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: for consent to look for illegal drugs in the vehicle, and “it was objectively reasonable for the police to conclude that the general consent to search [defendant’s] car included consent to search containers within that car which might bear drugs.” Jimeno, 500 U.S. at 251, 111 S.Ct. 1801. Lopez-Mendoza argues that dismantling portions of the Dodge Magnum to inspect concealed areas exceeded the scope of any consent to search the vehicle. “Although an individual consenting to a vehicle search should expect that search to be thorough, he need not anticipate that the search will involve the destruction of his vehicle, its parts or contents.” U.S. v. Alverez, 235 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (8th Cir. 2000). However, there is a distinction between damaging a vehicle and dismantling a vehicle. Ther 01)(<HOLDING>). Deputy Sheriff Brown’s search of the Dodge Options: A. holding that officers observations of the speed of the truck coupled with the sound of the engine racing and the bouncing of the truck as it passed through the intersection gave officer probable cause to believe that truck was exceeding a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent under the conditions B. holding consent to search truck for guns and drugs permitted twohour and fortyfive minute search during which the officers removed and inspected pieces of the truck used a fiber optic scope to search the gas tank air conditioning vents fenders and other hidden areas of the truck climbed under the truck with a flashlight pulled apart the door and interi or fabric panels and used a stethoscope C. holding that a truck drivers injury from a fall in the shower of a truck stop while off duty was not compensable D. holding truck lessors liability to truck lessee existed without parties express indemnity clause in lease thus exclusion was inapplicable where carolina casualty alleged its insured truck lessor was precluded from coverage because lessors liability was assumed under contract with truck lessee E. holding that because the government was unable to prove that a truck in which illegal drugs were discovered was stolen the driver and passenger had standing to challenge the search

assistant: The best answer is B. holding consent to search truck for guns and drugs permitted twohour and fortyfive minute search during which the officers removed and inspected pieces of the truck used a fiber optic scope to search the gas tank air conditioning vents fenders and other hidden areas of the truck climbed under the truck with a flashlight pulled apart the door and interi or fabric panels and used a stethoscope
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 U.S. Borrower will, and will cause each of its Restricted Subsidiaries to, comply with all laws, rules, regulations and orders of any Governmental Authority applicable to it or its property (including Environmental Laws and ERISA), in each case except where the failure to do so, individually or in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. The U.S. Borrower will maintain in effect and enforce policies and procedures designed to ensure compliance by Holdings, the Borrowers, their Subsidiaries and their respective directors, officers, employees and agents with Anti-Corruption Laws and applicable Sanctions.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to upset a trial judge's approval of a consent decree.” Cannons, 899 F.2d at 84. The burden is equally heavy here. 7 . Still another reason to accord a significant degree of deference to the claims of the Regional Director is the strength of the congressional mandate. See Union de Tronquistas, 586 F.2d at 876. Under the law, once the Regional Director has reasonable cause to believe that a Union’s activity falls within the proscription of section 10(7), she "shall ... petition ... for appropriate injunctive relief...." 29 U.S.C. § 160(1) (emphasis supplied). This is in stark contrast to section 10(j), which grants discretion to pursue injunctions against employers under specified circumstances. See Miller v. California Pac. Medical Ctr., 19 F.3d 449, 456 (9th Cir.1994) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); see generally Schatzki, supra, at 568-71 Options: A. recognizing rule B. recognizing the dichotomy C. recognizing change D. recognizing burden E. recognizing presumption

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing the dichotomy
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: To the extent any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected by such holding and shall continue in full force in accordance with their terms.

assistant: Enforceability
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: material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, ■ in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. H. To sign or circulate any statement, prospectus, or other paper or document required by any provision of this Act or pertaining to any security knowing or having reasonable grounds to know any material representation therein contained to be false or untrue. I. To employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud in connection with the sale or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly. 815 111. Comp *3 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 9, 1996) (“[S]cienter is not an essential element to an action under the Illinois Blue Sky laws.”). But see People v. Whitlow, 89 Ill.2d 322, 60 Ill.Dec. 587, 433 N.E.2d 629, 634 (1982) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, Allstate has adequately Options: A. holding dismissal proper where complaint fails to allege an essential element of plaintiffs claim B. holding that causation is an essential element in failure to warn claim C. holding that under illinois law interpreting the meaning of a contract is a question of law determined by the court D. holding that scienter is an essential element of a claim alleged under 121 of the illinois security law E. holding dollar amount is not an essential element

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that scienter is an essential element of a claim alleged under 121 of the illinois security 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you and we must file in small claims court or arbitration any claim or dispute ( except intellectual property disputes -- see section 15 ( a ) ) within one year from when it first could be filed .

