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: respect to privileges.” Accordingly, we find the exclusionary clause of La.Code Evid. art. 1101(B)(8), when considered in pan mate-riae with La.Code Evid. art. 104, may be read to generally exempt hearings on motions to suppress evidence from the rules of evidence except with respect to privileges. Thus, La.Code Evid. art. 1101(B) may be read harmoniously with the provisions of La.Code Evid. art. 104(A). Furthermore, even though this Court has never elaborated on the interplay of Articles 104 and 1101 of the Code of Evidence, our research shows we have recognized hearsay rules do not apply in hearings on motions to suppress evidence. State v. Castleberry, 99-1388 (La.4/13/99), 758 So.2d 749; see also United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 172-75, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974) (<HOLDING>) After reviewing the jurisprudence and the Options: A. holding that the rules of evidence normally applicable in criminal trials do not operate with full force at hearings before the judge to determine the admissibility of evidence there is therefore much to be said for the proposition that in proceedings where the judge himself is considering the admissibility of evidence the exclusionary rules aside from rules of privilege should not be applicable and the judge should receive the evidence and give it such weight as his judgment and experience counsel B. holding that the burden is upon the state under the applicable federal rules of evidence C. recognizing that the federal rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing hearings D. holding that the rules of evidence do not apply when a court is deciding upon preliminary questions dealing with the admissibility of evidence under rule 104 except for questions of privilege E. holding that the postconviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the rules of evidence normally applicable in criminal trials do not operate with full force at hearings before the judge to determine the admissibility of evidence there is therefore much to be said for the proposition that in proceedings where the judge himself is considering the admissibility of evidence the exclusionary rules aside from rules of privilege should not be applicable and the judge should receive the evidence and give it such weight as his judgment and experience counsel
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: Owner and Tenant each warrant and represents that there was no broker, finder or like agent instrumental in consummating this Agreement and that such party had no dealings, communications, conversations or prior negotiations with any brokers, finders or like agents concerning the modification of the Lease pursuant to this Agreement. Each representing party covenants and agrees to pay, indemnify and hold the other party harmless from and against any and all claims for all brokerage commissions, fees or other compensation by any brokers claiming to have dealt with such representing party in connection with this Agreement or arising out of any conversations or negotiations had by such representing party with any brokers concerning the modification of the Lease pursuant to this Agreement, and for any and all costs, expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees, disbursements and court costs), liabilities and penalties incurred by the indemnified party in connection with or arising out of any such claims. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of the Lease.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except for matters existing on the Closing Date and set forth on Schedule 7.20 , there are no actions, suits or proceedings pending nor, to its knowledge, threatened in writing against or in any other way relating adversely to or affecting any Credit Party or any Subsidiary thereof or any of their respective properties in any court or before any arbitrator of any kind or before or by any Governmental Authority that could 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: When the purchase price for the Sold Property is included in Available Funds for the Payment Date, the Issuer will be deemed to have sold and assigned to the Servicer as of the last day of the prior Collection Period all of the Issuer’s right, title and interest in and to the Sold Property, including the Receivables and all security and documents relating to the Receivables. The sale will not require any action by the Issuer and will be without recourse, representation or warranty by the Issuer except the representation that the Issuer owns the Receivables free and clear of any Lien, other than Permitted Liens. After the sale, the Servicer will mark its receivables systems to indicate that any receivables purchased under Section 8.1(a) are no longer Receivables, file UCC termination statements or take any other action necessary or advisable to evidence the transfer of ownership of the purchased Receivables free from any Lien of the Issuer or the Indenture Trustee. The Issuer, the Owner Trustee or the Indenture Trustee will execute the documents required or reasonably requested by the Servicer to effect the transfer.

assistant: Sales
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 receipt of severance pay and benefits, in any amount, is conditioned upon and subject to the Executive’s execution of a standar d release and waiver promptly delivered to the Executive after termination in a form reasonably satisfactory to the Company. Such release shall be executed and delivered (and no longer subject to revocation, if applicable) within sixty (60) days following termination. The Executive will not receive severance pay and benefits, in any amount or under any circumstances, if the Company’s release and waiver is not executed and in full effect.

