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: the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. However, if Johnson’s claim rests upon the ineffectiveness of his attorney on appeal, then his cause of action could not have accrued prior to the disposition of his appeal. For these reasons, we find that Johnson’s cause of action for habeas corpus did not accrue until his direct appeal was decided by this court on May 19, 1989. See Johnson, 774 P.2d 1141. Because this decision occurred after the legislature’s deletion of imprisonment as a disability that tolls the statute of limitations under section 78-12-36, the trial court correctly held that Johnson’s claim was time-barred. We recognize that the ninety-day statute of limitations applicable to habeas corpus actions has been declared unconstitutional. See Currier, 862 P.2d 1357 (<HOLDING>); see also Renn v. Utah State Bd. of Pardons, Options: A. recognizing that rights under article i section 11 are subject to reasonable limitations B. holding that executive branch prosecution of disciplinary charges against a judge violated the separation of powers provision in the nevada constitution a provision identical to article v section 1 of the utah constitution C. holding that refusal to proceed to trial by arbitrarily abating case violates article i section 13 of the texas constitution D. holding that the contracts clause article i section 10 clause 1 to the united states constitution does not apply to the actions of the federal government E. holding that ninetyday statute of limitations on habeas actions is unreasonable limitation that violates article i section 11 of utah constitution

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that ninetyday statute of limitations on habeas actions is unreasonable limitation that violates article i section 11 of utah constitution
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: a professional basketball player); Grant v. Esquire, Inc., 367 F.Supp. 876 (S.D.N.Y.1973) (applying the right of publicity to an actor). 20 . While not relying on these reports, the court notes that expert reports in the matter under consideration suggest that, in fact, fantasy sports games increase the commercial value of players’ identities because the games encourage participants to attend live games, pay for television packages, or watch on television sporting events in which they otherwise would not- be interested. See e.g., Saunders Expert Report ¶ ¶ 11-20; Thomas Deck ¶¶ 10. 21 . In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 265, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), the Supreme Court articulated the requirement that for the First Amendment to apply there must be state action, (<HOLDING>). See also Card-toons, 95 F.3d at 968 (holding Options: A. holding that while the fourteenth amendment is directed against state action and not private action the state action requirement is met in a civil action where state law is applied whether by statute or common law B. holding that the fourteenth amendment only applies to state action C. holding that if an individual is possessed of state authority and purports to act under that authority his action is state action D. holding that an action for consequential damages to property whether the action is brought in contract or in tort is an action for injury to property within the threeyear statute of limitations E. holding that fourteenth amendment only applies to state action

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that while the fourteenth amendment is directed against state action and not private action the state action requirement is met in a civil action where state law is applied whether by statute or common 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: Brown v. Crowe, 963 F.2d 895 (6th Cir.1992). That cannot be said to be the case here, especially in view of the fact that the “prior restraint” cases cited in the plaintiffs’ appellate briefs simply are not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, even if the issue had been squarely presented, we could not find in the plaintiffs’ favor based on the authority submitted on appeal. There remains the equal protection question, which is raised here under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The district court held that the claim was non-cognizable because the Equal Protection Clause protects against inappropriate classifications of people, rather than things. This position has been adopted by several courts. See, e.g., Benjamin v. Bailey, 234 Conn. 455, 662 A.2d 1226 (1995)(<HOLDING>); California Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. City of Options: A. holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection B. holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection C. holding that the state law violated equal protection principles D. holding that a state weapons ban did not violate equal protection principles because the plaintiffs challenge related to classifications among weapons not persons E. holding that ch 980 does not violate principles of equal protection

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a state weapons ban did not violate equal protection principles because the plaintiffs challenge related to classifications among weapons not persons
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: if you are a resident of new zealand : notwithstanding anything in these terms to the contrary , nothing in these terms limits or excludes our liability or your rights if you are a consumer for the purposes of the consumer guarantees act 1993 , or the fair trading act 1986 .

