivered via facsimile at the facsimile number set forth on the signature pages attached hereto on a day that is not a Trading Day or later than 5:30 p.m. (New York City time) on any Trading Day, (iii) the second Trading Day following the date of mailing, if sent by U.S. nationally recognized overnight courier service or (iv) upon actual receipt by the party to whom such notice is required to be given.

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: courts within the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See, e.g., Roberts v. Source for Public Data, 606 F.Supp.2d 1042, 1046 (W.D.Mo.2008) (dismissing plaintiffs’ claim because, “[gjiven [the DPPA’s] comprehensive remedial scheme, the [cjourt must presume that Congress intended that the enforcement scheme it created in the DPPA would be the exclusive remedy for violations, precluding rfesort to § 1983”); Nelson v. Jesson, No. 13-cv-340 (RHK/JJK), 2013 WL 5888235, at *7 (D.Minn. Nov. 1, 2013) (noting that “the DPPA’s remedial scheme, which is both comprehensive and more restrictive than § 1983, expresses Congress’s intent to preclude other means of enforcement”); see also Kiminski v. Hunt, No. 13-CV-185 (JNE/TNL), 2013 WL 6872425, at *14 (D.Minn. Sept. 20, 2013) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff urges the Court to follow Collier Options: A. holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the state itself and not cognizable under 1983 B. holding that the dppa precludes a 1983 action because the inability to sue state officials in their official capacity under the dppa is significant especially in light of the statutes overall comprehensive remedial scheme C. holding that the eleventh amendment protects both states and state officials acting in their official capacity from suits brought pursuant to 42 usc 1983 D. holding that states and state officials acting in their official capacity are not persons under 1983 E. holding that state officials may be personally liable for actions taken in their official capacity

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the dppa precludes a 1983 action because the inability to sue state officials in their official capacity under the dppa is significant especially in light of the statutes overall comprehensive remedial scheme
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 VALIDITY, PERFORMANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OF THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF CONFLICTS OF LAW OF SUCH STATE OR 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: n. 5. Instead, courts must make “a careful assessment” of a relationship’s “degree of selectivity in decisions to begin and maintain the affiliation and seclusion from others in critical aspects of the relationship,” to determine whether it will qualify as “protected.” Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. at 620, 104 S.Ct. 3244. See Trujillo v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 768 F.2d at 1189 n. 5. [21-25] The right of familial association is a substantive due-process right the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See Griffin v. Strong, 983 F.2d at 1547 (citing Shondel v. McDermott, 775 F.2d 859, 865-66 (7th Cir.1985)). “This substantive right is consonant with the right of privacy.” Griffin v. Strong, 983 F.2d at 1547. See Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 446, 110 S.Ct. 2926, 111 L.Ed.2d 344 (1990) (<HOLDING>). “Evaluation of . a part/s Fourteenth Options: A. recognizing the existence of the special relationship B. recognizing justification of marital testimonial privilege as modified by trammel because it furthers the important public interest in marital harmony C. holding that elements of rape do not include proof of the absence of a marital relationship between the accused and the victim D. holding that statute outlawing use of contraceptive devices was an unlawful invasion of the privacy of marital relationship E. recognizing a privacy interest in the intimacies of the marital relationship

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing a privacy interest in the intimacies of the marital relationship
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: Any Lender may at any time, without the consent of, or notice to, the Borrower or the Administrative Agent, sell participations to any Person (other than a natural person, a Defaulting Lender or the Borrower or any of the Borrower’s Affiliates or Subsidiaries) (each, a “ Participant ”) in all or a portion of such Lender’s rights and/or obligations under this Agreement (including all or a portion of its Commitment and/or the Loans owing to it); provided that (i) such Lender’s obligations under this Agreement shall remain unchanged, (ii) such Lender shall remain solely responsible to the other parties hereto for the performance of such obligations and (iii) the Borrower, the Administrative Agent and the Lenders shall continue to deal solely and directly with such Lender in connection with such Lender’s rights and obligations under this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, each Lender shall be responsible for the indemnity under Section 8.04(c) without regard to the existence of any participation; provided , however , that, without impacting the indemnification requirement, any Lender may proceed against its Participant in accordance with the underlying participant agreement.