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: increase in gang membership, and fhe expansion of criminal street gangs’ control of street-level drug sales and collaboration with rival gangs and other criminal organizations. National Gang Intelligence Center, 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment: Emerging Trends 9 (2011). In addition, the Tenth Circuit has found gang membership relevant in drug trafficking cases. See United States v. Sloan, 65 F.3d 149, 151 (10th Cir.1995)(“The government’s evidence showed that these drug distributions in two housing projects in Oklahoma City were a part of the operation of two gangs which apparently had amicably divided up the territory. Gang membership under such circumstances was relevant and mate rial to the crimes charged”). Cf. United States v. Renteria, 720 F.3d 1245, 1256-57 (10th Cir.2013)(<HOLDING>). These authorities support the conclusion that Options: A. holding that the district court committed prejudicial error in admitting expert testimony about the structure of drug trafficking organizations because the testimony portrayed the defendant as a member of such an organization and implied the defendant knew the drugs were in his vehicle B. holding that the district court complied with the requirements of lb13alb where it made specific references to testimony in the record relating to the scope of the defendants involvement in the drug trafficking conspiracy noted that the relevant testimony was unrefuted and stated that the testimony was internally consistent C. holding that experts testimony as to aspects of gang culture relevant to the case including requirements of members obedience silence and staunch defense of other gang members and the punishment meted out to a gang member who violates these requirements went to factual matters outside the experience of the average juror D. holding that it was not plain error for the district court to find the police officers identification of a defendant as a member of the fresno bulldogs gang and testimony about the nature and identifying characteristics of the organization including drug distribution were relevant in a drug conspiracy case E. holding gang membership admissible because it did not substitute for evidence of actual participation in the drug distribution conspiracy

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that it was not plain error for the district court to find the police officers identification of a defendant as a member of the fresno bulldogs gang and testimony about the nature and identifying characteristics of the organization including drug distribution were relevant in a drug conspiracy case
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Either party may terminate the employment relationship for any reason at any time upon giving the other party thirty (30) days prior written notice. The Company may, in its discretion, relieve the Participant of some or all of his/her duties during all or a part of such notice period. Subject to the forgoing notice obligation, the Participant’s employment with the Company shall remain at will.

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: Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52, 61 L. Ed: 2d 357, 362-63 (1979). Here, however, there was an additional circumstance— defendant’s immedia 51 S.E.2d 147, 149-50 (2001) (stating that the officer had reasonable grounds to frisk defendant “based upon the officers’ familiarity with defendant, defendant’s presence in a specific area known for drug activity, and defendant’s having been illegally parked”); State v. Willis, 125 N.C. App. 537, 542, 481 S.E.2d 407, 411 (1997) (stating that “[t]he Butler Court held that, when an individual’s presence at a suspected drug area is coupled with evasive action, police may form, from those actions, the quantum of reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct an investigatory stop”); State v. Watson, 119 N.C. App. 395, 397-99, 458 S.E.2d 519, 521-23 (1995) (<HOLDING>). The remarkable similarity between the facts Options: A. holding that officer had reasonable grounds to suspect criminal activity when a defendant with a history of drug involvement while in an area in which numerous drug arrests had been made attempted to enter a convenience store and to swallow the drugs in his possession upon the approach of law enforcement officers B. holding that defendants suspect activity in the trunk and passenger compartment of his car immediately after he engaged in an apparent drug sale established probable cause to search the vehicle for drugs and drug money C. holding that while some conduct consistent with drug activity may not arouse suspicion in an average citizen an officers training and experience of how drug crimes are committed may provide the officer with a different perspective and should factor into the rubric when determining the reasonableness of the officers suspicion D. holding an anonymous tip insufficient to support reasonable suspicion based on the fact that defendant was suspected of drug activity in his community failed to corroborate he currently was engaged in drug related activity and surveillance failed to uncover any independent information that defendant was engaged in any criminal activity E. holding that the fact that the defendant did not handle the drugs is not dispositive of his involvement in drug dealing

