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: and 23153 are all included in a division of the vehicle code entitled “Sentencing for Driving While Under the Influence,” Cal. Veh.Code Div. 11.5, and that all three offenses share as an available punishment completion of an educational “driving under the influence” program. See Cal. Veh. Code §§ 23502(a), 23538(b), 23556(b)(1). That California’s lawmakers so frequently lump together consequences for driving under the influence and violations of section 23140 suggests that the legislature perceives a violation of that section as more serious than a juvenile status offense. It also suggests that section 23140 is not a mere status offense, but part of the state’s scheme for regulating driving under the influence. See also United States v. Gomez-Leon, 545 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Review of 1986 Selected California Options: A. recognizing a hypothetical situation where california law left a party free to sue on a claim in maryland even after the claim was precluded in california because the california statute of limitations had expired B. holding that the ninth circuit is bound by the california supreme courts interpretation of california law C. recognizing that under california law violating section 23140 is equivalent to driving a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol in violation of the california vehicle code D. holding that assault conviction for driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and causing serious bodily injury to the person of another with the motor vehicle qualified as a crime of violence under ussg 4b12a E. holding that to be convicted under dwi statute a person must be driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle but motion of the vehicle is not necessary

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that under california law violating section 23140 is equivalent to driving a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol in violation of the california vehicle code
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to redistribute Falczynski’s work to the other data entry operator. The other data operator testified, however, that she had difficulty completing the work normally performed by Falczynski, in addition to performing her normal assignment. Rode also had to pull an associate off of her position to fill in when Falczynski was gone. This arrangement in turn disrupted the associate’s ability to perform her regular assignment. Further, Rode testified that in May and June 1990, Falczynski was absent at a critical time, during the final weeks of the month when the department is responsible for closing accounts. As her work had to be completed by other employees, Falczynski’s chronic absenteeism plainly prevented her from performing the essential functions of her job. Indeed 7 (8th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Santiago v. Temple Univ., 739 F.Supp. 974, Options: A. holding that res judicata properly barred claims based on an employers decision to terminate an employee because the termination was not a fresh act of discrimination rather it was the same decision not to allow the employee to return to work that the employee had challenged previously B. holding that the district court erred in failing to consider all of the employers proffered evidence of legitimate business reasons for the plaintiffs termination C. holding employer cannot lawfully make the signing of an employment agreement which contains an unenforceable covenant not to compete a condition of continued employment an employers termination of an employee who refuses to sign such an agreement constitutes a wrongful termination in violation of public policy D. holding that although the plaintiff was a problem employee and eventually may have been terminated for that reason the immediate cause of his termination was the osha report E. holding attendance problem was a legitimate basis for an employers termination of an employee

assistant: The best answer is E. holding attendance problem was a legitimate basis for an employers termination of an employee
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 may be executed by one or more of the parties to this Agreement on any number of separate counterparts (including by facsimile and other electronic transmission), and all of such counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: set in the district court’s scheduling order. Moreover, the facts with which Kendall wished to amend his complaint were known to Kendall at the time he filed his initial complaint. See Sosa, 133 F.3d at 1419 (providing that a relevant factor in finding that a court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend was that “the information supporting the proposed amendment to the complaint was available to [the plaintiff] even before she filed suit”). Because Kendall failed to establish good cause for why leave to amend should be granted, and because the district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend. See Smith v. School Bd. of Orange Cnty., 487 F.3d 1361, 1366-67 (11th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s Options: A. holding that we must first determine our jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of the appeal B. holding that the court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must first determine whether the plaintiff states a claim of a constitutional violation at all and then must determine whether the claimed right was clearly established before proceeding to the qualified immunity question C. holding that a court may deny leave to amend when the moving party had the opportunity to amend earlier but waited after judgment to do so D. holding that where a party files an untimely motion to amend we must first determine whether the party complied with rule 16bs good cause requirement before considering whether justice so requires allowing an amendment E. holding a motion is untimely if not filed after the party has knowledge to support disqualification and after the party suffers an adverse ruling