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: ebay 's verified rights owner ( vero ) program works to ensure that listed items and content on our site or in our apps do not infringe upon the copyright , trademark , or certain other intellectual property rights of third parties .

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: The execution and delivery by JPM of this Agreement and the other Transaction Documents to which JPM is a party do not, and the performance by JPM of JPM obligations hereunder and thereunder will not, (i) violate any Applicable Law, (ii) conflict with or cause a breach of any provision of its Organizational Documents, (iii) cause a breach of, constitute a default under, cause the acceleration of, create in any party the right to accelerate, terminate, modify or cancel, or require any authorization, consent, waiver or approval under any contract, license, instrument, decree, judgment or other arrangement to which JPM is a party or under which it is bound or to which any of its assets are subject (or result in the imposition of a Lien upon any such assets) or (iv) except as otherwise described in Schedule 4.3 , require any notice to, filing with, or authorization, consent or approval of, any Governmental Authority.

assistant: No Conflicts
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 notice or communication under this Agreement must be in writing and given by (i) deposit in the United States mail, addressed to the party to be notified, postage prepaid and registered or certified with return receipt requested, (ii) delivery in person or by courier service providing evidence of delivery, or (iii) transmission by hand delivery, electronic mail, telecopy, telegram or facsimile. Each notice or communication that is mailed, delivered, or transmitted in the manner described above shall be deemed sufficiently given, served, sent, and received, in the case of mailed notices, on the third business day following the date on which it is mailed and, in the case of notices delivered by courier service, hand delivery, electronic mail, telecopy, telegram or facsimile, at such time as it is delivered to the addressee (with the delivery receipt or the affidavit of messenger) or at such time as delivery is refused by the addressee upon presentation. Any notice or communication under this Agreement must be addressed, if to the Company, to: 1180 North Town Center Drive, Suite 100, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144, Attention: William D. Green, and, if to any Holder, at such Holder’s address or facsimile number as set forth in the Company’s books and records. Any party may change its address for notice at any time and from time to time by written notice to the other parties hereto, and such change of address shall become effective thirty (30) days after delivery of such notice as provided in this Section 5.1 .

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: violation of Title VII, such as employer discrimination. See Antonio v. Sygma Network, Inc., 458 F.3d 1177, 1181 (10th Cir.2006). An employee’s “[protected opposition can range from filing formal charges to voicing informal complaints to superiors.” Hertz v. Luzenac Am., Inc., 370 F.3d 1014, 1015 (10th Cir.2004). To demonstrate protected opposition to discrimination, the employee must show “he had a reasonable good-faith belief that the opposed behavior was discriminatory.” Id. at 1016; see Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. E.E.O.C., 405 F.3d 840, 852 (10th Cir.2005). This standard has subjective and objective components. Little v. United Tech., Carrier Transicold Div., 103 F.3d 956, 960 (11th Cir.1997); see also Crumpacker v. Kan. Dep’t of Human Res., 338 F.3d 1163, 1171 (10th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). “A plaintiff must not only show that he Options: A. holding claims based on title vii subject to arbitration B. holding that a title vii retaliation claim was not properly before the court because although the plaintiff had not been fired when he filed his complaint the plaintiff never amended his complaint to include a claim of retaliation based on his termination C. recognizing that title vii protects individuals from retaliation regardless of the merit of their complaints so long as they can show a good faith reasonable belief that the challenged practices violate title vii D. holding that a plaintiff cannot maintain a retaliation claim based on an unreasonable subjective goodfaith belief that the opposed conduct violated title vii emphasis added E. holding that allegations of employer retaliation are properly governed by title vii and cannot support a claim under 1983

