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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The December 31, 2015 financial statements of the Company and its Consolidated Subsidiaries heretofore delivered to the Lenders were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in effect on the date such statements were prepared and fairly present the financial condition of the Company and its Consolidated Subsidiaries at such date and the results of their operations for the period then ended.

assistant: Financial Statements
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: negated appellant’s claim of a one-year sales agency agreement. We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the cause for trial. FROST, J. dissenting. 1 . The contract provided that the appointment for the "entire State of Texas was temporary until such time as the Company finds a permanent Agent for the Northern Texas area of Dallas, Ft. Worth.” 2 . Although the record does not conclusively show the sales agency agreement could not be performed in the space of one year, both parties seem to assume the agreement would be governed by the statute of frauds. Accordingly, we assume, without deciding, that the agreement must satisfy the requirements of that statute to be enforceable. See Winograd v. Willis, 789 S.W.2d 307, 310 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). FROST, Justice, dissenting. The majority Options: A. holding that contract capable of being performed within 365 days of execution not within statute of frauds B. holding that the statute of frauds bars a breach of contract claim based on an oral agreement to enter a future employment contract that would need to meet the statute of frauds C. recognizing circumstances that justify enforcement of a promise unenforceable under the statute of frauds D. holding that the language of the statute is mandatory and the commission must act within 180 days E. holding that full performance takes a contract outof the statute of frauds

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that contract capable of being performed within 365 days of execution not within statute of frauds
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: So.2d 663, 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Options: A. holding that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion by stating that it did not have the ability to present the transcript to the jury B. holding that the appellants failure to provide a transcript of the proceedings was fatal to its claims because without a record of the trial proceedings the appellate court can not sic properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial courts judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory C. holding that in appellate proceedings where no transcript is provided a trial courts decision has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error D. holding that without transcript of trial proceedings appellate court cannot review underlying evidence so as to conclude that trial courts judgment is not supported by evidence E. holding that where the trial courts determination that the defendant was mentally capable to proceed with trial was not supported by the evidence the verdict and judgment must be vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings against the defendant

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the appellants failure to provide a transcript of the proceedings was fatal to its claims because without a record of the trial proceedings the appellate court can not sic properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial courts judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory
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: Fifth, grants a federal reserve bank the power to “dismiss” any of its officers, among others, “at pleasure” by its board of directors: holding to the effect that section 341, Fifth, has been impliedly amended by Title VII); Moodie v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (S.D.N.Y. 1993) 835 F.Supp. 751, 752-753 (consistent with such a holding); Moodie v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (S.D.N.Y. 1993) 831 F.Supp. 333, 337 (same); ly amended by Title VII and the ADEA, effectively establishes a maximum level of protection for officers of a national bank that FEHA may not exceed, we assume for present purposes that the provision has not been impliedly amended or repealed by other federal law. See post, footnote 8 on page 176. 6 See Booth v. Old Nat. Bank, supra, 900 F.Supp. at pages 842-843 (<HOLDING>); Sargent v. Central Nat. Bank & Trust Co., Options: A. holding outside of the context of title vii or the adea that section 24 fifth preempts state law to the extent but only to the extent that it conflicts B. holding outside of the context of title vii or the adea to the effect that section 341 fifth preempts conflicting state law C. holding that a state election law is preempted only to the extent that it conflicts with federal law D. holding to the effect that section 341 fifth as impliedly amended by title vii preempts state law to the extent but only to the extent that it conflicts E. holding to the effect that section 24 fifth has been impliedly amended by title vii