assistant: Participations
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) Each of the Group Companies will comply with all requirements of Law applicable to it and its properties to the extent that noncompliance with any such requirement of Law could reasonably be expected to have, individually or in the aggregate, a Material Adverse Effect. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, each of the Group Companies will do each of the following as it relates to any (x) Plan maintained by, or Multiemployer Plan contributed to by, each of the Group Companies or (y) Employee Benefit Arrangement, in each case except to the extent that any failure to do any of the following could not reasonably be expected to have, individually or in the aggregate, a Material Adverse Effect: (i) maintain each Plan (other than a Multiemployer Plan) in compliance in all respects with the applicable provisions of ERISA, the Code or other Federal, state or foreign Law and its terms; (ii) cause each Plan (other than a Multiemployer Plan) that is qualified under Section 401(a) of the Code to maintain such qualifications; (iii) not become a party to any Plan subject to Section 412 of the Code; (iv) ensure that there are no Unfunded Liabilities in excess of the Threshold Amount; (v) not become a party to any Multiemployer Plan; (vi) make all contributions (including any special payments to amortize any Unfunded Liabilities) required to be made to any Plan or Multiemployer Plan in accordance with all applicable Laws in a timely manner; (vii) ensure that the contributions or premium payments to or in respect of all Employee Benefit Arrangements are and continue to be promptly paid at no less than the rates required under the rules of such arrangements and in accordance with the most recent actuarial advice received in relation to the Employee Benefit Arrangement and generally in accordance with applicable Law; and (viii) use its commercially reasonable efforts to cause each of its ERISA Affiliates to do each of the items listed in clauses (i) through (vi) above as it relates to Plans and Multiemployer Plans maintained by or contributed to by its ERISA Affiliates such that there shall be no liability to a Group Company by virtue of such ERISA Affiliate’s acts or failure to act.

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: This Agreement may be executed in counterparts (and by different parties hereto in different counterparts), each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which when taken together shall constitute a single contract. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Agreement by telecopy or .pdf file shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Agreement, but the party delivering a facsimile, pdf or other digital copy shall deliver an original copy of this Agreement as soon as possible after delivering the facsimile or other digital copy.

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: of limitations have been held as not capable of waiver or subject to an estoppel, whether pled or not.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). The dissenting opinion cites several re-, cent Supreme Court decisions in support of the proposition that the statute of limitations set forth at section 2501 is not jurisdictional, including Day v. McDonough, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1675, 164 L.Ed.2d 376 (2006); Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006), Eberhart v. United States, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 403, 163 L.Ed.2d 14 (2005) (per curiam), Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401, 124 S.Ct. 1856, 158 L.Ed.2d 674 (2004), and Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 124 S.Ct. 906, 157 L.Ed.2d 867 (2004). None of the foregoing decisions address section 2501. Day, 126 S.Ct. at 1681 (<HOLDING>); Arbaugh, 126 S.Ct. at 1245 (addressing Options: A. holding that the oneyear statute of limitations for filing a habeas petition under the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 is not jurisdictional B. holding that the oneyear statute of limitations under the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act aedpa begins to run on the date a prisoner dismisses his direct appeal because his conviction is then final C. holding that aedpas oneyear period of limitations does not support a delay of filing of habeas petition by capital defendant D. holding that in a designation of a foreign terrorist organization under the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 aedpa the governments use of classified information without permitting the organization to view the information did not violate the organizations due process rights E. holding that neither the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 nor the illegal immigration reform act of 1996 repealed the district courts jurisdiction to review aliens habeas petitions

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the oneyear statute of limitations for filing a habeas petition under the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 is not jurisdictional
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: Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan, a Participant’s right or entitlement to exercise or otherwise vest in any Award not exercisable or vested at the time of grant shall only result from continued services as a Non-Employee Director or Consultant or continued employment, as the case may be, with the Company or any Affiliate, and/or satisfaction of any other performance goals or other conditions or restrictions applicable, by its terms, to such Award, except, in each such case, as the Committee may, in its discretion, expressly determine otherwise.