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a plaintiff cannot maintain a retaliation claim based on an unreasonable subjective goodfaith belief that the opposed conduct violated title vii emphasis added
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs submitted only one affidavit, that of Linda Scogin Carbo and it did not contradict any of the deposition testimony. Although plaintiffs assert in their assignments of error that there were disputed issues of material fact they actually argued that the facts established did not entitle defendants to summary judgment. 2 . We note that the Nuckolls court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s entire action, including his claim for damages sustained within two years of his filing suit, saying that LSA-R.S. 9:5624 "precludes any suit being brought after two years from the first occurrence of any damage after completion of the public works.” 337 So.2d at 315 (emphasis added). But see Young v. International Paper Co., 179 La. 803, 155 So. 231 (1934) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, defendants have not Options: A. holding that the date of discrimination is the date on which a decision not to hire a plaintiff becomes effective B. holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act C. holding that the date of transfer should be measured by the date that the transfer was good as against a subsequent bona fide purchaser or judgement holder which in accordance with applicable state law was the date of recordation as opposed to the date the deed was signed D. holding that the date of sale for an installment contract was the date of contract formation not the date of the last payment due E. holding that prescription is not suspended by the fact that damage was continuous but ran on each item from the date it was inflicted

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that prescription is not suspended by the fact that damage was continuous but ran on each item from the date it was inflicted
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event of any liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the Company, holders of shares of Series B Preferred Stock are entitled to receive, out of legally available assets, a liquidation preference of $0.001 per share, and no more, before any payment or distribution is made to the holders of the Corporation’s common stock (the “Common Stock”). But the holders of Series B Preferred Stock will not be entitled to receive the liquidation preference of such shares until the liquidation preferences of any series or class of the Corporation’s stock hereafter issued that ranks senior as to liquidation rights to the Series B Preferred Stock (“senior liquidation stock”) has been paid in full. The holders of Series B Preferred Stock and all other series or classes of the Corporation’s stock hereafter issued that rank on a parity as to liquidation rights with the Series B Preferred Stock are entitled to share ratably, in accordance with the respective preferential amounts payable on such stock, in any distribution (after payment of the liquidation preference of the senior liquidation stock) which is not sufficient to pay in full the aggregate of the amounts payable thereon. After payment in full of the liquidation preference of the shares of Series B Preferred Stock, the holders of such shares will not be entitled to any further participation in any distribution of assets by the Corporation.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the district court’s judgment as a matter of law for Monroe County on the state law negligence claim. Mississippi waives sovereign immunity for itself and its political subdivisions in § 11-46-5 of the Mississippi Code, but subjects this blanket waiver to numerous exceptions, including those listed in § 11-46-9. In pertinent part, § 11-46-9 provides: (l) A governmental entity and its employees acting within the course and scope of their employment or duties shall not be liable for any claim: (m) Of any claimant who at the time the claim arises is an inmate of any detention center, jail, workhouse, penal farm, penitentiary or other such institution, regardless of whether such claimant is or is not an inmate of any detention center, jail, workhouse, pena d 1325, 1332 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, we find that the district Options: A. holding that it is inappropriate to reach constitutional issues when a case can be decided on other grounds B. holding that issues decided by an intervening supreme court case need not be identical to be controlling C. holding that constitutional issues need not be decided where narrower grounds exist for according relief D. recognizing in a takings case that issues of statutory interpretation and other matters of law may be decided on motion for summary judgment E. holding that constitutional questions will not be decided if case can be decided on other grounds

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that it is inappropriate to reach constitutional issues when a case can be decided on other grounds
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 Parent and the Borrower will, and will cause each Restricted Subsidiary and DevCo to, comply with all laws, rules, regulations and orders of any Governmental Authority applicable to it or its Property, except where the failure to do so, individually or in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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: Comply with all applicable Laws, the Pool Receivables, the related Contracts, and the servicing and collection thereof, except where the failure to do so, individually or in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: abrogation of virtually every hearsay exception, 497 U.S. at 848, as well as other exceptions such as the removal from the courtroom of a defendant whose behavior is disruptive. 497 U.S. at 850. See also Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 63, 100 S. Ct. 2531, 65 L. Ed. 2d 597 (1980). The Court in Craig, after reviewing prior Confrontation Clause cases, held: In sum, our precedents establish that “the Confrontation Clause reflects a preference for face-to-face confrontation at trial,” [Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. at 63], a preference that “must occasionally give way to considerations of public policy and the necessities of the case,” [Mattox, 156 U.S. at 243]. “[W]e have attempted to harmonize the goal of the Clause— placing limits on the kind of evidence that may be received again .S. at 64 (<HOLDING>). Thus, although the right is not absolute, a Options: A. holding confrontation clause inapplicable at sentencing B. recognizing that the confrontation clauses preference for facetoface confrontation at trial must occasionally give way to considerations of public policy and the necessities of the case quoting mattox v united states 156 us 237 243 15 sct 337 39 led 409 1895 C. holding errors based on the constitutional rights to confrontation and due process may be waived by failure to object at trial D. holding that competing interests if closely examined may justify dispensing with facetoface confrontation at trial E. holding that the confrontation clause guarantees the defendant a physical facetoface meeting with the witnesses appearing before the trier of fact