assistant: The best answer is A. holding outside of the context of title vii or the adea that section 24 fifth preempts state law to the extent but only to the extent that it 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: May 15, 2006. Thus, although Pro Patch did not assert preemption in its answer, Pro Patch raised the issue in a pragmatically sufficient time and DP Wagner has had opportunity fully to brief and respond to the issue and is not unfairly prejudiced. Accordingly, the Court will permit the preemption defense to proceed. The Federal Circuit has not held whether § 292 of the Patent Act preempts state law unfair competition claims, and conflicts with Lanham Act claims, when there is a marking of products with inapplicable patents. At least one district court has concluded that such claims are preempted unless the plaintiff proves that the defendant acted in bad faith. See Moore N. Am., Inc. v. Poser Business Forms, Inc., No. Civ. A. 97-712, 2000 WL 1480992, at *2, 5-7 (D.Del. Sept. 29, 2000) (<HOLDING>) (relying on Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Harmonic Options: A. holding that copyright infringement defendant failed to prove the affirmative defense of unclean hands which was based on the patent holders marking of its product with an expired patent because there was no evidence that the patent holder had acted with the requisite intent to deceive B. holding the state law claims were not preempted C. holding that 1338a jurisdiction inures when a complaint establishes that federal patent law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law in that patent law is a necessary element of one of the wellpleaded claims D. holding patent policy incorporated by reference into patent agreement E. holding that lanham act and state law unfair competition claims premised on false patent marking were not preempted by the patent act because the proponent alleged that the mismarking was done in bad faith

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that lanham act and state law unfair competition claims premised on false patent marking were not preempted by the patent act because the proponent alleged that the mismarking was done in bad faith
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 acknowledges that a breach by it of its obligations hereunder will cause irreparable harm to the Holder, by vitiating the intent and purpose of the transaction contemplated hereby. Accordingly, the Borrower acknowledges that the remedy at law for a breach of its obligations under this Note will be inadequate and agrees, in the event of a breach or threatened breach by the Borrower of the provisions of this Note, that the Holder shall be entitled, in addition to all other available remedies at law or in equity, and in addition to the penalties assessable herein, to an injunction or injunctions restraining, preventing or curing any breach of this Note and to enforce specifically the terms and provisions thereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of wrongdoing, it is not probative enough to meet Todd’s burden of production that Montoya acted in a negligent manner or that Montoya proximately caused his injury. See In re Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d at 528-29 (“Northwest’s rewiring of the CAWS is circumstantial evidence, if only of a weak and suspect sort, that the CAWS as it existed at the time of the accident was not foolproof.”). Even if the evidence is not technically within rule 407’s scope: (i) rule 407’s underlying concerns are persuasive when evaluating the probative value of the evidence; and (ii) the circumstances of Montoya’s resignation in light of the other evidence in the record make the inference of wrongdoing one can draw from his resignation a weak one. See Gray v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 82 Fed.Appx. at 646-47 (<HOLDING>). It is the proverbial scintilla of evidence Options: A. recognizing high probative value of evidence providing conduct that was part of the very act charged B. recognizing that rule 608b prior bad acts evidence admissible as probative of truthfulness is subject to rule 403 balancing C. recognizing that while the evidence at issue was admissible under rule 407 its probative value was minimal D. holding that inextricably intertwined evidence is intrinsic evidence that is admissible if its probative value outweighs the danger of prejudice E. recognizing the probative value of objective and reliable hearsay evidence

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that while the evidence at issue was admissible under rule 407 its probative value was minimal
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: would bear the burden of proof as the moving party. “... Therefore, in the instant ease, Miriam must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct of the investigation and the determination of the investigation were both incorrect.” Accordingly, Stone Creek is distinguishable, and the Department’s erroneous allocation of the burden of proof is reversible error. IV Although we would ordinarily remand for new findings when an error in allocating the burden of proof occurs, it is unnecessary to do so in this case because we further conclude, as a matter of law, the Department’s probable cause determination is not supported by the evidence and is not in accordance with the relevant statutory law. See Ornelas v. United States, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996) (<HOLDING>). For purposes of N.D.C.C. Ch. 50-25.1, “abused Options: A. holding that the question of whether the police had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to make a warrantless search should be reviewed de novo B. holding the ultimate question of probable cause should be reviewed de novo C. holding question of law applied to undisputed facts reviewed de novo D. holding that whether consent was valid under the fourth amendment is a question of law to be reviewed de novo E. holding that antitrust standing is question of law reviewed de novo

