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: duties. Id. at 1465 (emphasis added). In support of his argument that he was replaced, Godfredson cites Tinker v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 127 F.3d 519 (6th Cir.1997). Tinker was terminated from his employment at Sears as part of a reduction in force. Shortly thereafter, an existing Sears employee assumed Tinker’s former duties. In changing the existing employee’s status from part-time to full-time, Sears had to “fundamentally change the nature of his employment ... in order to have him assume Tinker’s duties in addition to his own.” Id. at 522. This court held that the circumstances in Tinker were analogous to hiring a new employee to assume the duties of a discharged employee, and thus constituted replacement. See id.; see also Wilkins v. Eaton Corp., 790 F.2d 515, 521 (6th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). The district court in the present case noted Options: A. holding that reassignment is not required where the disabled plaintiff sought to escape the employers legitimate nondiscriminatory policy requiring all employees seeking transfers from parttime to fulltime positions to take a written exam B. holding that the plaintiff was replaced when another employee was promoted from parttime to fulltime and his new position required him to perform duties for which he had not previously been responsible C. holding plaintiff responsible for attorney error D. holding that the ada plaintiff was unable to perform essential functions of job when the plaintiffs psychotherapist had told the employer that the plaintiff was unable to work in any position when the plaintiff did not disagree with that point and when the plaintiff in response to a request for admission conceded that she was no longer able to work E. holding that a plaintiff would have to show that he was not promoted because of his race not that he was a member of a protected group and was not promoted

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the plaintiff was replaced when another employee was promoted from parttime to fulltime and his new position required him to perform duties for which he had not previously been responsible
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you may only connect to the fitbit service using ( i ) a device that is manufactured , distributed , or sold by fitbit itself or through its authorized resellers or agents ; ( ii ) our mobile applications and software , or approved third-party applications , software , or devices ; or ( iii ) our websites ( `` authorized connections '' ) .

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: the company parties do not warrant that the service will operate error free , or that the service and any content thereon ( including gifts ) are free of computer viruses or similar contamination or destructive features .

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: Any right of the Company contained in this Agreement may be waived in writing by the Committee. No waiver of any right hereunder by any party shall operate as a waiver of any other right , or as a waiver of the same right with respect to any subsequent occasion for its exercise, or as a waiver of any right to damages. No waiver by any party of any breach of this Agreement shall be held to constitute a waiver of any other breach or a waiver of the continuation of the same breach.

assistant: Waivers
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 set forth herein, neither this Agreement nor any of the rights, interests or obligations hereunder may be assigned by any party hereto, without the prior written consent of all of the other parties hereto.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: After the end of the Performance Period, the Committee administering any Performance Awards intended to constitute “performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m) of the Code shall certify the amount, if any, of the Performance Share Award otherwise payable to each Participant. The Committee (or other committee administering such awards) may, in its discretion, reduce the amount of a settlement otherwise to be made in connection with such Performance Share Awards but may not exercise discretion to increase any such amount payable to an employee who has received a Performance Share Award intended constitute “performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m) of the Code.

assistant: Forfeitures
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: Court held unconstitutional a California statute that targeted anyone who "loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place without apparent reason or business and who refuses to identify himself and to account for his presence when requested by any peace officer to do so, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety demands such identification," id. at 353 n. 1, and Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S.Ct. 839, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972), in which the Court invalidated a Florida vagrancy statute that criminalized the practice of “wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object.” Id. at 158 n. 1. But see United States v. Bee, 162 F.3d 1232, 1235-36 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Wiemerslage v. Maine Township High, 29 F.3d Options: A. holding to be constitutional a condition of supervised release that required that the offender not loiter within 100 feet of school yards parks playgrounds arcades or other places primarily used by children under the age of 18 B. holding that term of supervised release was not automatically terminated when defendant was deported from united states and thus defendants subsequent commission of another offense illegal reentry after deportation prior to expiration of term of supervised release violated condition of supervised release that defendant commit no new offenses C. holding that invitederror doctrine precludes defendant from challenging sentence of supervised release where defendant requested sentence of supervised release D. holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release E. holding that a sentencing court is required by 18 usc 3583g to revoke the defendants term of supervised release unless defendant could come under the exception in 18 usc 3583d