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 Parties hereby irrevocably and unconditionally consent to the jurisdiction of the State and Federal courts in the State of Delaware for any action, suit or proceeding (other than appeals therefrom) arising out of or relating to this Agreement and agree not to commence any action, suit or proceeding (other than appeals therefrom) related thereto except in such courts. The Parties irrevocably and unconditionally waive their right to a jury trial.

assistant: Jurisdictions
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: as McGinley v. Houston, 282 F.Supp.2d 1304 (M.D.Ala.2003), aff'd, 361 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir.2004), points out, Establishment Clause jurisprudence would be unworkable if it were any other way: "For this court ... to hold that the removal of ... objects to cure an Establishment Clause violation would itself violate the Establishment Clause would ... result in an inability to cure an Establishment Clause violation and thus totally eviscerate the [E]stablishment[C]lause.” Id. at 1307 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 9 . Because Vasquez failed to state a claim under the Establishment Clause, we also deny his request for leave to amend his complaint to add a claim for nominal damages. See generally Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266-67, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978) Options: A. recognizing that when actual damages cannot be proved with the required certainty nominal damages alone are recoverable B. holding that under 1983 violations of constitutional rights are actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury C. holding that nominal damages are appropriate for deprivations of constitutional rights that do not result in actual injury D. holding that plaintiff waived the right to nominal damages in an excessive force case because nominal damages were not requested until after the verdict E. holding that nominal damages award was appropriate where the evidence supporting the damages was speculative

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that nominal damages are appropriate for deprivations of constitutional rights that do not result in actual injury
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: did not knowingly and voluntarily consent to the search. She also assigned error to certain of the trial court’s findings of fact. Although the Court of Appeals held that Ellen consented to the search, it did not address her challenge to the trial court’s findings. She did F.2d 883, 885 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (upholding the validity of a warrantless search where the defendant was present and did not consent, but his wife did consent, because the rule developed in Mat-lock did not depend on the defendant’s absence); People v. Sanders, 904 P.2d 1311, 1313 (Colo. 1995) (“The valid consent of a person with ‘common authority’ will justify a warrantless search of a residence despite the physical presence of a nonconsenting co-occupant.”); State v. Frame, 45 Or. App. 723, 609 P.2d 830, 833 (1980) (<HOLDING>); 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Options: A. holding that warrantless search of defendants vehicle was legal because defendants consent was voluntary even through he was in police custody at the time of giving consent B. holding there is no consent as a matter of law where the consent was given under coercion C. holding that the consent to search given by the defendants wife and cohabitant was an effective consent because it was consistent with the rationale set forth in united states v matlock D. holding that consent was freely and voluntarily given despite officers advisement that the police could get a search warrant if consent was not given E. holding that the defendants consent to allow the officer to search her purse by way of holding it open for the officer was for consent to a limited view of the purses interior not to surrender possession for an unrestricted search and thus the officer exceeded the scope of the defendants consent

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the consent to search given by the defendants wife and cohabitant was an effective consent because it was consistent with the rationale set forth in united states v matlock
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 provision giving Zurich discretion to settle claims within the deductible. Methodist argues it did not seek to exercise discretion but only insisted that Zurich act reasonably. However, if Zurich had adjusted a claim knowing that, after the fact, it may be required to account to Methodist for the reasonableness of its decisions, Methodist would have indirectly influenced handling and settlement of the claim. Finally, we reject Methodist’s suggestion it should have recourse because Zurich bore no risk when handling Methodist’s funds. To the contrary, along with its discretion in handling claims, Zurich, as insurance carrier, was the party who faced potential liability to the employee with respect to claims-handling. See Aranda v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 748 S.W.2d 210, 211-12 (Tex.1988) (<HOLDING>). Methodist certainly does not admit it was Options: A. holding that carrier was entitled to intervene as of right where the states workers compensation law permitted subrogation of a compensation carrier B. recognizing duty to deal in good faith in workers compensation setting C. holding that the duty of good faith and fair dealing is a contractual duty D. recognizing workers compensation insurance carrier owes employee duty of good faith and fair dealing in processing compensation claims E. holding that claims for the breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing against workers compensation insurance carrier did not arise under the state workers compensation statutes but are at most related to those statutes and thus do not come within the ambit of the nonremovability provision of 1445c good faith and fair dealing claims were created by texas common law not by the compensation statute