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that competing interests if closely examined may justify dispensing with facetoface confrontation at trial
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the 2255 petition. He contends that his indictment and conviction would have been set aside but for his counsel’s omissions on this front. In opposition, the Government argues that because Mala is currently in custody, he is not entitled to a writ of coram nobis. Furthermore, they contend that Mala’s writ is a mislabeled § 2255 petition, insofar as he reasserts speedy trial act violations, and ineffective assistance of counsel arguments already addressed by this court. For purposes of determining whether Petitioner may seek coram nobis relief, this Court finds that he is not currently “in custody.” United States v. Bucci, 97-10263, *18, 2009 WL 2489171, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71768 (D.Mass. Aug. 11, 2009) (citing Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 492, 109 S.Ct. 1923, 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989)) (<HOLDING>). Although the Government points out that Mala Options: A. holding that defendants have a federal constitutional right to make a collateral attack on a prior conviction only when that conviction was obtained without the assistance of counsel B. holding that a habeas petitioner must be in custody under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed C. holding that forfeiture is an element of the sentence imposed following conviction D. holding the petitioners challenge of his conviction is not rendered moot by the expiration of the underlying sentence because collateral consequences flowing from the conviction give the petitioner a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which survives the satisfaction of the sentence imposed on him E. holding that once the sentence imposed for a conviction has completely expired the collateral consequences of that conviction are not themselves sufficient to render an individual in custody for the purposes of a habeas attack upon it

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that once the sentence imposed for a conviction has completely expired the collateral consequences of that conviction are not themselves sufficient to render an individual in custody for the purposes of a habeas attack upon it
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: gives the collateral its going-concern value. And while it is also true that, absent a reorganization plan, the creditor might not recover the difference&emdash;assuming that there is in fact a difference&emdash;between the collateral’s fair market value and the amount recoverable through its state law rights, we would not characterize this additional recovery as a “windfall” to the creditor, and certainly not one that will spur secured creditors to eschew their state law remedies and seek refuge in the comfortable confines of the bankruptcy courts. We find that the bankruptcy court correctly interpreted § 506(a) as according it flexibility in choosing among possible standards of valuation, and properly applied the statute to the particular facts of this case. Winthrop proposes i 94) (<HOLDING>); Lomas Mortgage USA v. Wiese, 980 F.2d 1279, Options: A. holding that notwithstanding a debtors inability to obtain a chapter 13 discharge a debtor is nonetheless eligible to file a chapter 13 case B. holding that motor vehicle to be retained by chapter 13 debtor should be valued at the price the debtor could get for it in a free and open market ie its fair market value C. holding that truck to be retained by chapter 13 debtor must be valued at replacement cost to debtor because foreclosure value fails to account for debtors proposed use of collateral D. holding that a chapter 13 debtor should be able to obtain a copy of his transcript in light of the broader discharge provision of chapter 13 E. holding that for chapter 12 plan confirmation purposes hypothetical costs should not be deducted from fair market value in valuing collateral to be retained by debtor

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that truck to be retained by chapter 13 debtor must be valued at replacement cost to debtor because foreclosure value fails to account for debtors proposed use of collateral
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: 652, 658-59 (2013); Commonwealth v. Eberhart, 461 Mass. 809, 965 N.E.2d 791, 795 (2012); Commonwealth v. Jefferson, 461 Mass. 821, 965 N.E.2d 800, 809-11 (2012); Commonwealth v. Gouse, 461 Mass. 787, 965 N.E.2d 774, 788 n. 17 (2012); Commonwealth v. Young, 453 Mass. 707, 905 N.E.2d 90, 95 n. 9, 96 (2009); Commonwealth v. Colon, 449 Mass. 207, 866 N.E.2d 412, 429 (2007); Commonwealth v. Anderson, 445 Mass. 195, 834 N.E.2d 1159, 1173-74 (2005); Commonwealth v. Than, 442 Mass. 748, 817 N.E.2d 705, 708 (2004); Ramirez, 555 N.E.2d at 211; Commonwealth v. Tuitt, 393 Mass. 801, 473 N.E.2d 1103, 1109-10 (1985). This procedural framework with respect to license as an affirmative defense is not unusual even among federal statutes. See, e.g., United States v. Matthews, 749 F.3d 99, 104-05 (2014) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Powell contends that the SJC in his Options: A. recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception B. recognizing exception C. holding that a defendant seeking the benefit of an exception under the pertinent statute must shoulder the burden of coming forward with evidence regarding that exception including a valid marijuana prescription D. recognizing such an exception E. holding in context of minnstat 541051 that burden of proving exception lies with party who seeks to claim benefit of exception