assistant: The best answer is A. holding to be constitutional a condition of supervised release that required that the offender not loiter within 100 feet of school yards parks playgrounds arcades or other places primarily used by children under the age of 18
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: Pursuant to Section 2.09 of the Credit Agreement and subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein and in reliance upon the representations and warranties set forth herein, the Administrative Agent and the Lenders signatory hereto hereby consent to the Termination Date Extension and agree that the definition of “Termination Date” in Section 1.01 of the Credit Agreement is hereby amended to delete the reference to “June 5, 2020” and insert a reference to “June 5, 2021” in lieu thereof. The Borrowers hereby agree that this Agreement constitutes the second of two initially permitted requests for a Termination Date extension under Section 2.09 of the Credit Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY MICHAEL R. MURPHY, Circuit Judge. This matter is before the court on Keith Frazier’s pro se requests for a certifícate of appealability (“COA”) and to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Frazier seeks a COA so he can appeal the district court’s dismissal, on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing no appeal may be taken from a “final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court” unless the petitioner first obtains a COA); Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 869 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). We grant Frazier’s motion to proceed on Options: A. holding that 2253c1a applies when a state habeas petitioner proceeds under 2241 B. holding that a 2241 petitioners claim was not cognizable under 2241 and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction C. holding 2253clas coa requirement applies to state prisoners proceeding under 2241 when the petition relates to any of the incidents and circumstances of any detention pursuant to state court process D. holding that a petitioner may not circumvent the requirements of the aedpa by filing a section 2241 petition E. holding that 2253clas requirements apply when a state habeas petitioner is proceeding under 2241

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that 2253clas requirements apply when a state habeas petitioner is proceeding under 2241
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: introduction of psychiatric testimony. It is true that in Mississippi, once the defendant raises a reasonable doubt as to his sanity, “the State bears the burden to prove [the defendant’s] sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.” Roundtree v. State, 568 So.2d 1173, 1181 (Miss.1990). But while we credit Crawford’s argument, this is a distinction without a difference. Satterwhite holds that harmless error analysis may apply even when the State has the burden to show a relevant mental state. See Satterwhite, 486 U.S. at 256-58, 108 S.Ct. 1792. Although this burden is a heavy one, this court must still consider whether the introduction of the psychiatric examination had a “substantial and injurious effect” on the State’s ability to carry that burden. Woods, 75 F.3d at 1027; see id. at 1027-1033 (<HOLDING>); see also Satterwhite, 486 U.S. at 258, 108 Options: A. holding that defendant bore burden of establishing right to summary judgment on basis of statute of repose defense B. holding that the introduction of a psychiatric examination was harmless even though the state bore the burden of establishing future dangerousness C. recognizing that the defendant bears the burden of establishing that plain error was prejudicial D. holding that in condemnation proceedings the landowner has the burden of establishing the value of the property E. holding that the plaintiff had the burden of establishing that he properly served an agent of the defendant

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the introduction of a psychiatric examination was harmless even though the state bore the burden of establishing future dangerousness
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: multiple instructions, “we think it more appropriate to examine the adequacy of the charge that was given”). That is, the bad result instruction sufficiently informed the jury that it could believe that Chesser simply had a bad result with the PEG tube or that the bad result could have been caused by his pre-existing conditions and instructed the jury that a bad result alone would not support a negligence finding against Ap-pellees. See id. at 430 (explaining that unavoidable accident instruction sufficiently informed jury of and submitted defendant’s sole proximate cause inferential rebuttal defense that fatal auto accident was not caused by defendant’s negligence but by presence of cattle on the roadway); Williams v. Viswanathan, 64 S.W.3d 624, 628-29 (Tex.App-Amarillo 2001, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Looking to the adequacy of the charge given, Options: A. holding that doctor who was contacted by patients treating physician to discuss treatment alternatives does not owe duty of care to patient whose case is discussed such as would support medical malpractice claim B. holding that evidence existed to support bad result instruction when doctor admitted that patients care worsened under his care but denied that he was negligent C. holding that although compliance with administrative safety regulations did not establish due care it was evidence of due care D. holding nurses were not entitled to official immunity where it was alleged that they failed to follow orders for a patients care given to them by a doctor E. holding claim that negligent supervision caused assault was health care liability claim because it was inseparable from the health care and nursing services provided