assistant: Vesting
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: 7.4.1 airbnb may enable hosts to authorize other members ( `` co-hosts '' ) to administer the host 's listing ( s ) , and to bind the host and take certain actions in relation to the listing ( s ) as permitted by the host , such as accepting booking requests , messaging and welcoming guests , and updating the listing fee and calendar availability ( collectively , `` co-host services '' ) .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: There are no actions, suits, investigations, proceedings, claims or disputes pending or, to the knowledge of any Loan Party, threatened, at law, in equity, in arbitration or before any Governmental Authority, by or against any Loan Party or any of its Subsidiaries (excluding the Excluded Subsidiary) that would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Alexander v. Hawk, 159 F.3d 1321, 1325-26 (11th Cir.1998). This holds true even when the administrative remedies are deemed futile or inadequate. Id. at 1326. Indeed, the Circuit has held that § 1997e(a)’s exhaustion requirement constitutes a “pre-condition to suit,” making the requirement jurisdictional in nature. Id. (citing Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 766, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975), which holds that where exhaustion is a statutorily specified jurisdictional prerequisite, “the requirement ... may not be dispensed with merely by a judicial conclusion of futility”). The court recognizes that there is currently a split in authority as to whether § 1997e(a) applies to claims of abuse or excessive force. Compare Freeman v. Francis, 196 F.3d 641 (6th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Diezcabeza v. Lynch, 75 F.Supp.2d 250 Options: A. holding exhaustion requirement inapplicable when requiring exhaustion would be futile B. holding that exhaustion requirement applies to excessive force claims C. holding that excessive force claims are to be treated under the fourth amendment D. recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different E. holding that the ideas exhaustion requirement applies to claims asserted under 1983

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that exhaustion requirement applies to excessive force claims
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower agrees to pay all reasonable out-of-pocket costs and expenses incurred by the Administrative Agent, the Collateral Agent and the Arrangers in connection with this Amendment and any other documents prepared in connection herewith and the consummation and administration of the transactions contemplated hereby. The Borrower hereby confirms that the indemnification provisions set forth in Section 10.05 of the Amended Credit Agreement shall apply to this Amendment and any other documents prepared in connection herewith and the consummation and administration of the transactions contemplated hereby, and such liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, claims, demands, actions, judgments, suits, costs (including settlement costs) expenses and disbursements (including fees, disbursements and charges of counsel) (as more fully set forth therein as applicable) which may arise herefrom or in connection herewith.

assistant: Expenses
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 amendment or waiver of any provision of this Agreement nor consent to any departure by any Party hereto shall be effective unless it is in a written agreement executed by the First Lien Agent and the Second Lien Notes Trustee. None of the Borrowers or Guarantors shall have any right to consent to or approve any amendment, modification or waiver of any provision of this Agreement other than any amendment or waiver to Section 5.2(a) or 5.2(b) hereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this Agreement or the application of such provision to any Party or circumstance shall be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement or the application of that provision to another Party or circumstance shall not be affected 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that, because Mr. Grant refused to allow a search of his house, he knew that he could refuse consent for a search of his property. Of course, the deputies had already searched the property, thus demonstrating to Mr. Grant that they had an absolute right to search and that his “consent” to any further search was a mere formality which he could not refuse. See Gonzalez v. State, 578 So.2d 729, 733-34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Under the circumstances before us, Mr. Grant could only conclude that refusing consent would be “a futile gesture amounting to no more than ‘closing the barn door after the horse is out.’ ” United States v. Chambers, 395 F.3d 563, 570 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gamez, 389 F.Supp.2d 975, 982 (S.D.Ohio 2005); see also Norman v. State, 379 So.2d 643, 648 (Fla.1980) (<HOLDING>). Norman amply supports Mr. Grant’s position. Options: A. holding that it was unreasonable to believe that womans boyfriend had authority to consent to the search of her purse even though he had authority to consent to the search of the car in which it was kept B. holding that once initial consent to search has been given passive acquiescence broadens the scope of search C. holding consent knowing sheriff had already seen marijuana in prior illegal search was acquiescence to authority D. holding that acquiescence to a strip and body cavity search did not extend the scope of defendants consent to search his person because of the highly intrusive nature of the search E. holding that defendants voluntary consent to search his apartment dissipated taint of prior illegal search