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a defendant seeking the benefit of an exception under the pertinent statute must shoulder the burden of coming forward with evidence regarding that exception including a valid marijuana prescription
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 Ninth Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Ninth Amendment by fax or other electronic imaging means shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Ninth Amendment.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Stockholder hereby authorizes Parent to publish and disclose in any announcement or disclosure required by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “ SEC ”), the NASDAQ or any other national securities exchange and, to the extent required by applicable Law, the Form S-4 and Joint Proxy Statement (including all documents and schedules filed with the SEC in connection therewith) and any other required filings under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “ Securities Act ”) or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “ Exchange Act ”), or otherwise required by Law, the Stockholder’s identity and ownership of the Shares and the nature of the Stockholder’s commitments, arrangements and understandings under this Agreement.

assistant: Disclosures
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: U.S. 44, 48, 54, 118 S.Ct. 966, 140 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998) (quotation and citations omitted). Legislative immunity only protects municipal officers from civil liability when they are sued in their personal capacities, and not when sued in their official capacities. Baines v. Masiello, 288 F.Supp.2d 376, 383 (W.D.N.Y.2003) (citations omitted). Legislative immunity may bar claims for money damages, injunctions, and declaratory relief brought against state and local officials in their personal capacities. State Emp., 494 F.3d at 82 (citation omitted); Bogan, 523 U.S. 44, 54, 118 S.Ct. 966 (1998). “Whether an act is legislative turns on the nature of the act, rather than on the motive or intent of the official performing it.” Christian v. Town of Riga, 649 F.Supp.2d 84, 103-104 (W.D.N.Y.2009) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Bogan, 523 U.S. at 54, 118 S.Ct. Options: A. holding that state legislators are absolutely from suit under 1983 for actions in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity B. holding that in the fourth amendment context absolving the individual officer of liability shields the municipality from liability C. holding that legislative immunity does not depend on motivation for legislative action even if the motive was to impinge on plaintiffs free speech rights D. holding that determining legislative intent is a question of law E. holding that legislative immunity shields an official from liability if the act in question was undertaken in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that legislative immunity shields an official from liability if the act in question was undertaken in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: At any time and from time to time after the date hereof, at the request of Assignee, and without further consideration, Assignor shall execute and deliver such other instruments of sale, transfer, conveyance, assignment and confirmation and take such other action as Assignee may reasonably request as necessary or desirable in order to more effectively transfer, convey and assign to Assignee the contracts.

assistant: Further Assurances
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: 3 Andrews contends, however, that his waiver was not knowing and intelligent, because he was still drunk when he spoke to federal agents following his arrest for DUI, and therefore the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress. When reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress, premised on an alleged violation of Miranda, we “must give credence to the credibility choices and findings of fact of the district court unless clearly erroneous.” United States v. Raymer, 876 F.2d 383, 386 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 870, 110 S.Ct. 198, 107 L.Ed.2d 152 (1989). The determination that a defendant’s Miranda waiver was knowing and intelligent is a finding of fact which we review for clear error. See United States v. Willis, 525 F.2d 657, 659 (5th Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). We will not find a district court’s factual Options: A. holding a waiver of a substantial constitutional right must be a voluntary knowing and intelligent act B. holding that defendants waiver was knowing and intelligent even when police withheld information from defendant that his attorney sought to consult with him C. recognizing requirement of knowing intelligent waiver D. holding that a defendants waiver of the right to testify must be knowing informed and intelligent E. holding that district courts findings were not clearly erroneous where there was sufficient evidence that the defendants waiver of his rights was knowing and intelligent