assistant: The best answer is B. holding the ultimate question of probable cause should be reviewed de novo
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: P.2d 177. A proponent cannot meet this burden by simply denying a discriminatory motive or professing good faith. Batson, 476 U.S. at 98, 106 S.Ct. 1712. Rather, a proponent must proffer justifications that are: (1) neutral; (2) related to the particular case to be tried; (3) reasonably specific and clear; and (4) legitimate. See id. at 98 n. 20, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (“[T]he prosecutor must give a ‘clear and reasonably spec 4, 630, 111 S.Ct. 2077, 114 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991) (extending the Batson rule to the use of peremptory challenges by private litigants in civil cases); Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 59, 112 S.Ct. 2348, 120 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992) (applying Batson to criminal defendants’ use of peremptory challenges); J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127, 146, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 17 Throughout its Batson jurisprudence, the Options: A. holding that the equal protection clause also prohibits discrimination in jury selection on the basis of gender B. holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause C. holding intentional gender discrimination in public employment by persons acting under color of state law violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment and is actionable under section 1983 D. holding race and gender discrimination claim barred E. recognizing that potential jurors as well as litigants have a right based in the equal protection clause to nondiscriminatory jury selection procedures

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the equal protection clause also prohibits discrimination in jury selection on the basis of gender
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 Transactions (a) do not require any consent or approval of, registration or filing with, or any other action by, any Governmental Authority, except such as have been obtained or made and are in full force and effect and except for filings necessary to perfect Liens created pursuant to the Loan Documents, (b) will not violate any Requirements of Law applicable to any Loan Party or any of its Subsidiaries, (c) will not violate or result in a default in any material respects under any material indenture, material agreement or other material instrument, including, without limitation, the Senior Note Indenture and any Additional Senior Indenture, binding upon any Loan Party or any of its Subsidiaries or the assets of any Loan Party or any of its Subsidiaries, or give rise to a right thereunder to require any material payment to be made by any Loan Party or any of its Subsidiaries, and (d) will not result in the creation or imposition of any Lien on any asset of any Loan Party or any of its Subsidiaries, except Liens created pursuant to the Loan Documents, and except, in the case of clauses (a) and (b) above, where such breach or the failure to take such action, could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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: This Agreement, including its exhibits, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous statements, representations, discussions, negotiations, and agreements, both oral and written.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No party may assign his, her or its rights or obligations hereunder, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the other parties, provided that Buyer may assign his rights to receive the Interests to an entity controlled by Buyer.

assistant: Assignments
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 a party properly submits the dispute to the aaa for formal arbitration and the aaa is unwilling or unable to set a hearing date within sixty ( 60 ) days of the filing of a `` demand for arbitration , '' then either party can elect to have the arbitration administered by the judicial arbitration and mediation services inc. ( `` jams '' ) using jams ' streamlined arbitration rules and procedures , or by any other arbitration administration service that you and a legal officer of linden lab consent to in writing , except , as noted above , that in no event shall the arbitration proceed as a class or representative action .

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 96 (1985) (emphasis in original). Recently, the Court has reiterated that “the express pre-emption provisions of ERISA are deliberately expansive, and designed to ‘establish pension plan regulation as exclusively a federal concern.’ ” Pilot Life, 481 U.S. at 45-46, 107 S.Ct. at 1552 (quoting Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 451 U.S. 504, 523, 101 S.Ct. 1895, 1906, 68 L.Ed.2d 402 (1981)). For these reasons, we find that Congress did intend ERISA to preempt claims that relate to an employee benefit plan even if the defendant is a nonfiduciary. Because ERISA preempts, the summary judgment is affirmed for all defendants. It is undisputed that none of the appellees are fiduciaries as defined under ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A). Thus, appellees cannot be sued to recove .D.Pa.1987) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Specifically, Gibson's first and second Options: A. holding that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction under the private cause of action provision of the act B. holding that the elements of a cause of action were not subject matter jurisdictional simply because the statute that created the cause of action provided that district courts shall have jurisdiction of such actions C. recognizing the cause of action D. holding that the premise underlying the action was that plaintiff was deceived by the words and actions of an employer the subject of the deception was pension benefits but that was only incidental and not essential to the cause of action E. holding that when defendant was guilty of burglary but the only evidence that he was armed was from his own statement existence of the firearm went only to the degree of the offense and was not as an element of proof