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that where a party files an untimely motion to amend we must first determine whether the party complied with rule 16bs good cause requirement before considering whether justice so requires allowing an amendment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the doctrine of nominative fair use operates to deprive Plaintiffs of their trademark claims. e. Dilution and contributory infringement. The first sale and nominative fair use doctrines bar Plaintiffs’ dilution and contributory trademark infringement claims. For the dilution claims, the bar is straightforward. See 15 U.S.C. 1125(c) (providing that nominative fair use is not actionable as dilution by blurring or tarnishment). And since Plaintiffs have not successfully alleged any predicate acts of trademark infringement by SBR users, SBR may not be liable for contributory infringement. See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa International Service Association, 494 F.3d 788, 807 (9th Cir.2007) (quoting Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 855, 102 S.Ct. 2182, 72 L.Ed.2d 606 (1982)) (<HOLDING>). 4. State Law Claims against SBR Plaintiffs Options: A. holding that actual confusion though not required is the best evidence supporting trademark infringement B. recognizing nominative fair use as an affirmative defense to trademark infringement C. holding that the continued use of licensed trademark after termination of franchise agreement constituted trademark infringement and breach of contract D. holding that although the underlying action is one for trademark infringement the infringement occurred as a result of the underlying defendants use of the trademark in their advertising E. holding that contributory trademark infringement requires some predicate act of infringement

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that contributory trademark infringement requires some predicate act of infringement
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: 485 U.S. 175 108 S.Ct. 1101 99 L.Ed.2d 150 TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., Petitionerv.INDEPENDENT FEDERATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS. No. 86-1650 Supreme Court of the United States March 2, 1988 Rehearing Denied March 6, 1989. See 489 U.S. 1072, 109 S.Ct. 1358. On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is affirmed by an equally divided Court. 2 Justice KENNEDY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

assistant: 7
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 with respect to the material terms and conditions of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, the Company confirms that neither it nor any other Person acting on its behalf has provided any Investor or its agents or counsel with any information that it believes constitutes or might constitute material, non-public information. The Company understands and confirms that the Investors will rely on the foregoing representation in effecting transactions in securities of the Company. All of the disclosure furnished by or on behalf of the Company to the Investors regarding the Company and its Subsidiaries, their respective businesses and the transactions contemplated hereby, including the Disclosure Schedules to this Agreement, is true and correct and does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The press releases disseminated by the Company during the twelve months preceding the date of this Agreement taken as a whole do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made and when made, not misleading. The Company acknowledges and agrees that the Investors do not make nor has made any representations or warranties with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby other than those specifically set forth in Section 6 hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: policy sets forth specific examples of contaminants and/or irritants: ‘smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste.’ According to the principle of ejusdem generis, the proper construction of the term ‘pollutant’ is therefore ‘restricted’ to contaminants and irritants which are ‘of the same kind, class, or nature’ as the specific examples listed. [Citations.] Defendants argue that the use of the word ‘including’ before the specific examples means that the definition of ‘pollutants’ should not be limited to substances which are similar to the specified examples. However, the use of the word ‘including’ does not affect the application of the ejusdem generis doctrine. County of Yolo v. Los Rios Community College Dist, 5 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1254 [7 Cal.Rptr.2d 647] (1992) (<HOLDING>).” (Tsakopoulos, supra, 2003 WL 22595248 at p. Options: A. holding that the term include but need not be limited to does not preclude the application of the ejusdem generis principle B. holding that the cwa does not include a remedial scheme sufficient to preclude an ex parte young action C. holding that when a term is defined in the statute it need not be further alleged in the indictment D. recognizing principle E. recognizing same principle