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that officer had reasonable grounds to suspect criminal activity when a defendant with a history of drug involvement while in an area in which numerous drug arrests had been made attempted to enter a convenience store and to swallow the drugs in his possession upon the approach of law enforcement officers
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: Indemnitee shall give the Company notice in writing as soon as practicable of any Proceeding for which indemnification will or could be sought under this Agreement, provided that any failure or delay in giving such notice shall not relieve the Company of its obligations under this Agreement unless and to the extent that the Company is materially prejudiced by such failure.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 76-77, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985). 15 . Utah Code Ann. §§ 77-32-101 to -704 (2003 & Supp.2005). 16 . Burns, 2000 UT 56, ¶ 24, 4 P.3d 795. 17 . Utah Code Ann. § 77-32-301(3) (2003). 18 . Burns, 2000 UT 56, ¶ 25, 4 P.3d 795. 19 . Bd. of Educ. v. Sandy City Corp., 2004 UT 37, ¶ 9, 94 P.3d 234. 20 . See 1A Norman J. Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction §§ 22.29-22.30 (6th ed.2002) (discussing the presumption that an amendment was intended to change the prior statute; also discussing other tools of construction applicable to amendments). 21 . Burns, 2000 UT 56, ¶ 24, 4 P.3d 795. 22 . Act of March 5, 1997, ch. 307, §§ 1-5, 1997 Utah Laws 1181, 1181-82. 23 . Id. §§ 3-4, (codified as amended at Utah Code Ann. §§ 77-32-304.5, -305 .2d 83, 92 (1984) (<HOLDING>). 38 . Supra ¶¶ 14-15. 39 . Utah Code Ann. § Options: A. holding that right to testify not denied where inter alia defendant made no objection to his attorneys statements that defendant would not testify and made no request to testify B. holding that dismissal with leave to amend should be granted even if no request to amend was made C. holding no error where the court initially granted 500 for an investigator and defendant made no subsequent request for additional funds D. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for additional funds where defendant had not shown exhaustion of the 500 granted E. recognizing two aspects to assertion of fifth amendment rights 1 a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand request was made for an attorney and 2 the request was for assistance with a custodial interrogation not for subsequent hearings or proceedings

assistant: The best answer is C. holding no error where the court initially granted 500 for an investigator and defendant made no subsequent request for additional funds
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: succeed, Pearson’s participation must have somehow harmed Iglesias’s defense. Anticipating our conclusion that estoppel requires a showing of prejudice, the Athridges maintain that prejudice should be presumed in this case. This argument stands on firmer ground: An insured may be entitled to a rebuttable presumption of prejudice, depending on the amount of control the insurer exercised over the defense. See Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 384 F.2d 316, 318 (D.C.Cir.1967); Diamond, 476 A.2d at 657-58. Assuming the Athridges were entitled to this presumption, summary judgment was still proper because Aetna rebutted the presumption with uncontroverted evidence that its participation did not harm Iglesias. Cf. Curtis v. Cuff, 537 A.2d 1072, 1075 (D.C.1987) (<HOLDING>). To begin with, Iglesias knew that Aetna would Options: A. holding that where uncontroverted evidence rebuts a presumption that a defendant consented to the drivers use of his vehicle the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law B. holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law C. holding that a drivers knowledge that there are concealable weapons in the car available for the drivers use is evidence of possession D. holding that even when a defendant moves under rule 50 at the close of plaintiffs evidence and autocentro did not even do that if a defendant wishes to renew a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the posttrial stage with a view to having denial of that motion considered by the court of appeals the defendant is required to have moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence E. holding that delay caused by or consented to by a defendant is not unreasonable