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the premise underlying the action was that plaintiff was deceived by the words and actions of an employer the subject of the deception was pension benefits but that was only incidental and not essential to the cause of action
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: claim be raised not only before trial, but in the period between the selection of the jurors and the administration of their oaths, is a sensible rule.”). We also note that the fact that the rule we adopt is widely followed by other jurisdictions — both federal and state — that have considered this issue. See, e.g., Morning v. Zapata Protein (USA), Inc., 128 F.3d 213, 216 (4th Cir.1997) (noting that most of the federal circuits have taken the cue from Ford and “requir[ed] Batson challenges to be raised, at the latest, before the venire is excused”); McCrory, 82 F.3d at 1247 (“The Court’s discussion in Batson, however, makes clear that it envisioned an objection raised during the jury selection process.” (emphasis added)); State v. Ford, 2001 MT 230, ¶ 30, 306 Mont. 517, 39 P.3d 108 (<HOLDING>). We are aware of no case in any jurisdiction, Options: A. holding that a batson challenge is not timely if the jury has been sworn and the venire dismissed and observing that sjeveral jurisdictions have closely analyzed batsons language and concluded that the us supreme court envisioned that a batson challenge must be made before the jury is sworn while citing numerous state decisions barring batson objections after the jury is sworn and the venire is dismissed B. holding that while batson claim was waived derivative claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the batson claim is cognizable under the pcra C. holding batson challenge untimely because objection made after all jurors were sworn D. holding that defendants batson claim was strongly discounted by the fact that three africanamerican jurors were sworn in E. holding batson claim untimely because it was not made before the jury or the last juror including the alternates is sworn but remanding for new trial in interests of justice

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a batson challenge is not timely if the jury has been sworn and the venire dismissed and observing that sjeveral jurisdictions have closely analyzed batsons language and concluded that the us supreme court envisioned that a batson challenge must be made before the jury is sworn while citing numerous state decisions barring batson objections after the jury is sworn and the venire is dismissed
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: notwithstanding this , you agree that youtube shall still be allowed to apply for injunctive remedies ( or other equivalent types of urgent legal remedy ) in any jurisdiction .

assistant: Jurisdiction
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: name on grounds of hearsay. The district court overruled that objection, and Juarez-Gomez does not challenge the district court’s evidentiary rulings on appeal. Moreover, A.G. was repeatedly referred to as Juarez-Gomez’s son, or as "Junior,” at trial with no objection from Juarez-Gomez. (See J.A. 208-10, 211, 279.) 7 . We note the existence of a circuit split on the issue of whether a defendant must take affirmative steps to i abuse its discretion by declining to consider Erasto’s status as a deportable alien as a mitigating factor at sentencing. We also note that Erasto’s argument that his status as a deportable alien is a mitigating factor requiring a lesser sentence has been squarely rejected in other circuits. See United States v. Thavaraja, 740 F.3d 253, 262-63 (2d Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Morales-Uribe, 470 F.3d Options: A. holding that the courts statement that the sentence was sufficient and a greater sentence is not necessary did not contradict the requirements of 3553a B. holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of 3553a C. recognizing that district court may take into account adverse impact on incarceration caused by status as deportable alien D. holding that in determining an appropriate sentence under 3553a a district court may but not must take into account the uncertainties presented by the prospect of removal proceedings E. recognizing that while our reasonableness review may take into consideration the extent of the district courts deviation from the guidelines range we must give due deference to the district courts decision that the 3553a factors on a whole justify the extent of the variance

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that in determining an appropriate sentence under 3553a a district court may but not must take into account the uncertainties presented by the prospect of removal 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: If the Participant’s employment with the Company is terminated within a period of twenty-four (24) months following a Change in Control (i) by the Company other than for Cause or (ii) by the Participant for Good Reason (as such terms are defined herein below or in the Plan), the Restricted Stock Units shall become immediately and fully vested and thereafter be considered Vested Units.