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing workers compensation insurance carrier owes employee duty of good faith and fair dealing in processing compensation claims
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Supplement is intended to comply with Code Section 409A and guidance issued under Code Section 409A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Supplement, the Supplement shall be interpreted and administered accordingly. If any provision of the Supplement is held invalid or unenforceable, that invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision, and the Supplement shall be construed and enforced as if the affected provision had not been included.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth on Schedule 5.22 , no broker or finder brought about the obtaining, making or closing of the Loans or transactions contemplated by the Loan Documents, and no Loan Party or Affiliate thereof has any obligation to any Person in respect of any finder’s or brokerage fees in connection therewith.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: in no event shall vivino , nor its directors , employees , agents , representatives , partners , suppliers or content providers , be liable under contract , tort , strict liability , negligence or any other legal or equitable theory or otherwise ( and whether or not vivino , its directors , employees , agents , representatives , partners , suppliers or content providers had prior knowledge of the circumstances giving rise to such loss or damage ) with respect to the site , service , content , user submissions or add-to link for :

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that a disparate impact analysis on employee benefits should include all benefits provided to an employee. Therefore, a disparate impact analysis may include an analysis of the benefits an employee's dependents receives, as well as the benefits the employee receives. 8 . Defendant argues that the disparate impact theory of liability is not applicable in an insurance context. While this Court does not directly decide this issue because summary judgment is granted on other grounds, the Court does note that neither City of Los Angeles v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 98 S.Ct. 1370, 55 L.Ed.2d 657 (1978) nor any other cases directly hold that the disparate impact theory of liability is not applicable in insurance contexts. See Wambheim v. J.C. Penney Comp., Inc., 705 F.2d 1492 (9th Cir.1983) Options: A. holding that to determine whether the employer intentionally discriminated against the employee the court examines if there is evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the employers stated reason for the firing is pretext B. holding that an action by a health care provider to recover payment from an insurance carrier is sufficiently distinct from an action by a plan participant against the insurer seeking recovery of benefits due under the terms of the insurance plan and therefore preemption in the former case would stretch the connected with or related to standard too far C. holding that a disparate impact analysis could be applied to a determination of whether an employers insurance plan discriminated with respect to compensation terms conditions or privileges of employment D. holding the same with respect to an apartment E. holding that paid adminis trative leave pending investigation does not constitute adverse employment action because terms conditions or benefits of a persons employment do not typically if ever include general immunity from the application of basic employment policies or exemption from an employers disciplinary procedures