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that evidence existed to support bad result instruction when doctor admitted that patients care worsened under his care but denied that he was negligent
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 Amendment shall not constitute a novation of the Loan Agreement or any of the Loan Documents. Except as expressly stated herein, nothing contained herein shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of compliance with any term or condition contained in the Loan Agreement or any of the other Loan Documents or constitute a course of conduct or dealing among the parties. Except as expressly stated herein, Administrative Agent and the Lenders reserve all rights, privileges and remedies under the Loan Documents. Except as amended hereby, the Loan Agreement and other Loan Documents remain unmodified and in full force and effect. All references in the Loan Documents to the Loan Agreement shall be deemed to be references to the Loan Agreement as amended hereby.

assistant: No Waivers
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: All notices and other communications made or given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently made or given if hand delivered or mailed by certified mail, addressed to you at the address contained in the records of the Company, or addressed to the Board, care of the Company for the attention of its Corporate Secretary at its principal executive office or, if the receiving party consents in advance, transmitted and received via telecopy or via such other electronic transmission mechanism as may be available to the parties.

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: Except for the security interest granted to the Collateral Agent for the benefit of the Secured Parties pursuant to the Loan Documents and the Liens permitted to exist on such Grantor’s Collateral by the Loan Documents, such Grantor owns each item of Collateral material to its business, in all material respects, granted by it free and clear of any Liens (other than Liens permitted by Section 8.3 of the Credit Agreement). No financing statement or other public notice with respect to all or any part of the Collateral is on file or of record in any public office, except such as have been filed in favor of the Collateral Agent, for the benefit of the Secured Parties, pursuant to the Loan Documents or in respect of Liens that are permitted by the Loan Documents or that are otherwise permitted by Section 8.3 of the Credit Agreement or for which termination statements authorized by the appropriate parties will be filed on or about the Closing Date.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: recommendation when faced with a § 5K1.1 motion under the Sentencing Guidelines. Based on these absurd potential results, this Court rejects the reasoning in Singleton. This position is consistent with the conclusion reached by nearly all .district courts to have considered this issue. See, e.g., United States v. White, 27 F.Supp.2d 646, 647 (E.D.N.C.1998) (§ 201(c)(2) is inapplicable to government plea bargains designed to encourage witnesses to testify against other criminal defendants); United States v. Hammer, 25 F.Supp.2d 518, 535 (M.D.Pa.1998) (,Singleton was “an erroneous decision”); United States v. Juncal, 1998 WL 525800, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.20, 1998) (rejecting reasoning of the Tenth Circuit in Singleton); United States v. Gabourel, 9 F.Supp.2d 1246, 1247 (D.Col. Aug.17, 1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Guillaume, 13 F.Supp.2d Options: A. holding that the governments failure to produce original 302s did not violate the confrontation clause B. holding that the auuw statute did not violate the defendants second amendment rights C. holding that to violate a specific intent statute the defendant must act with the purpose of violating the law D. holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute E. holding that the agreements made with the governments witnesses did not violate the antigratuity statute

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the agreements made with the governments witnesses did not violate the antigratuity statute
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: Subject to Section 6.7(b), nothing contained herein shall prohibit or in any way limit the First Lien Administrative Agent or any other First Lien Claimholder from objecting in any Insolvency or Liquidation Proceeding or otherwise to any action taken by the Second Lien Collateral Trustee or any of the other Second Lien Claimholders, including the seeking by the Second Lien Collateral Trustee or any other Second Lien Claimholder of adequate protection or the asserting by the Second Lien Collateral Trustee or any other Second Lien Claimholder of any of its rights and remedies under the Second Lien Documents or otherwise.