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the term include but need not be limited to does not preclude the application of the ejusdem generis principle
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: Following the Closing , each of the parties hereto shall, and shall cause their respective Affiliates , as the case may be, to, execute and deliver such additional documents, instruments, conveyances and assurances and take such further actions as may be reasonably required to carry out the provisions hereof and give effect to the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and the other Transaction Documents , including the effective transfer of all Assigned Contracts.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Financial Institution and each Managing Agent agrees to reimburse and indemnify the Agent and its officers, directors, employees, representatives and agents ratably based on the ratio of each such indemnifying Financial Institution’s commitment to the aggregate Commitment (or, in the case of an indemnifying Managing Agent, ratably based on the Commitment(s) of each Financial Institution in such Managing Agent’s Purchaser Group to the aggregate Commitment), to the extent not paid or reimbursed by the Seller Parties (i) for any amounts for which the Agent, acting in its capacity as Agent, is entitled to reimbursement by the Seller Parties hereunder and (ii) except with respect to any expenses arising out of the willful misconduct or gross negligence of the Agent (to the extent a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction holds that the Agent was grossly negligent or engaged in willful misconduct), for any other expenses incurred by the Agent, in its capacity as Agent and acting on behalf of the Purchasers, in connection with the administration and enforcement of this Agreement and the other Transaction Documents.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: law partner represented codefendants who testified for the prosecution, was sufficiently similar “to the typical multiple representation case to warrant application of the same principles and analysis”); People v. Grigsby, 47 Ill.App.3d 812, 820, 8 Ill.Dec. 243, 248, 365 N.E.2d 481, 486 (1977) (“the disqualification of one partner from a case disqualifies his copartners”); The People v. Stoval, 40 Ill.2d 109, 112-113, 239 N.E.2d 441, 443-444 (1968); State v. Lem’Mons, 238 Kan 1, 8-10, 705 P.2d 552, 556-557 (1985) (a conflict of interest existed where the husband, in a husband and wife law firm, represented one codefendant while the wife represented the other, and the codefendants attempted to implicate each other); Commonwealth v. Hodge, 386 Mass. 165, 169, 434 N.E.2d 1246, 1248 (1982) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Geraway, 364 Mass. 168, Options: A. holding that it was immaterial for conflict of interest purposes whether one attorney or two attorneys in the same firm represented the witness and the defendant B. holding that when two executives of the same firm make a decision to discriminate in furtherance of the purposes of the business this decision cannot be called a conspiracy for purposes of 1985 C. holding that defense counsel suffered from an actual conflict of interest in representing two codefendants because had the attorney not been facing a conflict of interest he might have been able to negotiate a plea agreement on one defendants behalf in return for becoming a prosecution witness against the eodefendant D. recognizing the conflict E. holding the burden of proving that a conflict of interest rises to the level of ineffective assistance rests on the one asserting the conflict

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that it was immaterial for conflict of interest purposes whether one attorney or two attorneys in the same firm represented the witness and the defendant
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: EACH PARTY HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN RESPECT OF ANY CLAIM, DEMAND, ACTION OR CAUSE OF ACTION DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT AND ANY OF THE TRANSACTION AGREEMENTS DELIVERED IN CONNECTION HEREWITH AND THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY OR THEREBY OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH OR RELATED OR INCIDENTAL TO THE DEALINGS OF THE PARTIES IN RESPECT OF THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OF THE TRANSACTIONS RELATED HERETO, IN EACH CASE WHETHER NOW EXISTING OR HEREAFTER ARISING, AND WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT, EQUITY OR OTHERWISE. EACH PARTY HEREBY FURTHER AGREES AND CONSENTS THAT ANY SUCH CLAIM, DEMAND, ACTION OR CAUSE OF ACTION SHALL BE DECIDED BY COURT TRIAL WITHUOT A JURY AND THAT THE PARTIES MAY FILE AN ORIGINAL COUNTERPART OF A COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT WITH ANY COURT AS WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES TO THE WAIVER OF THEIR RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY. EACH PARTY CERTIFIES AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT (A) NO REPRESENTATIVE, AGENT OR ATTORNEY OF ANY OTHER PARTY HAS REPRESENTED, EXPRESSLY OR OTHERWISE, THAT SUCH OTHER PARTY WOULD NOT, IN THE EVENT OF LITIGATION, SEEK TO ENFORCE SUCH WAIVER, (B) IT UNDERSTANDS AND HAS CONSIDERED THE IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH WAIVER, (C) IT MAKES SUCH WAIVER VOLUNTARILY, AND (D) IT HAS BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATIONS IN THIS SECTION 6.10 .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: noted that “failure to raise a particular ground in support of a motion to suppress constitutes a waiver of that challenge,” it “recognized an exception to this rule where the issue not raised in the trial court does not affect or rely on the factual record developed by the parties.” Other courts have gone further, holding untimely claims under Rule 12 were completely barred absent good cause, without apparent reliance on whether the record was sufficiently developed. In United States v. Sobin, for instance, the D.C. Circuit Court held that the defendant waived his right to seek suppression by waiting (without cause) until after the district court’s motion deadline to assert it. 56 F.3d 1423, 1427 (D.C.Cir.1995); see also United States v. Hewlett, 395 F.3d 458, 460-61 (D.C.Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, in United States v. Neumann our Options: A. holding issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal B. holding that where an issue is raised in the district court but raised late and the district court declines to deem the issue waived the issue may be raised on appeal C. holding that suppression issue not raised to the district court was waived under rule 12 D. holding an issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal E. holding that suppression issue was waived under rule 12 but then noting that the court did not find plain error in the district courts admission of the evidence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that suppression issue not raised to the district court was waived under rule 12
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution, interpretation and performance of this Agreement, and any disputes with respect to the transactions contemplated by this Agreement shall be governed by the internal laws and judicial decisions of the State of California, without regard to principles of conflicts of laws. Each party consents to submit itself to personal jurisdiction of (i) the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in the event any dispute arises out of this Agreement or any of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement to the extent such court would have subject matter jurisdiction with respect to such dispute and (ii) the courts of California otherwise.