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that district courts findings were not clearly erroneous where there was sufficient evidence that the defendants waiver of his rights was knowing and intelligent
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 laches in these circumstances and the appropriate remedy that flows therefrom. III. A. Because foreclosure proceedings seek primary or principal relief which is equitable in nature, a complaint in foreclosure is properly cognizable in the General Equity part of the Chancery Division. See R. 4:3 — 1(a)(1); Weinstein, New Jersey Practice § 28.5 (2000) (“A foreclosure action seeking a sale of the mortgaged premises ... should ordinarily be brought in the Chancery Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey”). And, it has long been the law of New Jersey that an application to open, vacate or otherwise set aside a foreclosure judgment or proceedings subsequent thereto is subject to an abuse of discretion standard. Wiktorowicz v. Stesko, 134 N.J. Eq. 383, 386, 35 A.2d 696 (E. & A.1944) (<HOLDING>). We see no reason to depart from settled Options: A. holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record B. holding that where the statute in question required that the measure of fair market value shall be as determined by the secretary the court cannot substitute its own discretion for properly exercised administrative discretion C. holding the selection of the person to be appointed guardian is a matter which is committed largely to the discretion of the appointing court and an appellate court will interfere with the exercise of this discretion only in case of a clear abuse D. holding a motion to withdraw a guilty plea and grant trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the supreme court will not upset the courts ruling unless there is a sufficient showing of abuse of discretion E. holding that in proceedings in foreclosure the application to open the decree was addressed to the discretion of the court and that appellate courts will not undertake in such a case to review the order for the purpose of determining whether it shall substitute its discretion for that of the court of chancery quoting masionis v romel 101 nj eq 780 782 138 a 892 e a1927

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that in proceedings in foreclosure the application to open the decree was addressed to the discretion of the court and that appellate courts will not undertake in such a case to review the order for the purpose of determining whether it shall substitute its discretion for that of the court of chancery quoting masionis v romel 101 nj eq 780 782 138 a 892 e a1927
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 member of the Board, the Committee or any employee or agent of any member of the Company Group (each such Person, an “ Indemnifiable Person ”) shall be liable for any action taken or omitted to be taken or any determination made with respect to the Plan or any Award hereunder (unless constituting fraud or a willful criminal act or omission). Each Indemnifiable Person shall be indemnified and held harmless by the Company against and from any loss, cost, liability, or expense (including attorneys’ fees) that may be imposed upon or incurred by such Indemnifiable Person in connection with or resulting from any action, suit, or proceeding to which such Indemnifiable Person may be a party or in which such Indemnifiable Person may be involved by reason of any action taken or omitted to be taken or determination made with respect to the Plan or any Award hereunder and against and from any and all amounts paid by such Indemnifiable Person with the Company’s approval, in settlement thereof, or paid by such Indemnifiable Person in satisfaction of any judgment in any such action, suit, or proceeding against such Indemnifiable Person, and the Company shall advance to such Indemnifiable Person any such expenses promptly upon written request (which request shall include an undertaking by the Indemnifiable Person to repay the amount of such advance if it shall ultimately be determined, as provided below, that the Indemnifiable Person is not entitled to be indemnified); provided, that the Company shall have the right, at its own expense, to assume and defend any such action, suit, or proceeding and once the Company gives notice of its intent to assume the defense, the Company shall have sole control over such defense with counsel of the Company’s choice. The foregoing right of indemnification shall not be available to an Indemnifiable Person to the extent that a final judgment or other final adjudication (in either case not subject to further appeal) binding upon such Indemnifiable Person determines that the acts, omissions, or determinations of such Indemnifiable Person giving rise to the indemnification claim resulted from such Indemnifiable Person’s fraud or willful criminal act or omission or that such right of indemnification is otherwise prohibited by law or by the organizational documents of any member of the Company Group. The foregoing right of indemnification shall not be exclusive of or otherwise supersede any other rights of indemnification to which such Indemnifiable Persons may be entitled under the organizational documents of any member of the Company Group, as a matter of law, under an individual indemnification agreement or contract, or otherwise, or any other power that the Company may have to indemnify such Indemnifiable Persons or hold such Indemnifiable Persons harmless.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The state and federal courts located in New York, New York shall have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve any suit, action, proceeding or judgment relating to or arising out of this Agreement or any Dispute hereunder, and each Party hereby irrevocably submits to, and agrees not to object to, the jurisdiction of such courts and the appropriateness of such venue.