assistant: No Waivers
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: be given their plain and common meaning. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.011(a) (Vernon 1989); Monsanto Co. v. Cornerstones Mun. Util. Dist., 865 S.W.2d 937, 939 (Tex.1993). If we substitute that definition into the statutory language, the statute reads that it applies to situations involving “the particular mode or state of being of a traffic or road sign, signal, or warning device.” It is fair to say that the “state of being” of the stop sign at issue in this case was that it was the subject of repeated vandalism. Thus, we hold that the condition of being the subject of repeated and extraordinarily frequent vandalism can be a condition for purposes of section 101.060(a)(2) liability. See also City of Baytown v. Peoples, 9 S.W.3d at 396-97 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Further, we find the evidence to be Options: A. holding that remedial scheme afforded by federal tort claims act was not exclusive absent explicit congressional declaration that it was B. holding that exclusive method for determining tort claims act liability for malfunctioning traffic signal was under 101060a2 C. holding that carmark act preempted state law claims including those for liability for payment of claims D. holding that this language applies to tort claims brought under the federal tort claims act against a contractor who has a selfdetermination contract E. holding section 101106f cannot be used by employees to obtain dismissal of common law intentional tort claims because those claims could not have been brought under the texas tort claims act

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that exclusive method for determining tort claims act liability for malfunctioning traffic signal was under 101060a2
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the parties hereto and their respective successors, assigns, including any direct or indirect successor by purchase, merger, consolidation or otherwise to all or substantially all of the business or assets of the Company, spouses, heirs, and personal and legal representatives. The Company shall require and cause any successor (whether direct or indirect by purchase, merger, consolidation or otherwise) to all, substantially all, or a substantial part, of the business or assets of the Company, by written agreement in form and substance satisfactory to the Officer, expressly to assume and agree to perform this Agreement in the same manner and to the same extent that the Company would be required to perform if no such succession had taken place. The indemnity provisions of this Agreement shall continue in effect regardless of whether the Officer continues to serve as an employee of the Company.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the proposed amendment or attach a copy of the proposed amendment.” See Long v. Satz, 181 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir.1999). This district's local rules require that a "motion for leave to file an amended pleading shall be accompanied by an original of the proposed amended pleading as amended.” LCvR 7(i). The defendants have met this requirement by lodging a pr uments that stem from the plaintiff’s assertion that the DOT is not the proper defendant to this action. 6 . Furthermore, the fact that res judicata “belongs to courts as well as to litigants” renders moot the plaintiffs argument that the defendants are barred from asserting res judicata here because they failed to do so in the Court of Federal Claims action. Stanton v. D.C. Court of Appeals, 127 F.3d 72, 77 (D.C.Cir.1997) Options: A. recognizing that in the interest of judicial economy res judicata may properly be raised by a district court sua sponte particularly where both actions are brought in the courts of the same district B. holding that the court can raise res judicata sua sponte even on appeal C. holding lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction is fundamental error that this court may properly raise and recognize sua sponte D. holding that a court can raise the issue of res judicata sua sponte in order to affirm a grant of summary judgment E. holding that a district court has the discretion to raise a 2254 timeliness consideration sua sponte

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the court can raise res judicata sua sponte even on appeal
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 lack good moral character, present false testimony, or misrepresent or conceal his criminal act. We disagree. The evidence is clear that Al-Aqaili failed to possess good moral character during the relevant statutory period. In his federal criminal case, Al-Aqaili entered a plea agreement in which he admitted to knowingly committing the crime of mail fraud, a crime Al-Aqaili admits began approximately one month prior to his application for naturalization and continued while his application was pending. Accordingly, Al-Aqaili committed the crime during the period in which he was required to possess good moral character, and it is of no consequence that his conviction occurred after he was already naturalized. See United States v. Jean-Baptiste, 395 F.3d 1190, 1191 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Al-Aqaili’s admission that he Options: A. holding that the state could not under any circumstances be charged for the delay during the period the defendant was held after his arrest for and until his conviction on felony charges in another jurisdiction B. holding that a naturalized citizen who committed certain unlawful acts during the statutory period prior to taking the oath of allegiance but for which he was indicted arrested and convicted after naturalization stands to lose his precious acquisition for lack of good moral character C. holding sorna inapplicable to a defendant who traveled during the gap period between enactment and issuance of the interim rule and was indicted on march 15 2007 D. holding that the defendant who was indicted for first degree rape and convicted of sexual battery had no remedy on appeal when he requested that the erroneous lesser nonincluded charge be submitted to the jury E. holding that the defendant could be convicted of sexual battery a lesser crime not included in the offense for which he was indicted where the defendant requested that sexual battery be submitted to the jury