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: Executive’s rights to the Severance Benefits or Disability Benefits (defined below), as applicable, are conditioned upon Executive executing and not revoking the Company’s standard severance agreement in effect at the time of Executive’s termination (or, if earlier, immediately prior to the closing date of any transaction which constitutes a Change in Control under this Agreement), which includes a general release of claims against the Company and its affiliates (the “ Release ”), within the time periods set forth therein. Any payment of Severance Benefits or Disability Benefits due for the period after termination and before the Release becomes effective and irrevocable shall be paid with the first payment after the Release becomes irrevocable. If the period during which Executive has discretion to execute or revoke the Release straddles two calendar years, the Company shall make payments conditioned on the Release no earlier than January 1 of the second calendar year, regardless of the year in which the Release becomes irrevocable.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: when you use amazon services , or send e-mails , text messages , and other communications from your desktop or mobile device to us , you may be communicating with us electronically .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower shall use the proceeds of the Advances and Letters of Credit for working capital and other general corporate purposes of the Borrower, provided that the Borrower will not use any proceeds for the purpose of purchasing or carrying directly or indirectly any margin stock or for any other purpose which would constitute this transaction a “purpose credit” within the meaning of Regulation U.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Plaintiffs allege that they have an interest under the NHPA in preserving the historical quality of the areas named in the first amended complaint. Plaintiffs also allege that the USFS violated prior agreements by not seeking plaintiffs’ comments and by ignoring plaintiffs’ input before undertaking the activities that allegedly damaged the cultural value of the affected areas. These general factual allegations, if sufficient to state a claim, are sufficient to show injury-in-fact. See Bennett, 520 U.S. at 168, 117 S.Ct. 1154 (“on a motion to dismiss, we presume that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim” (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130)); see also Mont. Wilderness Ass’n v. Fry, 310 F.Supp.2d 1127, 1151 (D.Mont.2004) (<HOLDING>). 2. Sovereign Immunity Defendants further Options: A. holding that the plaintiff could not show surprise when the plaintiff had received the additional terms from the defendant prior to the agreement B. holding that plaintiff had not stated an equal protection claim where plaintiff had not alleged that the defendant treated him differently from anyone else who both had problems with alcohol and had been arrested C. holding so where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had colluded to claim falsely that the plaintiffs physician had informed the claims adjuster that the plaintiff had been released to work and where the plaintiff was later discharged from employment and denied workers compensation benefits D. holding that the burden is on the plaintiff E. holding that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged injuryinfact based on impact to sites that the plaintiff had visited in the past and planned to revisit each year in the future

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged injuryinfact based on impact to sites that the plaintiff had visited in the past and planned to revisit each year in the future
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: Initiatives was aware of Gretillat's kneeling, crouching and squatting limitations because, after Gretillat’s fitness-for-duty exam, Paca reported to Care Initiatives that Gretillat stated “that given her right total knee replacement it is contraindicated for her to kneel, crouch or squat and she admits to me that ... she cannot do this today.” Such an argument would fail for two reasons: (1) Paca’s report does not indicate that Gretillat had a permanent or long-term limitation, see Williams, 534 U.S. at 198, 122 S.Ct. 681 ("The impairment’s impact must ... be permanent or long term.”) (citing 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(j)(2)(ii)-(iii) (2001)), and (2) Care Initiatives was entitled to rely on Dr. Fehrle's correspondence, which indicated no such problems, see, e.g., Alexander, 321 F.3d at 727 (<HOLDING>). It is also unclear whether squatting, Options: A. holding employer justified in relying upon plaintiffs physician B. holding physician in action based on illegal cavity search to standard of a reasonable physician C. holding employer was entitled to rely and act upon the written advice from the employees physician D. recognizing physician assistant as agent of the supervising physician E. holding physician entitled to recover attorneys fees actually paid by malpractice insurer because physician was personally liable in the first instance