assistant: Change In Control
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 constitutes the entire agreement among the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and thereof and supersedes all other prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral, among the Parties or any of them with respect to the subject matter hereof and thereof, including without limitation the term sheet.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: kept in both arm and leg chains because of previous disruptive behavior and his mental health history. The trial court itself concluded that such steps would be prudent in light of defendant’s mental health history, his recent actions, and the concerns expressed by defense counsel. Ultimately, defendant’s trial counsel withdrew his request for additional restraints and the trial court agreed. Nevertheless, at the outset of trial, it was clear that neither defendant’s trial counsel nor the trial court knew whether defendant would comport himself properly during trial in light of his mental illnesses. Even though defendant mostly did not 180, 626 S.E.2d 838 (2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1081, 164 L.Ed. 2d 537 (2006); State v. Snipes, 168 N.C. App. 525, 530, 608 S.E.2d 381, 384 (2005) (<HOLDING>). Contrary to the State’s argument, the fact Options: A. holding that there was not substantial evidence of the defendants incompetence where his testimony though somewhat rambling showed that he was accurately oriented regarding his present circumstances and knew the offenses with which he was charged citation omitted B. holding that even though defendant stated he did not read and discuss psr with his counsel he could not show any error that affected his substantial rights C. holding that the district court did not err in continuing the trial without defendant when the trial had commenced in defendants presence he vigorously expressed his desire to be absent he was given ample opportunity to change his mind despite the disturbance he had created he had competent counsel and he knew of his right to be present D. holding that there was not substantial evidence of the defendants incompetence where the defendant and trial court engaged in a lengthy voluntariness colloquy wherein the defendants responses were lucid and responsive and the defendants testimony was largely rational E. holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that there was not substantial evidence of the defendants incompetence where his testimony though somewhat rambling showed that he was accurately oriented regarding his present circumstances and knew the offenses with which he was charged citation omitted
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: v. Satterfield, 167 F.3d 995, 1006-07 (6th Cir.1999), the court in Gregory explained that no new constitutional right was created, but rather that the cause of action was being “restyled” from a Fourteenth Amendment claim to one pursued under the Fourth Amendment, and should be analyzed accordingly. Gregory, 444 F.3d at 748-50; see also Pitt v. District of Columbia, 491 F.3d 494, 510-11 (D.C.Cir.2007) (summarizing cases from and joining with the majority of circuits that held “that malicious prosecution is actionable under the Fourth Amendment to the extent that the defendant’s actions cause the plaintiff to be ‘seized’ without probable cause”). Moreover, this applies to other individuals working for the police, and not just law enforcement officials. See Gregory, 444 F.3d at 749 n. 11 (<HOLDING>). Gregory also made clear that, even if a Options: A. holding that probable cause may be determined on basis of collective knowledge of police B. holding that in a 1983 action issue of probable cause is for the jury C. holding that a determination of probable cause does not bar a state law malicious prosecution claim where the claim is based on the police officers supplying false information to establish probable cause D. holding that a forensic examiner in the employ of the state police could be liable in a claim for continued detention without probable cause E. holding that detention for three hours in a checkpoint station required probable cause

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a forensic examiner in the employ of the state police could be liable in a claim for continued detention without probable cause
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: are properly before this court. See United States v. Murillo, 288 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir.2002) (explaining that arguments not first raised before the district court in a motion to suppress are waived). As to Rigby’s arguments rightly before us, the affidavit created probable cause to search the items listed in the warrant. See Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84, 107 S.Ct. 1013, 94 L.Ed.2d 72 (1987) (explaining that Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant be limited “to the specific areas and things for which there is probable cause to search”). In the alternative, even if the issuing judge clearly erred in determining that probable cause supported the warrant, the good faith exception applies. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the district court did not err in Options: A. holding exclusionary rule inapplicable to evidence obtained by police officers acting in reasonable reliance on search warrant later held invalid B. holding suppression of evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant is not required C. holding in the context of a non 212c iirira retroactivity challenge that if reliance were required we would insist at most upon objectively reasonable reliance and not subjective reliance D. holding that because evidence supporting search warrant was illegally obtained evidence recovered by executing warrant was fruit of the illegal search E. holding that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule should not bar the use of evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith and with reasonable reliance on a facially valid search warrant