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a naturalized citizen who committed certain unlawful acts during the statutory period prior to taking the oath of allegiance but for which he was indicted arrested and convicted after naturalization stands to lose his precious acquisition for lack of good moral character
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 Certificate shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Georgia, United States of America, regardless of the law that might be applied under principles of conflict of laws. Grantee hereby agrees and submits to jurisdiction in the state and federal courts of the State of Georgia and waives objection to such jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Pike v. South Carolina Dep’t of Transp., 343 S.C. 224, 234, 540 S.E.2d 87, 92 (2000). In our opinion, respondents’ proffered evidence was relevant to, and admissible on, the first required element of negligence — the District’s duty of care to respondents. See Bloom v. Ravoira, supra; Rules 401, 402, SCRE. We agree with Chief Judge Hearn’s observation that the trial court was under “the mistaken belief that the District must have adopted these national protocols before such evidence was admissible.” Elledge, 341 S.C. at 478, 534 S.E.2d at 291. As recognized by the Court of Appeals, the general rule is that evidence of industry safety standards is relevant to establishing the standard of care in a negligence case. See, e.g., McComish v. DeSoi 42 N.J. 274, 200 A.2d 116, 120-21 (1964) (<HOLDING>); Walheim v. Kirkpatrick, 305 Pa.Super. 590, Options: A. holding costs of providing power during construction delay were direct damages because contract provision specified that owner would provide electricity to construction site B. holding that construction safety manuals and codes were properly admitted as objective standards of safe construction C. holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine D. holding that numerical codes used to identify information and individuals as well as codes related to procedures concerning the use of law enforcement resources and databases and case program and access codes were properly withheld under exemption 7e E. holding that safety standards regarding the safe design and use of trampolines including astm standards were admissible on the issue of the defendants negligence even though the defendants were unaware of the standards

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that construction safety manuals and codes were properly admitted as objective standards of safe construction
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice or filing required or permitted to be given to the Committee shall be sufficient if in writing and hand delivered, or sent by registered or certified mail, to the principal office of EarthLink, directed to the attention of the President and CEO of EarthLink. Such notice shall be deemed given as of the date of delivery or, if delivery is made by mail, as of the date shown on the postmark on the receipt for registration or certification.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: claims. In that sense, proving the States’ claims does not necessarily depend on an interpretation of CRARA or any regulations enacted pursuant to CRARA. See, e.g., Bank of Am., 672 F.3d at 674-75 (rejecting removal of claims alleging violations of Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act even where they alleged that misrepresentations violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act); Glazer Capital Mgmt., LP v. Elec. Clearing House, Inc., 672 F.Supp.2d 371, 377 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (“That plaintiffs could have brought federal ... claims based on the factual allegations contained in the complaint is not sufficient to convert the state law claims [of fraud and negligent misrepresentation] into federal questions.”); Baker v. BDO Seidman, L.L.P., 390 F.Supp.2d 919, 925 (N.D.Cal.2005) (<HOLDING>). In arguing otherwise, S & P contends that, in Options: A. holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law B. holding that in the context of federal immigration law the amount of loss to the victim of fraud or deceit does not refer to an element of the fraud or deceit but rather refers to the particular circumstances in which an offender committed fraud or deceit C. holding that plaintiffs claims of fraud and deceit and all the other cognate claims derived therefrom are capable of being resolved on state law bases without the interpretation of federal law D. holding state law fraud and deceit claims to be preempted E. holding that state law fraud claims are preempted by the federal labor law duty of fair representation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that plaintiffs claims of fraud and deceit and all the other cognate claims derived therefrom are capable of being resolved on state law bases without the interpretation of federal law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: 5.6 airbnb may offer hosts the option of having professional photographers take photographs of their host services , which are made available by the photographer to hosts to include in their listings with or without a watermark or tag bearing the words `` airbnb.com verified photo '' or similar wording ( `` verified images '' ) .