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that where uncontroverted evidence rebuts a presumption that a defendant consented to the drivers use of his vehicle the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 419 (Mo.App.1996). Normally, the running of the statute is a question of law for the court to decide. Harris-Laboy v. Blessing Hosp., Inc., 972 S.W.2d 522, 524 (Mo.App.1998). However, when contradictory or different conclusions may be drawn from the evidence as to whether the statute of limitations has run, it is a question of fact for the jury to decide. Ray v. Upjohn Co., 851 S.W.2d 646, 650-51 (Mo.App.1993); Hogan v. Armstrong World Indus., 840 S.W.2d 230, 235 (Mo.App.1992); Hopkins v. Goose Creek Land Co., 673 S.W.2d 465, 469 (Mo.App.1984). Where the opposing party admits the running of the statute of limitations, there is no question of fact on this issue for the jury to decide requiring an instruction thereon. See Westerhold v. Mullenix Corp., 777 S.W.2d 257, 266 (Mo.App.1989) (<HOLDING>). A judicial admission occurs when a party Options: A. holding that the statute is mandatory B. holding that when a fact material to a partys case is conceded or undisputed its inclusion under a jury instruction is not mandatory C. holding good faith jury instruction is not necessary when the court has given an adequate specific intent instruction D. holding that it is a partys duty to request a jury instruction submitting its defensive theory to the jury E. holding that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction under article 3823 only when the evidence heard by the jury raises an affirmatively contested issue of fact that is material to the lawfulness of the challenged conduct in obtaining the evidence

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that when a fact material to a partys case is conceded or undisputed its inclusion under a jury instruction is not mandatory
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 land transactions is the uniqueness of land, as distinguished from chattels. In Smith v. Nelson, 149 Colo. 200, 368 P.2d 566 (1962), equitable relief was held proper in an action to enjoin violation of a restrictive covenant against subdividing lots, building too close to the street and building subsized housing. In Reed v. Williamson, 164 Neb. 99, 82 N.W.2d 18 (1957), equitable relief was afforded to enjoin defendants from drilling for oil and gas on land which was impressed with a restrictive covenant precluding such activity. Equity was used in Riley v. Stoves, 22 Ariz.App. 223, 526 P.2d 747 (1974), to enforce a restrictive covenant restricting residents of a trailer court to those twenty-one years or older. See R & R Realty Co. v. Weinstein, 4 Ariz.App. 517, 422 P.2d 148 (1967) (<HOLDING>); Sievers v. Zenoff, 94 Nev. 53, 573 P.2d 1190 Options: A. holding that the specific date restriction set forth in 541a5 controls and that 1306a1 does not eliminate that restriction B. holding that grantee of restriction may enforce covenant in equity C. holding he who seeks equity must do equity D. holding that the formula in section 522f2a creates equity for purposes of lien avoidance even if debtors otherwise have no equity in the property E. holding that the judges restriction of the class was not an abuse of discretion

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that grantee of restriction may enforce covenant in equity
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: merits. Nonetheless, however one may appraise a cooperating witness’s moral worth, we are concerned that by preventing a witness from bringing his attorney to a debriefing interview, the government is expanding its discretion in a way unauthorized by the Guidelines. By not providing the witness in this case the opportunity to bring his retained counsel, the gov ernment tipped the balance in its dealings with a cooperating witness in a way that is “unseemly,” Pinto, 850 F.2d at 935. Further, since the district court explicitly relied on defendant’s lack of candor, its sentencing error was not harmless. Plainly, this factor influenced the sentencing court’s selection of the sentence. See Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 203, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1120-21, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Reading the entire record leads us Options: A. holding that a 16 month relationship was not of sufficient length B. holding that an error in guideline calculation seriously affected the defendants substantial rights because the starting point for consideration of 3553a factors was five months higher than it should have been C. holding that consideration of original sentence on remand for resentencing was inapplicable when original sentences were void D. recognizing same factors E. holding remand required where consideration of impermissible factors affected length of sentence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding remand required where consideration of impermissible factors affected length of sentence
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 financing deal would not go through if Mates was not terminated, see First Am.Compl. ¶ 27. The Court does not believe that any of these allegations, viewed individually or collectively, are sufficient to make out a cognizable claim for tortious interference. They simply do not rise to the level of conduct that is independently wrongful or unlawful, nor do they constitute “violence or intimidation, defamation, injurious falsehood or other fraud, violations of criminal law, and the institution or threat of groundless civil suits or criminal prosecutions in bad faith.” Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. B. Dixon Evander Assocs., Inc., 336 Md. at 657, 650 A.2d at 260; see also Volcjak v. Washington County Hosp. Ass’n, 124 Md.App. 481, 512, 723 A.2d 463, 479 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.1999) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the absence of such conduct is fatal to Options: A. holding improper conduct to be an element of the tort of intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship B. recognizing that an otherwise tortious act of interference with a business relationship will not subject the putative tortfeasor to liability if its act is privileged C. holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for tortious interference D. holding that under colorado law tjortious interference with a prospective business relation requires a showing of intentional and improper interference preventing formation of a contract E. holding that tortious or deliberate intent to harm a plaintiffs business relationship is not alone sufficient to support an intentional interference claim there must also be proof that the defendants interference was accomplished through improper means