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a disparate impact analysis could be applied to a determination of whether an employers insurance plan discriminated with respect to compensation terms conditions or privileges of employment
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, which shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the respective successors and permitted assigns of each Loan Party, the Agent, the Lenders and the Issuer, shall become effective on the date hereof and shall continue in full force and effect until the Facility Termination Date unless sooner terminated as herein provided. Without limiting Section 11.1, (a) the Aggregate Revolving Commitment shall expire on the Facility Termination Date and (b) all unpaid Obligations shall be paid in full by the Borrowers on the Facility Termination Date. The Borrowers may terminate this Agreement with at least thirty (30) Business Days’ prior written notice thereof to the Agent, upon (a) the payment in full of all outstanding Loans, together with accrued and unpaid interest thereon, (b) the cancellation and return of all outstanding Letters of Credit (or alternatively, with respect to each such Letter of Credit, the furnishing to the Agent of a cash deposit as required by Section 2.10(d), (c) the payment in full of all reimbursable expenses and other Obligations together with accrued and unpaid interest thereon, and (d) the payment in full of any amount due under Section 2.12.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: States v. Bustos-Useche, 273 F.3d 622, 626 (5th Cir.2001); United States v. Medina, 90 F.3d 459, 464 (11th Cir.1996). 17 . Although vessel status is a substantive issue in that it relates to “the reach and application” of the statute, González, 311 F.3d at 443, it is not an element of the offense. See 46 U.S.C. § 70504(a); United States v. Vilches-Navarrete, 523 F.3d 1, 20 (1st Cir.2008). 18 . Other judge-determined issues are subject to higher and lower standards of proof. See, e.g., Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 690, 108 S.Ct 1496, 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988) (noting that a court resolves a question of relevancy conditioned on fact by deciding “whether the jury could reasonably find the conditional fact”); United States v. Ruiz-Gaxiola, 623 F.3d 684, 691-93 (9th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). 19 . The MDLEA provides that "[a] failure to Options: A. holding that facts justifying forced administration of antipsychotic medication must be established by clear and convincing evidence B. holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied C. holding that in reviewing a defendants motion for judgment of acquittal based on insanity which the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence the court must determine whether no reasonable jury could have failed to find that the defendants criminal insanity at the time of the offense was established by clear and convincing evidence D. holding that fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence E. holding that an award for punitive damages must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that facts justifying forced administration of antipsychotic medication must be established by clear and convincing evidence
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: Reid’s affidavit because it is “conclusory” and because Reid provides no foundation for how he calculated the principal amounts due on the Notes. As the district court noted, Reid’s statements are based on his personal knowledge. See Fed.R.CivP. 56(c)(4) (“An affidavit or declaration ... must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.”). As an account manager at RBC Reid is responsible for monitoring and collecting the Atas-ca Oaks and Lake Houston Notes. Therefore, Reid is competent to testify on the amounts due on the Notes, and his affidavit satisfies the requirements of Rule 56(c)(4). See, e.g., United States v. Lawrence, 276 F.3d 193, 196-97 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse Options: A. holding that a nonhearsay response to an interrogatory that is based on personal knowledge may be considered as evidence on summary judgment B. holding that attorneys affidavit was not competent evidence of his clients agreement or communications with the defendants because it was not based on personal knowledge C. holding that the affidavit in question did not satisfy the burden of the party moving for summary judgment where affiants eonclusory statement failed to indicate personal knowledge of the circumstances in question and personal knowledge could not be reasonably inferred from the contents of the affidavit D. holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court at the summary judgment stage to consider information from an affidavit based on inadmissible hearsay rather than the affiants personal knowledge E. holding that a loan analysts affidavit based on personal knowledge of certain loan records is admissible summary judgment evidence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a loan analysts affidavit based on personal knowledge of certain loan records is admissible summary judgment evidence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: For the purposes of this Agreement, notices and all other communications provided for in this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given when personally delivered or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to the respective addresses last given by each party to the other; provided, however, that all notices to the Employer shall be directed to the attention of the Employer with a copy to the Chief Executive Officer. All notices and communications shall be deemed to have been received on the date of delivery thereof.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any provision of this Agreement which is prohibited or unenforceable in any jurisdiction shall, as to such jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or unenforceability without invalidating the remaining provisions hereof, and any such prohibition or unenforceability in any jurisdiction shall not invalidate or render unenforceable such provision in any other jurisdiction. The parties hereto shall endeavor in good-faith negotiations to replace any invalid, illegal or unenforceable provisions with valid provisions the economic effect of which comes as close as possible to that of the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provisions.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: At any time and from time to time Borrower shall execute and deliver such further instruments and take such further action as may reasonably be requested by Collateral Agent or Lender to make effective the purposes of this Agreement, including the continued perfection and priority of Collateral Agent’s Lender’s security interest in the Collateral.

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: ers who sell or distribute cooling appliances in New York City and the need to dispose safely of refrigerants in the same manufacturers’ appliances when they are discarded in New York City. Plaintiff argues that Local Law 69 is unreasonable because the manufacturers may be charged for the City’s servicing of their appliances that they sold or distributed outside New York City. This argument fails for several reasons. First, that the Law may incidentally embrace activities beyond the city limits does not render it unreasonable as a matter of law, especially given that Local Law 69 limits the manufacturers covered to those that have availed themselves of the New York City market for cooling appliances. See id.; Bakalar v. Lazar, 71 Misc.2d 683, 336 N.Y.S.2d 695, 698-99 (Sup.Ct.1972) (<HOLDING>). Second, even if such cases might conceivably Options: A. holding that city attorneys promise in an oral settlement agreement for city to annex and rezone land was within the legal authority of the city of joliet to accomplish and were not absolutely void acts per se therefore city could be estopped from avoiding enforcement of contract B. holding a city liable for personal injuries caused by a driver colliding with a girder in the center of a city street where the city did not give a warning C. holding city could not enforce through administrative adjudication a city ordinance limiting vehicle weight D. holding that a jurys finding that a city had delegated its final policymaking authority in the area of law enforcement to a city police chief was supported by the evidence and warranted imposing liability upon the city E. holding that city rules governing taxicab rides to destinations outside of the city are not invalid merely because they incidentally embrace activities outside of the city