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: probable cause and a considerably lower threshold than preponderance of the evidence); Gates, 462 U.S. at 244 n. 13, 103 S.Ct. 2317. Assuming that the dog is reliable, a dog sniff resulting in an alert on a container, car, or other item, standing alone, gives an officer probable cause to believe that there are drugs present. United States v. Sundby, 186 F.3d 873, 875-76 (8th Cir.1999). In finding sufficient the affidavit at issue in Sundby, we declared that “[in order to establish the dog’s reliability,] the affidavit need only state the dog has been trained and certified to detect drugs.... An affidavit need not give a detailed account of the dog’s track record or education.” Id. at 876 (citations omitted). Such statements only establish the affidavit’s facial validity, however. Id. (<HOLDING>). Because Baron’s performance record raises Options: A. holding a defendant is not entitled to a franks hearing without making a substantial preliminary showing that defect in the affidavit is material B. holding that each plaintiff is liable for fees if he would have been entitled to his fees if he had prevailed C. holding that the defendant had consented where he allowed the police officers into his apartment building and allowed the officers to follow him into his apartment without impediment or objection to the entry of the police D. holding that the defendant would have been entitled to a franks hearing had he shown that officers withheld negative information casting into doubt the dogs reliability E. holding that a defendant deprived of an opportunity to impeach an eyewitness by the governments failure to disclose documents that cast serious doubt on significant portions of her testimony was not entitled to relief because he had not shown that there is a reasonable probability that his conviction or death sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the defendant would have been entitled to a franks hearing had he shown that officers withheld negative information casting into doubt the dogs reliability
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: notebook was open, Special Agent Itnyre testified that the other books appeared to be of a similar nature, and the fact that they were partially located under the couch created reasonable suspicion that they contained evidence. (See Hr’g, Gov. Ex. 16.); see United States v. Issacs, 708 F.2d 1365, 1370 (9th Cir.1983); cf. Whitten, 706 F.2d at 1013 (“There was nothing facially incriminating about the closed notebook from which the DEA agents could reasonably have concluded that it might contain evidence of crime.”). In conjunction, all of this information gave Special Agent Itnyre probable cause to believe that all the notebooks and papers, not just those where writing was visible, were associated with criminal activity. See United States v. Whitten, 706 F.2d 1000, 1013 (9th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>) implied overruling on other grounds recognized Options: A. holding that the search of a balloon was justified under the plain view exception where the contraband nature of the balloon was immediately apparent to the officer who seized it B. holding that the incriminating nature of an item was immediately apparent where the police officers had probable cause to believe that it contained evidence of a crime C. holding that the plain view exception justified the seizure of a tablet of paper that was open to a page reading move cars to new place calls sammy roscoe 10 gallons big glass beads 60 degree adaptor the incriminating nature of which was readily apparent in the context of an investigation into largescale methamphetamine manufacture and distribution operation D. holding seizure of evidence in plain view reasonable under fourth amendment E. holding that the fourth amendment permits seizure of property in plain view where 1 the officer has a lawful right to access the object itself and 2 the propertys incriminating character is immediately apparent