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that tortious or deliberate intent to harm a plaintiffs business relationship is not alone sufficient to support an intentional interference claim there must also be proof that the defendants interference was accomplished through improper means
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 this Court has not previously addressed the constitutionally of the BAA’s procedures for adjudicating parking violations. Although our opinion in O’Neill v. City of Philadelphia, 711 A.2d 544 (Pa.Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 556 Pa. 681, 727 A.2d 134 (1998), discussed the BAA’s procedures generally, this Court only went so far as to hold that “there was ... no constitutional or statutory bar to the city by ordinance from transferring the enforcement of all outstanding parking tickets on June 11, 1989 from Traffic Court to the BAA.” Multiple United States Courts of Appeals, however, considering procedures for adjudicating parking violations substantially similar to the BAA’s, have found those procedures to satisfy due process. See Van Harken v. City of Chicago, 103 F.3d 1346 (7th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), appeal denied, 520 U.S. 1241, 117 S.Ct. 1846, Options: A. holding that chicagos system whichprovided only one level of administrative hearing before appeal to the state courts was sufficient B. holding that alien need not receive actual notice for due process requirements to be satisfied C. holding columbuss procedures for adjudicating parking violations did not contravene due process D. holding chicagos system for adjudicating parking violations satisfied due process E. holding that philadelphias procedures for adjudicating parking violations satisfy the due process requirements of both the united states and the pennsylvania constitutions

assistant: The best answer is D. holding chicagos system for adjudicating parking violations satisfied due process
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 repossession or re-entering of all or any part of the Premises shall not relieve Tenant of its liabilities and obligations under this Lease. Except as provided in this Lease, no right or remedy of either party shall be exclusive of any other right or remedy, and each right and remedy shall be cumulative and in addition to any other right and remedy now or subsequently available to such party at law or in equity. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in addition to the other remedies provided in this Lease, either party shall be entitled to pursue the restraint by court order of the violation of any of the provisions of this Lease or of applicable Law or to a decree compelling specific performance of any such provisions.