assistant: The best answer is B. holding suppression of evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant is not required
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: issue with the analogy drawn between the district court’s order in this case and the granting of a motion for new trial. 307 S.W.3d at 271 (“The Company argues that the district court’s order should not be appealable because it was like granting a motion for new trial in a case, which is not appealable. But the analogy does not fit.”). Whether the Court can find a more fitting analogy is beside the point: both precedent and the statute itself direct us to treat much of the process as we would a civil trial, and “an order vacating an arbitration award and directing a rehearing is the functional equivalent of an order granting a new trial.” Stolhandske, 14 S.W.3d at 814; see also Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 263 S.W.3d 69, 75 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. granted) (<HOLDING>); Thrivent, 251 S.W.3d at 623 (same); Me. Dep’t Options: A. holding order granting motion to withdraw plea to be the functional equivalent of an order granting a new trial because like a postverdict mistrial it returns case to posture it had been before trial B. holding that an order remanding an arbitration award is not a final appealable order when the order does not also vacate the arbitration award C. holding that an order vacating an arbitration award and directing a rehearing is the functional equivalent of an order granting a new trial D. holding that order to vacate award and order new arbitration is the functional equivalent of an order granting a new trial and therefore not subject to direct appellate review quoting stothandske 14 sw3d at 814 E. holding that order vacating award and ordering rehearing is analogous to order granting new trial

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that order to vacate award and order new arbitration is the functional equivalent of an order granting a new trial and therefore not subject to direct appellate review quoting stothandske 14 sw3d at 814
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Without the prior written consent of the Company or except as may be required by applicable law or regulation, the Receiving Party and its Representatives shall not disclose to any person that any discussions or negotiations are taking place between the parties concerning a possible Transaction, including the content, timing and status of such discussions or negotiations (the “Discussion Information”).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Stock Appreciation Rights may be granted to Eligible Persons in such form and having such terms and conditions as the Committee shall deem appropriate. The provisions of separate Stock Appreciation Rights shall be set forth in separate SAR Agreements, which agreements need not be identical. No dividends or dividend equivalents shall be paid on Stock Appreciation Rights.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: capacity was well-established under Michigan law prior to Carpenter a. Michigan Court of Appeals Diminished capacity was first recognized as a defense in People v. Lynch, 47 Mich.App. 8, 208 N.W.2d 656 (1973), 28 years before Carpenter was decided. The court in Lynch held that the trial court erred in prohibiting the defendant charged with first-degree murder from presenting medical evidence “of diminished or partial responsibility.” Id. at 662; see also Carpenter, 627 N.W.2d at 281 (recognizing that Lynch “introduced to Michigan the diminished capacity defense” as a “defense separate from legal insanity”). Then, in 1975, the Michigan legislature enacted a statutory framework for the defense of insanity. See People v. Mangiapane, 85 Mich.App. 379, 271 N.W.2d 240, 246-49 (1978) (<HOLDING>). One of the newly enacted statutes codified Options: A. holding that 1975 public act nos 179 and 180 modified the rule established in lynch B. recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public C. recognizing rule D. holding district court need not make findings and conclusions as required by rule 52a because under rule 81a3 that requirement could be modified by issuing an order E. holding the right to record police activity on public property was not clearly established

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that 1975 public act nos 179 and 180 modified the rule established in lynch
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 Administrative Agent, with the consent of the Borrower, shall have the right to issue press releases regarding the making of the Loans and issuance of Letters of Credit and the Commitments to the Borrower pursuant to the terms of 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 following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 362 U.S. 216 80 S.Ct. 667 4 L.Ed.2d 667 George WILLISv.UNITED STATES. No. 546, Misc. Supreme Court of the United States March 21, 1960 George Willis, pro se. Solicitor General Rankin, for the United States. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Upon the suggestion of the Solicitor General that the case be remanded to the Court of Appeals in light of what we are informed is the present practice of that court 'to appoint an attorney in all cases in direct appeal where the trial judge's certificate of bad faith is attacked' the petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings.