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the plain view exception justified the seizure of a tablet of paper that was open to a page reading move cars to new place calls sammy roscoe 10 gallons big glass beads 60 degree adaptor the incriminating nature of which was readily apparent in the context of an investigation into largescale methamphetamine manufacture and distribution operation
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 in the case of the Mandatory Forum Selection Clause in Section 5.4 above, which clause shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with Florida law, this Agreement shall be delivered and accepted in and shall be deemed to be a contract made under and governed by the internal laws of the State of Nevada, and for all purposes shall be construed in accordance with the laws of such State, without giving effect to the choice of law provisions of such State.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect or as set forth in Schedule 2.28 , (a) the Company and each of its Subsidiaries owns, or possesses adequate rights to use, all Intellectual Property that are used or held for use in or are otherwise reasonably necessary for the present conduct of their respective businesses, (b) to the Company’s Knowledge, the Company and its Subsidiaries are not interfering with, infringing upon, misappropriating or otherwise violating Intellectual Property of any Person, and (c) (i) no claim or litigation regarding any of the Intellectual Property owned by the Company and its Subsidiaries is pending or, to the Company’s Knowledge, threatened and (ii) to the Company’s Knowledge, no claim or litigation regarding any other Intellectual Property described in Section 2.28 and Section 2.28 is pending or threatened.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any Lender may at any time, without the consent of, or notice to, the Borrower or the Administrative Agent, sell participations to any Person (other than a natural Person, or a holding company, investment vehicle or trust for, or owned and operated for the primary benefit of a natural Person, a Defaulting Lender or the Borrower or any of the Borrower’s Affiliates or Subsidiaries) (each, a “ Participant ”) in all or a portion of such Lender’s rights and/or obligations under this Agreement (including all or a portion of its Commitment and/or the Loans (including such Lender’s participations in L/C Obligations and/or Swing Line Loans) owing to it); provided that (i) such Lender’s obligations under this Agreement shall remain unchanged, (ii) such Lender shall remain solely responsible to the other parties hereto for the performance of such obligations and (iii) the Borrower, the Administrative Agent, the Lenders and the L/C Issuer shall continue to deal solely and directly with such Lender in connection with such Lender’s rights and obligations under this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, each Lender shall be responsible for the indemnity under Section 10.04(c) without regard to the existence of any participation.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: alleged, and thus the indictment was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the district court. See Teal v. State, 230 S.W.3d 172, 180 (Tex.Crim.App.2007). Point of error one is overruled. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. 1 . In this case, the trial court's jury charge included an instruction on unanimity that paraphrased section 21.02(d). Then, in applying the law to the facts, the court authorized appellant’s conviction if the jury found that he committed two or more of the acts of sexual abuse alleged in the indictment, with no requirement that the jurors agree as to which acts he committed. Appellant does not contend that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction pursuant to this charge. 2 . See, e.g., Pizzo v. State, 235 S.W.3d 711, 719 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (<HOLDING>); Vick v. State, 991 S.W.2d 830, 833 Options: A. holding that touching anus and touching genitals are separate offenses under penal code section 2211a1 B. holding even though appellants two acts may have been committed during the same occurrence appellants touching of the victims genitals with his finger was a separate and distinct criminal act from touching her genitals with his penis C. holding that statute which defined sexual contact as any touching of the anus breast or any part of the genitals of another person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person was not vague D. holding that the first charging phrase of section 505 is unconstitutionally vague as applied where it was not clear whether touching a minors genitals through her pants constituted sexual conduct as defined by the statute E. holding defendants double jeopardy rights were not violated by his punishment for both aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child because the evidence at trial showed he committed two separate acts penetrating the victims sexual organ with his finger and touching her genitals with his tongue that constituted two separate offenses

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that touching anus and touching genitals are separate offenses under penal code section 2211a1
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 Employee’s obligations under this Agreement shall survive the termination of the Employee’s employment with the Company regardless of the manner of, or circumstances surrounding, such termination, and shall be binding upon the Employee’s heirs, executors, administrators and legal representatives.

assistant: Survival
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: was not defendant’s dwelling house or usual place of abode where defendant had permanently left address approximately ten months before service, and therefore service was defective); Mills v. Coil, 647 N.E.2d 679, 680-81 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (concluding that service to defendant’s mother’s home did not comply with Trial Rule 4.1, where defendant had moved out of mother’s home three months earlier with no intention of returning, and stating, "Service upon a defendant’s former residence is insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction.”), trans. denied; but cf. Grecco v. Campbell, 179 Ind.App. 530, 533-34, 386 N.E.2d 960, 962 (1979) (concluding that address to which summons and complaint were delivered was defendant's dwelling house or usual place of abod .E.2d 187, 190 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (<HOLDING>). Here, at the hearing the trial court made no Options: A. holding that absent evidence that claimant took affirmative steps after filing va form 19 substantive appeal to bva to change address he provided on it bva was entitled to rely on that address as being his last known address under 38 usc 7104e and to use it for purposes of mailing copy of its decision B. holding service not defective where debtor had failed to notify court of his new address C. holding that rule 415f worked to cure deficiencies in service of process in action to enforce a judgment lien on real estate where service was provided at debtors last residential address known to lienholder because address was used during underlying lawsuit lienholders attorney checked county record to verify address information debtor did receive summons and residential address was on the former situs of debtors business D. holding pursuant to bankruptcy rule 7004b9 that because the creditor mailed the complaint and summons to the debtors attorney and to the address listed in the debtors bankruptcy petition service of process was sufficient even if the debtors were out of the country and did not actually receive notice of the complaint and summons E. holding that service to defendants business address resulted in total failure to serve process rather than mere technical defect and thus could not be cured by rule 415f

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that rule 415f worked to cure deficiencies in service of process in action to enforce a judgment lien on real estate where service was provided at debtors last residential address known to lienholder because address was used during underlying lawsuit lienholders attorney checked county record to verify address information debtor did receive summons and residential address was on the former situs of debtors business