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that city rules governing taxicab rides to destinations outside of the city are not invalid merely because they incidentally embrace activities outside of the city
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: On the Closing Date, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein, substantially concurrent with the execution and delivery of this Agreement by the parties hereto, the Company agrees to sell, and the Purchasers, severally and not jointly, agree to purchase, up to an aggregate of $550,000 in principal amount of the Debentures corresponding to an aggregate Subscription Amount of $500,000. Each Purchaser shall deliver to the Company immediately available funds, via wire transfer or a certified check, equal to such Purchaser’s Subscription Amount as set forth on the signature page hereto executed by such Purchaser, and the Company shall deliver to each Purchaser its respective Debenture, as determined pursuant to Section 2.2(a), and the Company and each Purchaser shall deliver the other items set forth in Section 2.2 deliverable at the Closing. Upon satisfaction of the covenants and conditions set forth in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, the Closing shall occur at the offices of EGS or such other location as the parties shall mutually agree.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: tending to undermine the statements therein. B. Scienter The PSLRA requires a complaint to “state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind,” or scienter. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(2); see Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 194, 96 S.Ct. 1375, 47 L.Ed.2d 668 (1976). The required state of mind is either that the defendant acted intentionally or with “deliberate recklessness.” Daou Sys., 411 F.3d at 1014-15. In a securities claim under § 10(b), “recklessness only satisfies scienter” when it “reflects some degree of intentional or conscious misconduct.” In re Silicon Graphics Sec. Litig., 183 F.3d 970, 977 (9th Cir. 1999); see also DSAM Global Value Fund v. Altris Software, Inc., 288 F.3d 385, 389 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Significantly, “where the Options: A. recognizing that the defense must be given the opportunity to crossexamine a witness and explore any motive to falsely testify in order to assist government B. holding that in order to allege a strong inference of deliberate recklessness a plaintiff must state facts that come closer to demonstrating intent as opposed to mere motive and opportunity C. holding that a plaintiff must allege facts that distinguish him from the typical person the ban applies to in order to state an as applied claim D. holding that the burden to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction resides with plaintiff E. holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that in order to allege a strong inference of deliberate recklessness a plaintiff must state facts that come closer to demonstrating intent as opposed to mere motive and opportunity
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: unless otherwise stated, all statutory references shall be to Title 11 of the Unites States Code); The Court also notes that Official Form B22C, which debtors use to calculate their current monthly income, applicable commitment period, and disposable income, directs above median debtors on line 17 to indicate that their "applicable commitment period is 5 years.” 2 . See Educ. Assistance Corp. v. Zellner, 827 F.2d 1222, 1227 (8th Cir.1987). 3 . 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3). 4 . Flygare v. Boulden, 709 F.2d 1344, 1347-48 (10th Cir.1983). 5 . In re Estus, 695 F.2d 311, 317 (8th Cir. 1982). 6 . Flygare, 709 F.2d at 1347-48. 7 . Id. 8 . See Zellner, 827 F.2d at 1227. 9 . 11 U.S.C.§ 1325(b)(1). 10 . Zellner, 827 F.2d at 1227. 11 . Id. 12 . In re Cranmer, 697 F.3d 1314, 1319 n.5 (10th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); In re Robinson, 987 F.2d 665, 668 n.7 (10th Options: A. holding that bad faith includes lack of good faith in investigating the facts of a complaint B. holding that while the creditor has the initial burden to produce some evidence of lack of good faith the ultimate burden is on the debtor to prove his good faith C. holding that the courts analysis should focus on the nature of the abuse injuries inflicted and the effect of both D. recognizing the more narrow focus of a good faith analysis E. holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing the more narrow focus of a good faith analysis
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: and (4), certain warning devices are to be installed. See Easterwood, 507 U.S. at 666, 113 S.Ct. 1732. For crossings that are not covered by § 646.214(b)(3), “the type of warning device to be installed, whether the determination is made by a State ... agency, and/or the railroad, is subject to the approval of the FHWA.” 23 C.F.R. § 646.214(b)(4); see also Easterwood, 507 U.S. at 667, 670, 113 S.Ct. 1732. The Court concluded that §§ 214(b)(3) and (4) covered the subject matter of warning devices at grade crossings for projects in which federal funds participated in the installation of warning devices such that state regulation of such warning devices was preempted. See id. at 670-71, 113 S.Ct. 1732; see also Thiele v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 68 F.3d 179, 184-85 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); accord Rice, 955 F.Supp. at 741 (holding that Options: A. holding 646214b3 and 4 preempt state law adequacy of warnings claims when federal funds are used to install warning devices at crossings and devices are installed and fully operational B. holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law C. holding that the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act did not preempt plaintiffs state law claims D. holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law E. holding that federal law did not preempt state law policy procurementbased claims unlike claims handling disputes governed as here by federal regulations