assistant: General
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: (1) where the union has breached its duty of fair representation (the “hybrid” claim), Vaca, 386 U.S. at 185, 87 S.Ct. 903; (2) where resort to the grievance procedure can be shown to be futile, Glover v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 393 U.S. 324, 329-31, 89 S.Ct. 548, 21 L.Ed.2d 519 (1969); and (3) where the grievance process has been repudiated by the employer, Vaca, 386 U.S. at 185, 87 S.Ct. 903. See also Abdelmesih v. Waldorf-Astoria, 1995 WL 293634, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 1995) (stating that if employee is unable to demonstrate that union’s failure to process grievance was result of either the union’s breach of duty of fair representation or employer’s repudiation, failure to exhaust will bar the complaint); LaBuhn v. Bulkmatic Transport Co., 865 F.2d 119, 120 (7th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Williams v. Sea-Land Corp., 844 F.2d 17, Options: A. holding that unions interpretation of a contractual provision necessarily favorfing some workers over others did not violate the duty of fair representation B. holding that where employee cannot establish unions breach of duty of fair representation in failing to process grievance he must abide the outcome of the contractual remedies C. holding that where an employee has never requested the union to file a grievance the employee can hardly argue a breach of the duty of fair representation on the unions part D. holding that in the grievance representation context an employee must prove that the unions acts tainted the grievance procedure such that the outcome was more than likely affected by the unions breach internal citation and quotation omitted E. recognizing exception to exhaustion requirement where the union wrongfully refuses to process the employees grievance thus violating its duty of fair representation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that where employee cannot establish unions breach of duty of fair representation in failing to process grievance he must abide the outcome of the contractual remedies
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: because the police officers’ actions were ‘discretionary’ for the purposes of qualified immunity under federal law, they were also performing 'discretionary functions’ for the purposes of [immunity under state law].”); Greiner v. City of Champlin, 816 F.Supp. 528, 545 (D.Minn 1993) ("The federal doctrine of qualified immunity does not apply to claims brought under [state] law.”). 3 . While some jurisdictions have held that a high-speed chase does not involve an officer's discretion, see Tice v. Cramer, 133 N.J. 347, 627 A.2d 1090, 1100-01 (1993) (noting that discretionary immunity is limited to discretion exercised at highest levels of government in matters of .policy or planning and is not applicable in pursuit case); City of Pinellas Park v. Brown, 604 So.2d 1222, 1226 (Fla.1992) (<HOLDING>), the officers involved usually have had their Options: A. holding officers engaged in search entitled to immunity B. holding that immunity did not shield officers involved in 25mile highspeed chase of traffic violator because decisions by officers to continue the chase were operational rather than discretionary acts C. holding that police officers who engaged in a dangerous highspeed chase of a fleeing suspect were immune from suit D. holding that an officers use of deadly force to stop a dangerous car chase did not shock the conscience because an officers poor judgment in using unreasonable force does not automatically convert the officers acts into conscience shocking conduct E. holding officers involved in investigatory raid entitled to immunity

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that immunity did not shield officers involved in 25mile highspeed chase of traffic violator because decisions by officers to continue the chase were operational rather than discretionary acts
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: vehicles, such as trucks, could also be driven off-road, trucks are occasionally needed for off-road driving for such legitimate purposes as the maintenance of the park grounds and the transportation of large and/or cumbersome machinery. Clearly, off-road motorcycling would serve no such purposes. Thus, like in Wroblewski Shanks has not alleged facts sufficient to overcome the presumption of rationality coupled with a readily apparent justification for the ban. Therefore, the Court will GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss Shanks’ equal protection claim. C. Substantive Due Process In determining whether there is a fundamental right to intrastate travel, courts have also looked to the substantive branch of the Due Process clause. See Lutz v. City of York, 899 F.2d 255 (3rd Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); see also Jonathan Hangartner, Comment, The Options: A. holding that false statements are constitutionally protected B. holding right to travel emanates from concept of substantive due process C. recognizing that before due process guarantees are implicated there must be a deprivation by the government of constitutionally protected interest D. recognizing that a defendants right to be heard in criminal proceedings prior to sentencing is constitutionally protected E. holding that while there is not a constitutionally protected right of intrastate travel under equal protection there is a constitutionally protected right to intrastate travel arising from the due process clause

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that while there is not a constitutionally protected right of intrastate travel under equal protection there is a constitutionally protected right to intrastate travel arising from the due process clause
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: offense, see State v. Marquez, 1998-NMCA-010, ¶21, 124 N.M. 409, 951 P.2d 1070; typographical errors, see State v. Lucero, 79 N.M. 131, 133, 440 P.2d 806, 808 (Ct.App.1968); and to correct the name of the victim, see State v. Martinez, 34 N.M. 112, 119, 278 P. 210, 213 (1929). These are generally considered “amendments to” a charging document that is otherwise adequate. State v. Roman, 1998-NMCA-132, ¶ 12, 125 N.M. 688, 964 P.2d 852; State v. Benally, 99 N.M. 415, 417, 658 P.2d 1142, 1144 (Ct.App.1983). {9} Second, substantive changes such as charging a new crime against a different victim have not been allowed because such changes substantially alter the nature of the case before the court and cause prejudice to the defendant. Roman, 1998-NMCA-132, ¶¶ 9-13, 125 N.M. 688, 964 P.2d 852 (<HOLDING>); State v. Armijo, 90 N.M. 614, 618-19, 566 Options: A. holding that rule 52040 prohibited the state from amending the indictment to include a different charge because defendant was prejudiced in that he had no ability to defend himself against the added charge B. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge C. holding that trial court did not err in refusing to give charge because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his requested charge was tailored to the evidence D. holding that trial courts jury charge did not amount to reversible error given that plaintiff failed to show she was prejudiced by inapplicable portion of trial courts charge E. holding that where the writings on file were insufficient to constitute an effective charge a charge had not been effectively filed despite the fact that the eeoc had assigned the case a charge number