assistant: The best answer is C. holding consent knowing sheriff had already seen marijuana in prior illegal search was acquiescence to authority
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 is the result of negotiations between, and has been reviewed by, each of the parties hereto and their respective counsel, if any ; accordingly, this Agreement shall be deemed to be the product of all of the parties hereto, and no ambiguity shall be construed in favor of or against any one of the parties hereto.

assistant: Construction
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 ten (10) days prior written notice to the other, either AV or Consultant may terminate this Agreement at any time. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall be entitled to payment, under the provisions of this Agreement, for all charges and expenses actually earned or incurred with respect to all Task Orders in effect up to the time of the termination. Termination for failure of the other Party to perform shall not prejudice said Party in any respect with regard to pursuing its rights and remedies, or otherwise. Any provision of this Agreement that imposes an obligation that should reasonably be expected to extend after termination or expiration of this Agreement shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. Such provisions include but are not limited to Sections 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, and 28 herein.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: You will be eligible to receive severance benefits afforded to Company Executive Vice Presidents under the American Tower Corporation Severance Program and the policies thereunder. In the event that this Assignment is terminated by American Tower or the Company without Cause (as defined in the American Tower Corporation Severance Program), then American Tower or the Company will reimburse all reasonable expenses associated with your relocation back to your Home Location. Further, though severance would not be applicable, should there be a mutual decision for an early termination of this Assignment such reasonable relocation expenses would be reimbursed.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Transition Services Agreement and all disputes or controversies arising out of or relating to this Transition Services Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the internal Laws of the State of New York, without regard to the Laws of any other jurisdiction that might be applied because of the conflicts of laws principles of the State of New York.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: are the same discovery requests made by counsel in other, unrelated cases to which the prosecutors responded by denying possession of Brady material. This evidence, as previously discussed, fails to show actual Brady violations, much less an unconstitutional pattern or policy. Second, Appellants’ citations to over a dozen federal and state cases to show a “continuum” of Brady violations are not probative because the vast majority of them occurred after Appellants were convicted in July 1976. The two cases that predated July 1976, Davis v. Heyd, 479 F.2d 446 (5th Cir.1973), overruled by Garrison v. Maggio, 540 F.2d 1271 (5th Cir.1976), and State v. Carney, 334 So.2d 415 (La.1976), surely did not convey the requisite notice under a failure-to-train theory. See Thompson, 131 S.Ct. at 1360 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). Third, Appellants have not Options: A. holding that the plaintiff had offered insufficient evidence to establish deliberate indifference in a failuretotrain claim in part because the plaintiff did not present evidence that the training received was inadequate or evidence of any specific additional training that the employees should have received B. holding evidence of single incident without any proof relating to the nature of the training itself insufficient to establish inadequate training because plaintiffs must put forward some evidence that the city itself has acted or consciously not acted C. holding that allegations that training was inadequate the inadequate training constituted deliberate indifference and the risk of constitutional injury as a result of such deliberate indifference is very obvious were a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action and were mere conclusions that did not without additional facts state a claim for failuretotrain liability D. holding that not even four reversals could have put connick on notice that the offices brady training was inadequate E. holding that negligent hiring and training claim was not adequately alleged where plaintiff identified no prior violation by the employee relating to sexual misconduct that could have put the defendant on notice