assistant: The best answer is A. holding 646214b3 and 4 preempt state law adequacy of warnings claims when federal funds are used to install warning devices at crossings and devices are installed and fully operational
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: hearing, the superior court carefully evaluated a medical report and all of the victim statements contained in the probation report, and concluded that only two of the five acts committed by Carty against the child victims involved conduct that constituted “substantial sexual conduct.” Finally, even looking to the Supreme Court cases on which Carty relies, he was not denied the necessary safeguards required by the Constitution. Particularly, at his initial civil commitment hearing in June 1999, Carty was represented by counsel, was given an opportunity to challenge the evidence used by the District Attorney, waived his right to a trial by a jury, and was adjudged, beyond a reasonable doubt, as an SVP who required civil commitment. See, e.g., Addington, 441 U.S. at 432-33, 99 S.Ct. 1804 (<HOLDING>); Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U.S. 504, 508-14, 92 Options: A. holding that in a proceeding to terminate parental rights the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof violates the due process clause and that due process requires at least a clear and convincing evidence standard B. holding that for an initial civil commitment the state has the burden of proof C. holding that the standard of proof in revocation proceedings is a preponderance of the evidence D. holding that the standard of proof for dischargeability actions is the preponderance of the evidence standard E. holding that to meet due process demands the standard of proof for civil commitment proceedings must be higher than the preponderanceoftheevidence standard

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that to meet due process demands the standard of proof for civil commitment proceedings must be higher than the preponderanceoftheevidence standard
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: motion for summary judgment and or dered that Landowners were due compensation of $826,215. Landowners appealed, challenging the exclusion of Hiles’s affidavit. On appeal, the County raised two new complaints about defects in the affidavit, including that the affidavit lacked a jurat and was neither sworn to nor given under oath. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling based on the County’s newly-raised-jurat argument, holding that the lack of a jurat was a defect of substance, not of form, and therefore could be raised for the first time on appeal. 365 S.W.3d at 358. Landowners petitioned this Court for review. The Government Code defines “affidavit” as “a statement in writing of a fact or facts signed by the party making it, sworn to before an .W. 29, 30 (1900) (<HOLDING>). A jurat is a certification by an authorized Options: A. holding that an unsigned statement lacked an essential part of the mandatory affidavit requirements B. holding an affidavit statement referring to the notice required for a binding contract was inadmissible as a legal conclusion C. holding that a trial court had implicitly found that an affiant lacked credibility even where the affidavit testimony was uncontroverted D. holding that the eaja application satisfied the eaja content requirements because it contained among other things an itemized statement of the fees sought supported by an affidavit from the appellants counsel E. holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an unsigned statement lacked an essential part of the mandatory affidavit requirements
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: off-load or lay off the plaintiff. The parties are in agreement that, under Kansas law, plaintiff was an employ ee at will during his employment with Beech. The Kansas courts have recognized a cause of action for retaliatory discharge of an at-will employee. See Murphy v. City of Topeka, 6 Kan.App.2d 488, 630 P.2d 186 (1981) (recognizing a cause of action for the discharge of an employee in retaliation for filing a worker’s compensation claim). The tort of retaliatory discharge is an exception to the principle that an at-will employee may be terminated at any time, with or without cause. This exception usually arises when the discharge from employment seriously contravenes a very clear public policy. Cain v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 9 Kan.App.2d 100, 103-04, 673 P.2d 451 (1983) (<HOLDING>), review denied, 235 Kan. 1041 (1984). The Options: A. holding in suit brought by shareholders against corporation under federal securities laws that plaintiffs conferred substantial benefit upon corporation by vindicating statutory policy stressing the importance of fair and informed corporate suffrage B. holding that the sovereignty commission files should be opened to the general public C. holding that plaintiffs personal opinion on how the kansas corporation commission should carry out the statutory purposes of the kansas securities act is not public policy D. holding the function of a public utility is controlling not how the term is defined E. holding that individuals assumption of the role of president of the corporation and her authority to sign documents on behalf of the corporation demonstrate that she had the requisite control over the corporation for purposes of finding individual liability under section 5a