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that rule 52040 prohibited the state from amending the indictment to include a different charge because defendant was prejudiced in that he had no ability to defend himself against the added charge
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 Conseco, deputies stationed at Riverview Hospital, and other privately-contracted deputies, carry guns but do not carry TASERS. [Dkt. 64-2 at 8.] Although these special deputies have limited law enforcement authority they are not employees of HCSD, nor does Mr. Robert present any evidence that they have the same qualifications or duties. [Dkt. 53-6 at ¶¶ 53-56.] Mr. Roberts also points out that the requirement to carry TASERS has not been adopted by all police departments. [Dkt. 60-10.] Although Mr. Robert’s intention is to compare the HCSD process servers to other special deputies and to officers in other police departments, he has not provided the Court with the “necessary comparative evidence” to make that leap. Dandy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 388 F.3d 263 (7th Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>). Without the necessary comparative evidence Options: A. holding that in order for plaintiff to prove that she was similarly situated to three other employees she had to demonstrate that all of the relevant aspects of her employment situation were nearly identical to those of the other employees B. holding the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that the defendants failure to promote him was discriminatory where the plaintiff failed to that show he was qualified for the relevant position C. holding plaintiff failed to demonstrate disparate treatment because she failed to show she was similarly situated to coworker to whom she compared herself D. holding that plaintiff failed to show she was similarly situated to her comparators without evidence that they shared the similar attributes experience education and qualifications relevant to the position E. holding that potential class members are similarly situated to the named plaintiffs if they are similarly situated with respect to their job requirements and pay provisions

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that plaintiff failed to show she was similarly situated to her comparators without evidence that they shared the similar attributes experience education and qualifications relevant to the position
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 will not request any Borrowing or Letter of Credit, and the Borrower and its Subsidiaries shall not use the proceeds of any Borrowing or Letter of Credit (a) in furtherance of an offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the payment or giving of money, or anything else of value, to any Person in violation of any Anti-Corruption Laws , or (b) for the purpose of funding, financing or facilitating any activities, business or transaction of or with any Sanctioned Person, or in any Sanctioned Country, in violation of Sanctions applicable to any party hereto.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company and its Subsidiaries owns or possesses adequate enforceable rights to use all patents, patent applications, trademarks (both registered and unregistered), service marks, trade names, trademark registrations, service mark registrations, copyrights, licenses and know-how (including trade secrets and other unpatented and/or unpatentable proprietary or confidential information, systems or procedures) (collectively, the “ Intellectual Property ”), necessary for the conduct of their businesses as conducted as of the date hereof, provided that the foregoing representation is made only to the Company’s knowledge as it concerns third-party Intellectual Party, and except to the extent that the failure to own or possess adequate rights to use such Intellectual Property would not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect; the Company and its Subsidiaries have not received any written notice of any pending or threatened action, suit, proceeding or claim by any third party asserting infringement of third party intellectual property or challenging the Company’s or its Subsidiaries’ rights in or to any of their respective Intellectual Property or Intellectual Property owned or used by the Company or its Subsidiaries, which , if the subject of an unfavorable decision, would result in a Material Adverse Effect; there are no pending, or to the Company’s knowledge, threatened judicial proceedings or interference proceedings against the Company or its Subsidiaries challenging the Company’s or such Subsidiaries rights in or to or the validity of the scope of any of the Company’s patents, patent applications or proprietary information. The representations set forth in this Section 6(z), to the extent they relate to the Specified Subsidiary, are to the Company’s knowledge, after due and careful inquiry.