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that not even four reversals could have put connick on notice that the offices brady training was inadequate
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: Cash Collateral (or the appropriate portion thereof) provided to reduce Fronting Exposure or to secure other obligations shall be released promptly following (i) the elimination of the applicable Fronting Exposure or other obligations giving rise thereto (including by the termination of Defaulting Lender status of the applicable Lender (or, as appropriate, its assignee following compliance with Section 9.06(b)(vi)) ) or (ii) the determination by the Administrative Agent and Issuing Lenders that there exists excess Cash Collateral; provided , however , (x) any such release shall be without prejudice to, and any disbursement or other transfer of Cash Collateral shall be and remain subject to, any other Lien conferred under the Loan Documents and the other applicable provisions of the Loan Documents, and (y) the Person providing Cash Collateral and the Issuing Lenders may agree that Cash Collateral shall not be released but instead held to support future anticipated Fronting Exposure or other obligations.

assistant: Releases
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: notice. See also Maryland Rule 2-613(c), governing notice of default judgments (stating that notice is given once it is "mailed to the defendant at the address stated in the request and to the defendant's attorney of record, if any”); Mardirossian Family Enterprises v. Clearail, Inc., 324 Md. 191, 198, 596 A.2d 1018, 1022 (1991) ("the inclusion in the mechanics’ lien law of registered mail as an expressly authorized manner of giving notice is strongly indicative of a legislative intent that a notice sent by registered mail within the statutory period complies even though receipt occurs beyond the statutory period.” (quoting Riley v. Abrams, 287 Md. 348, 356, 412 A.2d 996, 1000 (1980) (footnote omitted))); First American Bank v. Shivers, 97 Md.App. 405, 422, 629 A.2d 1334, 1343 (1993) (<HOLDING>). 19 . Maryland Code (2003, 2006 Cum.Supp.) § Options: A. holding that actual notice by mail in conjunction with published notice was best possible notice satisfying rule 23c B. holding that mailing of eeoc righttosue notice to address designated by claimant suffices to start 90day period for bringing title vii action unless claimant through no fault of his own failed to receive the notice or for some other equitable reason statute should be tolled until he actually receives notice C. holding that denial of receipt of notice of trial did not rebut presumption of trial courts certificate of mailing of notice requiring an evidentiary hearing D. holding that a banks failure to notify objecting shareholder of effective date of approved merger with another bank by required method of delivering notice personally or mailing it by certified mail return receipt requested rendered given notice ineffective notwithstanding shareholders alleged lack of diligence resulting in his failure to receive actual notice until after running of statutory period within which to receive fair market value of his shares E. holding that plaintiff complied with plain language of the notice requirement when notice was mailed within statutory period although it was not received until after

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a banks failure to notify objecting shareholder of effective date of approved merger with another bank by required method of delivering notice personally or mailing it by certified mail return receipt requested rendered given notice ineffective notwithstanding shareholders alleged lack of diligence resulting in his failure to receive actual notice until after running of statutory period within which to receive fair market value of his shares
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: motion to supplement the appendix. 6 . In light of our review of all the claims together and our disposition of this case after briefing, we will deny the motion for sum-maty action. The motion to supplement the appendix is granted. 4 . Although Voneida did not list the date of his son's federal judgment of conviction, as we stated above, the date was a proper subject for judicial notice. We note, however, that an alternative basis, prosecutorial immunity, supports the dismissal of the claims based on statements made by prosecutors in the grand jury (or other court) proceedings. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 490-92, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991) (discussing the scope of prosecutorial immunity); see also Erie Telecomms. v. City of Erie, Pa., 853 F.2d 1084, 1089 (3d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). 5 . On appeal, Voneida also presents an Options: A. recognizing this court may affirm for any reason supported by the record B. holding that an appellate court may affirm the result reached by a district court on alternative grounds C. holding that we may affirm on an alternative basis supported by the record D. holding that a district courts ruling may be upheld on an alternative ground supported by the record E. holding we may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even those not relied upon by the district court