assistant: The best answer is A. holding employer justified in relying upon plaintiffs physician
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: absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b); United States v. Sanders, 343 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir.2003). Evidence of “motive” is thus relevant in that it helps establish that Joshua had a reason to commit the charged offense. See e.g., United States v. Benton, 637 F.2d 1052, 1056-57 (5th Cir.1981) (upholding admissibility of prior murders where relevant to show defendant’s motive for charged murder). “Motive has been defined as ‘the reason that nudges the will and prods the mind to indulge the criminal intent.’ ” Id. at 1056 (citing Beechum, 582 F.2d at 911 n. 15); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 1039 (8th ed. 2004) (“Motive” is “[something ... that leads one to act.”). The extrinsic act evidence need not be similar to the charged offense when the ex r.2003) (<HOLDING>). Joshua’s concurrent statement that he dealt Options: A. holding that in a prosecution for lurking evidence of a prior act of lewdness by defendant was admissible to establish motive B. holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial C. holding defendant made motive issue in drug conspiracy prosecution by advancing theory he was conducting investigation of drug dealing D. holding evidence of defendants prior drug use and heroin addiction admissible to establish defendants motive to commit robbery E. holding evidence of drug dealing at house where defendant was arrested admissible in feloninpossessionoffirearm prosecution to establish defendant had motive to carry weapon

assistant: The best answer is E. holding evidence of drug dealing at house where defendant was arrested admissible in feloninpossessionoffirearm prosecution to establish defendant had motive to carry weapon
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: 519 U.S. 1117 S. Ct. 378136 L. Ed. 2d 1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VIETNAMESE ASYLUM SEEKERS, INC., ET AL No. 95-1521 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October 21, 1996 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further consideration in light of Section 633 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRA) (enacted as Division C of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996)).

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Constitution does not — by any means — guarantee that no inmate executed in Florida will suffer, it does guarantee that none will be needlessly brutalized or mutilated. KOGAN, C.J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur. 8 . See ch. 9169, § 2 at 175, Laws of Fla. (1923) ("On and after January 1st, A.D.1924, death by hanging as a means of punishment for crime in Florida is hereby abolished and electrocution, or death by electricity substituted therefor.”) 9 . See, e.g., Buenoano v. State, 565 So.2d 309, 315 (Fla.1990) (Kogan, J., dissenting): This statement [concerning the makeshift nature of the chair] was confirmed by the man who actually fabricated the Army-boot electrode, Robin Adair. Adair stated that, while working at the prison, he created the present Army-boot elect 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977) (<HOLDING>); and the denial of basic rights to prisoners, Options: A. holding cruel and unusual punishment complaint not preserved B. holding that the fact that defendant spent years on death row awaiting execution does not render the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment C. holding the death penalty disproportionately cruel and unusual when imposed for the crime of rape D. holding the death penalty disproportionately cruel and unusual when imposed for aiding and abetting a robbery resulting in murder E. holding the death penalty excessive punishment for the crime of rape

assistant: The best answer is C. holding the death penalty disproportionately cruel and unusual when imposed for the crime of rape
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: Executive agrees not to engage in any conduct, or make any statement in any form, that may disparage, defame, or otherwise diminish the reputation of Affinity, the Board Shareholders, and their respective affiliates, funds, products, services, owners, members, principals, investors, officers, directors, employees, or their respective families.

assistant: Non-Disparagement
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: will not cause the Government harm, because Waste Management — Washington is currently providing the services on a month-to-month basis until this proceeding is concluded. See TR 5. Therefore, in light of the immediate and continuing harm to Blue Dot, as well as other potential small businesses, the balance of harm weighs in favor of Blue Dot. d. Effect On The Public Interest. i. The Integrity Of The Procurement Process Was Compromised In This Case. Our appellate court has emphasized “the importance of ensuring that the public’s faith in the integrity of the procurement process is not compromised[.]” Central Arkansas Maint., Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed.Cir.1995) (Mayer, C. J.); see also Parcel 49C Ltd. P’ship v. United States, 31 F.3d 1147, 1151 (Fed.Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); C.A. C.I., Inc.-Fed. v. United States, 719 Options: A. holding that governments regulatory violation does not itself necessarily entitle a protester to relief in such situations the board must review the conduct of the procurement with heightened scrutiny to determine if the improper taint had any actual adverse effect on the procurement process B. holding that the definition of procurement under the tucker act is broader than the definition of procurement contract in the fgcaa such that an agency can engage in a procurement process for the purposes of the tucker act even though it is using a cooperative agreement instead of a procurement contract to memorialize the parties agreement C. holding that a bid award may be set aside if either 1 the procurement officials decision lacked a rational basis or 2 the procurement procedure involved a violation of regulation or procedure D. holding that without a valid reason for cancelling the procurement the government violated its duty to conduct a fair procurement E. holding that as a matter of law where the procurement decision was rational a reviewing court may not award injunctive relief despite the presence of procedural irregularities in the procurement process