assistant: 2
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Seller (i) shall keep its principal place of business, chief executive office and state of formation (as such terms are used in the UCC) and the office where it keeps its records concerning the Receivables at the address of the Seller set forth under its name on Schedule I to the Agreement or, upon at least thirty (30) days’ prior written notice of a proposed change to the Agent, at any other locations in jurisdictions where all actions reasonably requested by the Agent to protect and perfect the interest of the Purchaser in the Receivables and related items (including the Pool Assets) of the Agreement have been taken and completed and (ii) shall provide the Agent with at least sixty (60) days’ written notice prior to making any change in (A) the Seller’s name or making any other change in the Seller’s identity or company structure (including a merger) or (B) the Seller’s jurisdiction of formation. Each notice to the Agent pursuant to this sentence shall set forth the applicable change and the effective date thereof. The Seller and the Servicers also will maintain and implement administrative and operating procedures (including, without limitation, an ability to recreate records evidencing Receivables and related Contracts in the event of the destruction of the originals thereof), and keep and maintain all documents, books, records, computer tapes and disks and other information reasonably necessary or advisable for the collection of all Receivables in the ordinary course of business (including, without limitation, records adequate to permit the daily identification of each Receivable and all Collections of and adjustments to each Receivable). Without limiting the foregoing, each Servicer shall maintain adequate computer and other systems in order to service the Receivables.

assistant: Records
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: Participant acknowledges that the Award is subject to adjustment in the discretion of the Board (or any Committee to which administration of the Plan has been delegated by the Board) upon the occurrence of certain events as provided in this Agreement and Section 11 of the Plan.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: L.Ed.2d 574 (1995). To be sure, “ ‘simply putting a child on the stand, regardless of her mental maturity, is not sufficient to eliminate all Confrontation Clause concerns.’ ” Id. at 352 (quoting United States v. Spotted War Bonnet, 933 F.2d 1471, 1474 (8th Cir.1991)). Neither we nor the Supreme Court, however, has ever held that a witness’ loss of memory may be the basis for a Confrontation Clause violation. ’ “A witness’ lack of recollection does not constitute an inability to cross-examine.” United States v. Knox, 124 F.3d 1360, 1364 (10th Cir.1997). “Ordinarily, a witness is regarded as ‘subject to cross-examination’ when [s]he is placed on the stand, under oath, and responds willingly to questions.” United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 561, 108 S.Ct. 838, 98 L.Ed.2d 951 (1988) (<HOLDING>). The Confrontation Clause “guarantees only an Options: A. holding that admission of a witness prior identification statement where the witness could not remember the basis for the identification did not violate the confrontation clause or fedrevid 802 B. holding that the confrontation clause bars admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless the witness was unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity for crossexamination C. holding that witness had an independent basis to support incourt identification where the description made prior to any pretrial identification was substantially an accurate description of the defendant D. holding that where the opportunity for positive identification is good and not weakened by prior failure to identify and the witness is positive in his identification even after crossexamination identification need not be received with caution E. holding that the admission of prior testimony that had been subjected to crossexamination violated the confrontation clause because the state did not prove that the witness was unavailable

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that admission of a witness prior identification statement where the witness could not remember the basis for the identification did not violate the confrontation clause or fedrevid 802
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: (First) of Torts §§ 569 (libel), 570 (slander per se) (1938). Just as the common law permitted suit in such instances, the violation of a procedural right granted by statute can be sufficient in some circumstances to constitute injury in fact. In other words, a plaintiff in such a case need not allege any additional harm beyond the one Congress has identified.” Id. (emphasis in original). The Court then offered two examples: “Federal Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 20-25, 118 S.Ct. 1777, 141 L.Ed.2d 10 (1998) (confirming that a group of voters’ ‘inability to obtain information’ that Congress had decided to make-public is a sufficient injury in fact to satisfy Article- III),” and “Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 449, 109 S.Ct. 2558, 105 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989) (<HOLDING>).” Spokeo, 136 S.Ct. at 1549-50. Because the Options: A. holding that two advocacy organizations failure to obtain information subject to disclosure under the federal advisory committee act constitutes a sufficiently distinct injury to provide standing to sue B. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue C. holding that employers have standing to sue D. holding that an informational interest in allowing the public to evaluate the advocacy document is not sufficiently important to sustain compelled disclosure of an advocates identity on the document itself E. holding that beneficiaries of an estate lacked standing under rico to sue for an injury derivative of the estates injury

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that two advocacy organizations failure to obtain information subject to disclosure under the federal advisory committee act constitutes a sufficiently distinct injury to provide standing to sue