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that we may affirm on an alternative basis supported by the record
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: 384 U.S. 887 86 S.Ct. 1907 16 L.Ed.2d 991 John P. LOMENZO, Secretary of State of New York, et al.v.WMCA, INC., et al. No. 81. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Former decision, 86 S.Ct. 1567. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of New York, Thomas E. Dewey, Leonard Joseph and Malcolm H. Bell, for appellants. Leo A. Larkin, Jack B. Weinstein, Leonard B. Sand and Max Gross, for appellees. June 20, 1966. PER CURIAM. 1 In WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 382 U.S. 4, 86 S.Ct. 24, 15 L.Ed.2d 2, we affirmed a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York insofar as there appealed by WMCA, Inc., et al., the appellees in the present case. Appellants in this case, Lomenzo et al., challenge other aspects of the same judgment, and all parties now agree that, as to those aspects, the judgment of the District Court has been rendered moot by the actions of the Court of Appeals of New York in In the Matter of Orans, 17 N.Y.2d 107, 269 N.Y.S.2d 97, 216 N.E.2d 311 (1966), and Rockefeller v. Orans, 15 N.Y.2d 339, 258 N.Y.S.2d 825, 206 N.E.2d 854, appeal dismissed 382 U.S. 10, 86 S.Ct. 75, 15 L.Ed.2d 13 (1965). Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is vacated as moot insofar as it concerns the issues here appealed, namely, whether N.Y.Laws 1964, cc. 977-978, 979, 981, are violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and whether the District Court was entitled to rely on provisions of the New York Constitution possibly affected by the action of this Court in WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633, 84 S.Ct. 1418, 12 L.Ed.2d 568. 2 Mr. Justice FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: motion for summary judgment. See Delapaz v. Richardson, 634 F.3d 895, 900 (7th Cir.2011). More critically, the record does reveal that the area of Harney’s arrest was in an area shared by all of the tenants of the condominium building. Absent certain particular facts not alleged here, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in common areas of multiple dwelling buildings. See, e.g., United States v. Villegas, 495 F.3d 761, 767-68 (7th Cir.2007) (finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common hallway of a duplex building); United States v. Espinoza, 256 F.3d 718, 723 (7th Cir.2001) (noting that tenants in a multi-family building lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in common areas of the building); United States v. Concepcion, 942 F.2d 1170, 1172 (7th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the fact that a gate barred — to Options: A. recognizing record supported determination that defendant lacked expectation of privacy in house B. holding that the defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in an apartment bmldings common entrance C. holding that defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage located outside curtilage of home D. holding that defendants lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in common area of residential building E. holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in an apartment bmldings common entrance
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: Borrower has good, marketable and insurable fee simple title to the real property comprising part of the applicable Property and good title to the balance of the applicable Property, free and clear of all Liens whatsoever except the Permitted Encumbrances, such other Liens as are permitted pursuant to the Loan Documents and the Liens created by the Loan Documents. The Permitted Encumbrances in the aggregate do not materially and adversely affect the value, operation or use of the Properties or any Property (as currently used) or Borrower’s ability to repay the Loan. The Security Instrument and the Assignment of Leases, when properly recorded in the appropriate records, together with any UCC-1 financing statements required to be filed in connection therewith, will create (a) a valid, perfected first priority lien on the Property, subject only to Permitted Encumbrances and the Liens created by the Loan Documents, and (b) perfected security interests in and to, and perfected collateral assignments of, all personalty (including the Leases), all in accordance with the terms thereof, in each case subject only to any applicable Permitted Encumbrances, such other Liens as are permitted pursuant to the Loan Documents and the Liens created by the Loan Documents. There are no claims for payment for work, labor or materials affecting any Property which are or may become a Lien prior to, or of equal priority with, the Liens created by the Loan Documents.