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that without a valid reason for cancelling the procurement the government violated its duty to conduct a fair procurement
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: An H-1B visa is a temporary work visa that lasts up to three years with the possibility of renewal. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.750(a)(1) (2008). As Edwards appears to acknowledge, an H-1B visa does not guarantee employment for the visa’s maximum duration. Indeed, the Immigration and Nationality Act expressly contemplates that an employer may dismiss a worker with an H-1B visa before the end of the visa’s maximum duration. See 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(5)(A) (stating that an employer must pay return expenses if it dismisses an employee “before the end of the period of authorized admission”). Accordingly, sponsorship of an H-1B visa alone does not imply that the employer-sponsor has guaranteed employment for the visa’s duration. See, e.g., Woods v. Era Med LLC, 677 F.Supp.2d 806, 818 (E.D.Pa.2010) (<HOLDING>). Although Edwards argues that Geisinger and Options: A. holding that an employers unwritten employment policy does not demonstrate an impermissible discriminatory motive B. holding that an employees opinion of the efficacy of an employment decision standing alone cannot supplant the employers business judgment C. holding that even an incorrect belief that an employees performance is inadequate can be a legitimate reason for an adverse employment action D. holding that an employers sponsorship of an employees 01 visa does not establish an employment contract for a definite term E. holding that there can be no implied contractual term at variance with an express term of a contract

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an employers sponsorship of an employees 01 visa does not establish an employment contract for a definite term
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: overextend limited federal police resources, and . . . would transform relatively minor state offenses into federal felonies.” 401 U. S., at 812. Reliance on the federalism principles articulated in Rewis to dictate a narrow interpretation of “bribery” is misplaced. Our concern there was with the tenuous interstate commerce element. Looking at congressional intent in that light, we held that Congress did not intend that the Travel Act should apply to criminal activity within one State solely because that activity was sometimes patronized by persons from another State. Ibid. Here, the sufficiency of the interstate nexus is no longer at issue. Rather, so long as the requisite interstate nexus is present, the statute reflects a clear and deliberate cert. denied, 423 U. S. 874 (1975) (<HOLDING>). 2 Also indicted with petitioner were Duffy Options: A. holding that the requirements for establishing a rehabilitation act violation are similar to those for establishing an ada violation B. holding a violation of the travel act C. recognizing that where the board properly finds a violation of the act it can order reinstatement under its remedial powers granted by 160c although finding no violation of the act here D. holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation E. holding that a violation of the truth in lending act is not a violation perse of the ocspa

assistant: The best answer is B. holding a violation of the travel act
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 at those times and places is not so clear. The log books kept as a record of those Masses contain virtually no entries other than the weekly “Mass celebrated by Fr.__Two in attendance.” They confirm the testimony that Masses were conducted. The defendant municipality argues that the court must examine the quantu es broad protections of religious freedom. N.J. Const, art. I, ¶¶3 and 4. Such protections extend to exemptions from taxation on real and personal property used exclusively for religious purposes. Id. at art. VIII, § 1, H 2. The exemption from taxation provided for religious organizations by the New Jersey Constitution is not absolute. See, e.g., New Life Gospel Church v. State, 257 N.J.Super. 241, 608 A.2d 397 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 133 N.J. 429, 627 A.2d 1136 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Bethany Baptist Church v. Deptford Tp., 225 Options: A. holding where exempt organization was in possession of real property under land contract obligating organization to pay the purchase price and use land for exempt purpose the association was the owner of the land within the meaning of the statute B. holding exempt under ors 307130 which relates to other charitable institutions a building that was used as an office for a religious official and religious court and a printing press for a religious publication C. holding that the imposition of a life sentence on a juvenile does not violate the holding of roper D. holding that imposition of government fees did not violate exempt status of religious organization E. holding that imposition of social security taxes on persons who object to the receipt or payment of public insurance benefits on religious grounds does not violate the first amendment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that imposition of government fees did not violate exempt status of religious organization
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 instrument contains the entire and only agreement between the Parties regarding the leasing of the Demised Premises and no oral statements or representations or prior written matter not contained in this instrument shall have any force and effect. This Lease may only be changed, modified or discharged by an agreement in writing executed by the Parties.