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that plaintiffs personal opinion on how the kansas corporation commission should carry out the statutory purposes of the kansas securities act is not public policy
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as specified in Schedule 7.06 (as amended from time to time in accordance with Section 7.20 solely for purposes of each Compliance Certificate), there is no litigation, investigation or proceeding pending or, to any Obligor’s Knowledge, threatened with respect to Borrower and its Subsidiaries by or before any Governmental Authority or arbitrator (i) except as individually or in the aggregate could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect or (ii) that involves this Agreement or the Transactions.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: election unless it is so de minimis that it is ‘virtually impossible to conclude that [the violation] could have affected the results of the election.’ ” Airstream, Inc., 304 NLRB 151, 152 (1991) (quoting Enola Super Thrift, 233 NLRB 409, 409, 1977 WL 9300 (1977)). The Employer argues that this principle extends to every violation of the NLRA, not just violations of Section 8(a)(1). However, none of the cases addressing violations of other provisions, including Section 8(g), have treated such violations as inherently interfering with an election. See Regent Assisted Living v. NLRB, No. 05-1185, — FedAppx.-, 2006 WL 994565 (D.C.Cir.2006) (rejecting the argument that all NLRA violations, a fortiori, interfere with elections); Ara Living Centers, 300 NLRB 888, 888, 1990 WL 250760 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Holt Bros., 146 NLRB 383, 384, 1964 WL 15697 Options: A. holding the connection is an element B. holding that the fourth amendment requires a finding of probable cause as a condition for any significant pretrial restraint of liberty C. holding that section 8g has no significant connection with the restraint and coercion of employees D. holding that mental coercion led to an involuntary confession E. holding that a government officer has the right to use some degree of physical coercion to effect an arrest

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that section 8g has no significant connection with the restraint and coercion of employees
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise provided in Section 9.3 , the Parties agree that in the event any Party finds it necessary to initiate any legal action to obtain any payments, benefits or rights provided by this Agreement to such Party, the other Party shall reimburse such Party for all attorney’s fees and other related expenses incurred by him or it to the extent such Party is successful in such action.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: We disagree. The first and the third of these factors apply to any multiunit rental facility. The second is irrelevant: Hoosiers who live in rural areas are entitled to no less protection against invasion of their homes. The fourth, assuming it applied to the third home, is in and of itself innocuous. Probable cause clearly existed with respect to the first two homes, and the totality of the circumstances established some suspicion or possibility of a joint drug-dealing enterprise at the Farm. But this is not enough. The affidavit did not allege any facts linking the third home to the surrounding criminal activity. The lack of any nexus is a critical point in assessing the reasonableness of the officer’s reliance on the warrant. Cf. Stabenow v. State, 495 N.E.2d 197 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (<HOLDING>). Objective good faith “requires officers to Options: A. holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search B. holding that a warrant lacking a description of items to be seized was not facially invalid and finding in the alternative that even if the warrant were found to be deficient the seized evidence was admissible under the good faith exception C. holding that there was probable cause for arrest where officers knew defendants had recently been with suspected drug dealer officers saw defendants car being maneuvered so as to indicate that surveillance had been detected and when officers approached car defendant attempted to place package under car and then pulled the package back inside the car and closed and locked the car door D. holding that it was objectively reasonable for the police to conclude that the general consent to search the respondents car included consent to search a bag within that car E. holding that cocaine seized pursuant to search of defendants car was not admissible under good faith exception because affidavit did not establish connection between car and criminal activity

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that cocaine seized pursuant to search of defendants car was not admissible under good faith exception because affidavit did not establish connection between car and criminal 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: THE BORROWER, THE LENDERS, THE ISSUING LENDER AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED BY AND HAVE CONSULTED WITH COUNSEL OF THEIR CHOICE, AND HEREBY KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY, INTENTIONALLY, AND IRREVOCABLY WAIVE ANY AND ALL RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN RESPECT OF ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT, OR ANY OF THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY OR THEREBY.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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: by making a reservation through booking.com , you enter into a direct ( legally binding ) contractual relationship with the supplier with which you make a reservation or purchase a product or service ( as applicable ) .

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: This Agreement shall continue until and terminate upon the later of: (a) ten (10) years after the date that Indemnitee shall have ceased to serve as a director or and/or officer, employee or agent of the Company; or (b) one (1) year after the final termination of any proceeding, including any appeal then pending, in respect to which Indemnitee was granted rights of indemnification or advancement of expenses hereunder.

assistant: Terms