assistant: Intellectual Property
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: Id, citing Parking Unlimited, Inc. v. Monsour Med. Found., 299 Pa.Super. 289, 445 A.2d 758 (1982) and Pein v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 241 Pa.Super. 283, 361 A.2d 348 (1976). Contrary to Appellee’s assertion, we do not find that Appellant’s failure to order a transcript precludes our review of the instant ease. Foremost, an appellant has no obligation to order a transcript of the arbitration proceedings. See Cerankowski v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 783 A.2d 343, 346 (Pa.Super.2001), appeal denied 568 Pa. 692, 796 A.2d 977 (2002). Secondly, where, as here, the petitioner has asked us to consider a pure question of law, a presumption of validity does not exist, see Kopko, 586 Pa. at 177, 892 A.2d at 771, and we need not review a transcript. See Cerankowski, supra (<HOLDING>). , ¶20 Furthermore, we do not find the Options: A. holding that alleged theft of funds is within arbitration clause B. holding that the question whether a party has agreed to submit an issue to arbitration is a question of law requiring de novo review C. holding that the absence of a stenographic record of an arbitration did not preclude review where the claimant alleged that a clause was contrary to public policy a pure question of law D. holding that a mandatory arbitration clause does not preclude litigating a federal statutory claim E. holding that the best way to harmonize a choice of law clause and an arbitration clause is to apply the substantive case law of the named state to the entire agreement including the arbitration clause

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the absence of a stenographic record of an arbitration did not preclude review where the claimant alleged that a clause was contrary to public policy a pure question of law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: c. “Representatives” shall mean as to any Person, its directors, officers, employees, agents and advisors (including, without limitation, financial advisors, attorneys and accountants). a. The Receiving Party shall hold confidential and not disclose to any Person, without the prior written consent of the Disclosing Party, all Confidential Information and any information about the Proposed Transaction, or the terms or conditions or any other facts relating thereto, including, without limitation, the fact that discussions are taking place with respect thereto or the status thereof, or the fact that Confidential Information has been made available to the Receiving Party or its Representatives; provided, however, that the Receiving Party may disclose such Confidential Information to its Representatives who are actively and directly participating in its evaluation of the Proposed Transaction or who otherwise need to know the Confidential Information for the purpose of evaluating the Proposed Transaction;

assistant: No
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: During the Term, the Company shall pay the Executive a base salary (the “ Base Salary ”), which shall be paid in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll practices in effect from time to time, but not less frequently than monthly. The Executive’s Base Salary shall be at an annualized rate of Six Hundred Twenty Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($625,000.00) and shall be subject to an annual review by the Board.

assistant: Base Salary
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: File or cause to be filed all federal, state and other material tax returns and reports that are required to be filed and pay all Taxes shown to be due and payable on said returns or on any assessments made against it or any of its property, and all other material Taxes, fees or other charges imposed on it or any of its property by any Governmental Authority (other (i) than any the amount or validity of which are contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and with respect to which reserves in conformity with GAAP are provided on the books of the relevant Group Member or (ii) where the failure to do so could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect).

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: undertook the defendant’s retroactivity claim under plain error review standards because the defendant had failed to preserve the issue by objecting. The Supreme Court described its review under the plain error rule as discretionary, not mandatory. Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467, 117 S. Ct. at 1549. Further, the Supreme Court ultimately denied relief to Johnson because, even though the new rule was retroactive, under plain error there was ‘ho basis for concluding that the error ‘seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Johnson, 520 U.S. at 470, 117 S. Ct. at 1550. ¶46 These principles are not limited to federal jurisprudence, but are broadly recognized in different states and federal circuits: Membres v. State, 889 N.E.2d 265, (Ind. 2008) (<HOLDING>); Milligrock v. State, 118 P.3d 11, 15 (Alaska Options: A. holding that although the defendant had preserved his objection to the constitutionality of a mental state requirement he had not preserved another constitutional objection B. recognizing the objection requirement for new state constitutional rules applied retroactively C. holding the batson rule was not to be applied retroactively to a state conviction on federal habeas review D. holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery E. holding generally that new rules of law should not be applied retroactively in habeas corpus cases

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing the objection requirement for new state constitutional rules applied retroactively