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: The question here is not whether he intended to defeat jurisdiction but whether he filed in conscious disregard of proper jurisdiction. Those are different propositions. Although these arguments bear some real similarity, they do not intersect. The Frenches’ counsel’s affidavit also stated that he had believed that the federal court might have been able to retain jurisdiction over the entirety had it chosen to do so. That was a mistake in an understanding of the law, not a mistake of fact. As pointed out by the Eastland court in Parker, the issue focused on the question of whether the record showed that claimant had made “a good faith mistake” by initially filing in a (federal) court without jurisdiction over the claim. The court found that the claimant had not acted in good faith (<HOLDING>) and that it was not necessary for the Options: A. recognizing that the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true on a threshold motion to dismiss B. holding that the court need not accept as true unwarranted factual inferences C. recognizing that the partys factual complaint if taken as true affirmatively established that the other tribunal had no jurisdiction D. holding that a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction only precludes the relitigation of the issue of whether the first tribunal had jurisdiction E. recognizing that when considering pretrial motions attacking the sufficiency of an indictment or information the factual allegations in the states pleadings are taken as true

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that the partys factual complaint if taken as true affirmatively established that the other tribunal had no 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party to this Agreement shall fully and in good faith cooperate with the other parties in defending claims for which the others may be liable according to this Agreement by furnishing such documents or information as may be useful in the defense of such claims.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Id. “Sections 1 and 2 of the Act of March 2,1931 are now part of our present statutory scheme as 18 U.S.C. § 401, which condemns obstructive acts in the court’s presence, and 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which prohibits contemptuous conduct away from the court, respectively.” United States v. Essex, 407 F.2d 214, 217 (6th Cir.1969). The somewhat sketchy legislative history of § 1503 suggests that a prime focus of the current version § 1503 and of prior iterations was to refine the judicial power to address contempts of court. However, nothing in the legislative history demonstrates that its broad language was not intended to cover allegedly “corrupt” conduct in civil litigation that impedes the “due administration of justice.” See Brogan v. United States, — U.S. at —, 118 S.Ct. at 808-09 (<HOLDING>). In other words, contrary to defendants’ Options: A. holding that simple denial of guilt came within broad language of statute prohibiting making of false statement we cannot imagine how it could be true that falsely denying guilt in a government investigation does not pervert a governmental function B. holding that testimony given by a defendant in support of a motion to suppress cannot be admitted as evidence of his guilt at trial C. holding that a showing of actual prejudice was required where the defendant claimed that counsel was ineffective for conceding guilt at the guilt phase of a capital trial D. holding that the states transfer statute did not violate the apprendi rule because the transfer hearing determines not the minors guilt but the forum in which his guilt may be adjudicated E. holding that defendant could be charged for making false statements to treasury officials under the tax evasion statute or the statute prohibiting false statements to government officials

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that simple denial of guilt came within broad language of statute prohibiting making of false statement we cannot imagine how it could be true that falsely denying guilt in a government investigation does not pervert a governmental function
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 respective obligations of, and benefits afforded to, the Company and you which by their express terms or clear intent survive termination of your employment with the Company or termination of this Agreement, as the case may be, including without limitation the provisions of Article III, will survive termination of your employment with the Company or termination of this Agreement, as the case may be, and will remain in full force and effect according to their terms.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party’s obligations under this Section 3.01 shall survive the resignation or replacement of the Administrative Agent or any assignment of rights by, or the replacement of, a Lender, the termination of the Commitments and the repayment, satisfaction or discharge of all other Obligations.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: for each month that your monthly subscription is active , you acknowledge and agree that headspace is authorized to charge the same credit card as was used for the initial subscription fee or other payment method as set forth in section 2.6 ( h ) ( the `` payment method '' ) in the amount of the then current monthly subscription fee .

assistant: None