assistant: Titles
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: there be no trial” (citing Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(b)(3)(D))). For that reason, Judge Friendly instructed that if an antitrust “‘class numbers in the thousands or millions,’ ” a court may not grant certification until “ ‘it can devise a practical means’ ” for trying the action. Abrams, 719 F.2d at 31 (quoting II Areeda & Turner, supra ¶ 332c, at 157). Any case of this size and numerosity is beset by potentially intractable problems of manageability. The crucial, unresolved difficulty in this litigation concerns individualized proof of damages, an issue that “can be critical in determining whether a class of antitrust claimants should be certified.” Manual for Complex Litigation § 33.11, at 303 (3d ed.1995); see Windham v. American Brands, Inc., 565 F.2d 59, 71 (4th Cir.1977) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Specifically, a defense has been interposed Options: A. holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing B. recognizing that in determining numerosity courts must consider the geographical dispersion of the class the ease with which class members may be identified the nature of the action and the size of each plaintiffs claim C. holding that a nationwide class in what is fundamentally a breachofwarranty action coupled with a claim of fraud poses serious problems about choice of law the manageability of the suit and thus the propriety of class certification D. holding that in determining the manageability of a proposed antitrust class action the district court must consider proof of damages E. holding that the right of all putative members of a proposed class in an action filed pursuant to kansass class action rule of civil procedure to file a separate action is preserved pending the determination of whether the initial case shall be maintained as a class action

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that in determining the manageability of a proposed antitrust class action the district court must consider proof of damages
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: at 94,206, 1986 WL 19610 (RFP stating, “[i]n order to have an acceptable proposal, the offeror must meet all of the mandatory requirements set forth in Section C.2 of the Solicitation Document”). 17 . See, e.g., George Hyman Constr. Co., B265798, B-265798.2, 95-2 CPD ¶ 173, at 3-5, 1995 WL 604642 (Comp.Gen. 1995) (referring to “minimum acceptable past experience” as a "go/no go” requirement; proposals meetings this requirement would then be rated); Amtec Corp., B261487, 95-2 CPD ¶ 164, at 4, 1995 WL 578228 (Comp.Gen.1995) (same); George A. Fuller Co., B247171.2, 92-1 CPD ¶ 433, at 2, 1992 WL 108946 (Comp.Gen.1992) (same); Contract Servs. Co., B246585.3, 92-1 CPD ¶ 427, at 4, 1992 WL 108952 (Comp.Gen.1992) (same). Compare Mangi Envtl. Group, Inc. v. United States, 47 Fed.Cl. at 16 (<HOLDING>). 18 . Indeed, elsewhere in the evaluation Options: A. holding identification of personnel requirement mandatory but not the provision of resumes for such individuals where solicitation indicated that proposals failing to provide at a minimum the names and proposed duties of the specified individuals will be considered unacceptable and will not be considered further B. holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered C. holding that a claim not raised before the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal D. holding that an issue raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered by this court E. holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal

assistant: The best answer is A. holding identification of personnel requirement mandatory but not the provision of resumes for such individuals where solicitation indicated that proposals failing to provide at a minimum the names and proposed duties of the specified individuals will be considered unacceptable and will not be considered further
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: at 154, 111 S.Ct. 1171. Instead, “Congress intended to delegate to the Commission the type of nonpolicymaking adjudicatory powers typically exercised by a court in the agency-review context.” Id. “Under this conception of adjudication, the Commission is authorized to review the Secretary’s interpretations only for consistency with the regulatory language and for reasonableness.” Id. at 154-55, 111 S.Ct. 1171. And, like a court, the Commission is not as a general matter authorized to review the Secretary’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion. IV We conclude that the Commission is generally without authority to review the Secretary’s discretionary decisions regarding whether to cite owner-operators, their independent contractors, or both for safety violations committed by the indep 997) (<HOLDING>). 7 . See Lincoln, 508 U.S. at 193-94, 113 Options: A. holding that no federal nexus is required B. holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court C. holding that federal express despite the use of the word federal in its name is not a federal agency and therefore cannot be sued in this court D. holding that a determination of whether the defendants actions constituted a taking under the louisiana constitution does not implicate any issues of federal law and thus does not provides a basis for a federal district court to exercise federal subject matter jurisdiction E. holding that a federal prosecutors certification that there is a substantial federal interest in a case required to proceed against a juvenile in federal court implicates core prosecutorial judgment and discretion and thus is normally not subject to judicial review

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a federal prosecutors certification that there is a substantial federal interest in a case required to proceed against a juvenile in federal court implicates core prosecutorial judgment and discretion and thus is normally not subject to judicial review