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: Seller agrees to pay to Jones Lang LaSalle (the “ Seller’s Broker ”) a brokerage commission pursuant to a separate agreement between Seller and Seller’s Broker. Purchaser and Seller represent that they have not dealt with any brokers, finders or salesmen in connection with this transaction other than the Seller’s Broker, and agree to indemnify, defend and hold each other harmless from and against any and all loss, cost, damage, liability or expense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, which either party may sustain, incur or be exposed to by reason of any claim for fees or commissions made through the other party. The provisions of this Article XVI will survive the Closing or termination of this Agreement.

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: The execution, delivery and performance by each of the Buyer Parties of this Agreement and the other Buyer Transaction Agreements to which such Buyer Party is a party, consummation of the Buyer Transactions and compliance with the terms of this Agreement and the other Buyer Transaction Agreements to which such Buyer Party is a party will not (a) conflict with or violate any provision of the certificate of incorporation, bylaws or similar organizational documents of such Buyer Party, or (b) assuming that all consents, approvals and authorizations contemplated by Section 5.03 have been obtained and all filings described therein have been made, conflict with or violate in any material respect any Law applicable to such Buyer Party or by which its respective properties are bound or affected.

assistant: Consents
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: Williams’s certiorari petition and reinstating his parole. For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s judgment reinstating Williams’s parole is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. McMILLAN, P.J., and COBB, BASCHAB, and WISE, JJ., concur. 1 . Pursuant to § 12-3-9, Ala.Code 1975, this Court has appellate jurisdiction over postcon-viction writs in criminal cases. Certiorari petitions challenging the Board’s revocation of parole are considered postconviction writs for purposes of § 12-3-9. See Ex parte Alabama Board of Pardons & Paroles, 849 So.2d 255 (Ala.Crim.App.2002). The Board filed a timely notice of appeal pursuant to § 6-6-641, Ala.Code 1975. See Dearborn Stove Co. v. Dean, 269 Ala. 561, 115 So.2d 258 (1959) (<HOLDING>); and Ex parte Wright, 860 So.2d 1253 Options: A. holding that 1074 t7 code 1940 the predecessor to 66641 provides for appeals from final judgments of circuit courts in certiorari proceedings B. holding that for purposes of certiorari review court of appeals must identify the basis for refusing to treat an issue C. holding that this court will consider a petition for a writ of certiorari only after the court of appeals has overruled the application for rehearing on the point challenged in the petition implying that the decision by the court of criminal appeals must be final before certiorari review would be available D. holding that previous legal ruling granting certiorari was law of the case in subsequent proceedings E. recognizing that where a state prisoner declines to pursue certiorari in the united states supreme court that petitioners conviction is not final until after the time for filing a petition for certiorari with the supreme court has passed

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that 1074 t7 code 1940 the predecessor to 66641 provides for appeals from final judgments of circuit courts in certiorari proceedings
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 SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF CONFLICTS OF LAW THEREOF. ANY RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY WITH RESPECT TO ANY CLAIM OR PROCEEDING RELATED TO OR ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT, OR ANY TRANSACTION OR CONDUCT IN CONNECTION HEREWITH, IS HEREBY WAIVED BY EACH OF THE PARTNERS.

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: reduction in sentence under § 3582(c) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Dorrough, 84 F.3d 1309, 1311 (10th Cir.1996). But we review the district court’s interpretation of the USSG and other legal issues de novo. United States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d 539, 540 (10th Cir.1997). We construe Caldwell’s filings liberally as he is proceeding pro se. Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir.2007). Before we consider the merits of Caldwell’s appeal, we must consider whether his appeal is timely. The district court denied Caldwell’s motion on February 9, 2012. His notice of appeal was due within 14 days of this denial, on February 23, 2012, as set forth in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1)(A). See United States v. Espinosa-Talamantes, 319 F.3d 1245, 1246 (10th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Caldwell did not file his notice of appeal Options: A. holding that although the defendant filed a number of motions because the original trial date never changed as a result of those motions no delay could be attributed to the motions B. holding rule 4b1a applies to 3582c motions C. holding that the criminal jurisdiction bar applies to the denials of motions to reopen D. holding in part that the presumption of public access attaches to pretrialnondiscovery motions whether preliminary or dispositive and the materials briefs and documents filed with the court in support of or in opposition to such motions but not to pretrial discovery motions E. holding that the aedpa oneyear statute of limitations applies to amendments to 2255 motions

assistant: The best answer is B. holding rule 4b1a applies to 3582c motions