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: from a cosmetics company to bring a § 349 claim against the cosmetics company for deceptive recruiting practices. Id. at 165 (“Although plaintiffs may not necessarily be end-users of the product they are indeed end-users of the distributorships, which they bought and paid for.”). In doing so, the court rejected the argument “that plaintiffs — as middlepersons in a marketing chain retailing defendant’s products to the end-user consumers — cannot be deemed ‘consumers.’ ” Id. Subsequent appellate authority, however, excludes businesses from the definition of “consumer,” stating unequivocally that a consumer is an individual who “purchases goods and services for personal, family or household use.” Sheth v. New York Life Ins. Co., 273 A.D.2d 72, 709 N.Y.S.2d 74, 75 (1st Dep’t 2000) (<HOLDING>); see also Cruz v. NYNEX Info. Res., 263 A.D.2d Options: A. holding that parents who brought suit challenging certain religiouslyrelated practices in public schools were without standing to challenge religious practices at baccalaureate programs because their children who were enrolled in elementary schools were not adversely affected by the challenged practice B. holding that insurance investigators were not agents of the government for fourth amendment purposes because they had an independent reason to investigate the scene C. holding that plaintiffs had standing because they were directly affected by the laws and practices against which their complaints were directed D. holding that the challenged practices were not consumeroriented under 349 because they were directed only at prospective insurance agents E. holding that insurance agents purchase of drinks for prospective insureds did not violate antirebate statute

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the challenged practices were not consumeroriented under 349 because they were directed only at prospective insurance agents
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: 394 U.S. 309 89 S.Ct. 1186 22 L.Ed.2d 306 Raymond Joseph DuVERNAYv.UNITED STATES. No. 814. Supreme Court of the United States March 24, 1969 Rehearing Denied May 19, 1969. See 395 U.S. 917, 89 S.Ct. 1740. Benjamin E. Smith, New Orleans, La., for petitioner. John S. Martin, for respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. 2 Mr. Justice FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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: erred in denying CAT relief on adverse credibility and that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard in reviewing the IJ’s decision. “[A]n adverse credibility determination made in the asylum context should not necessarily affect the BIA’s consideration of the alien’s CAT claim.” Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 185. However, an ad verse credibility determination that includes a finding that the applicant failed to establish a fact that “formed the only potentially valid basis” for the claim, may be a proper basis for the denial of CAT relief. See Xue Hong Yang v. United States. Dep't. of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir.2005). At the same time an IJ must deny CAT relief separately from asylum and withholding. See Jin Chen v. United States Dep't of Justice, 426 F.3d 104, 116 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, the IJ found that Bhatti Options: A. holding that although the ij did not explicitly analyze the cat claim the denial of the claim was linguistically separate from the denials of asylum and withholding under the ina B. holding that the agency may not deny a cat claim solely on the basis of adverse credibility finding made in the asylum context where the cat claim did not turn upon credibility C. holding substantial evidence supported the denial of cat relief where the petitioners cat claim was based on the same testimony the ij found not credible and the petitioner pointed to no other evidence that the ij should have considered D. holding that the agency need not analyze separately a withholding of removal claim based on the same facts as an applicants asylum claim E. holding that where a petitioner fails to establish a claim for asylum on the merits his claims for withholding of removal under the ina and cat also necessarily fail

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that although the ij did not explicitly analyze the cat claim the denial of the claim was linguistically separate from the denials of asylum and withholding under the ina
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 the proximate cause of Jason’s infection. See Lamb, 1 F.3d at 1187 (citing Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374-75 (5th Cir.1969) (en banc)). The only portion of Armour’s insufficient causation argument that merits discussion is the allegation that the statistical probabilities derived from the epidemiological studies, as analyzed by Dr. Robinson, were not scientifically valid and thus could not be used to determine the time or source of Jason’s infection. Upon careful review of Dr. Robinson’s testimony, there is no question that several of his statements, viewed in isolation, were statistically invalid and, as such, that the district court should not have admitted them. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., — U.S. -, -, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 2796, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) (<HOLDING>). In many other instances, however, Dr. Options: A. holding that the district court did not err in relying on hearsay evidence where the government offered reasons why its hearsay evidence had indicia of reliability and the court considered the reliability of the evidence in deciding the weight to give the hearsay evidence B. holding a proffer of testimony is required to preserve the issue of whether testimony was properly excluded by the trial judge and an appellate court will not consider error alleged in the exclusion of testimony unless the record on appeal shows fairly what the excluded testimony would have been C. holding that the trial court must screen experts evidence to ensure its reliability by conducting a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and properly can be applied to the facts in issue D. holding that the appellants failure to provide a transcript of the proceedings was fatal to its claims because without a record of the trial proceedings the appellate court can not sic properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial courts judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory E. holding that an experts opinion must be based on facts in evidence or within his or her knowledge and that the admission of an experts opinion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the trial court must screen experts evidence to ensure its reliability by conducting a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and properly can be applied to the facts in issue
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: to the extent that you would ( wholly or partly ) use or combine our ( translated ) content ( including guest reviews ) or would otherwise own any intellectual property rights in the platform or any ( translated ) content or guest reviews , you hereby assign , transfer and set over all such intellectual property rights to booking.com .

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: FDCPA and the OCS-PA caused injury to Ms. Vlach such that service of process is proper under O.R.C. § 2307.382(A)(6). By allegedly sending “false, deceptive, or misleading” representations in violation of FDCPA and allegedly committing “unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts” in violation of OCSPA, Mr. Yaple should have reasonably expected that the recipient would have been injured in this state, given that the letter was addressed to an Ohio resident. See Ferron v. 411 Web Directory, 2:09-cv-153, 2009 WL 2047780, at *3 (S.D.Ohio July 6, 2009)(fmding alleged violations of OCSPA give rise to tortious injury for purposes of the Ohio Long Arm statute); FRC Intern., Inc. v. Taifun Feuerloschgeratebau und Vertriebs GmbH, 3:01 CV 7533, 2002 WL 31086104, at *4, 5 (N.D.Ohio Sept. 18, 2002)(<HOLDING>); Vlasak v. Rapid Collection Systems, Inc., 962 Options: A. recognizing that federal courts have held that the commission of a tortious act out of state that causes injury to an instate resident satisfies floridas longarm statute B. holding that under delawares longarm statute the act of mailing for purposes of subsection c3 is complete when the material is mailed even if the mailed material causes tortious injury within delaware C. recognizing that the ohio longarm statute does not extend to the limits of due process and focusing the inquiry on whether defendant established sufficient business contacts with ohio D. holding that the alleged fraudulent communications satisfy the causes tortious injury by an act or omission in this state portions of the ohio longarm statute E. holding that for requisite causal connection to exist the vehicle must be the instrumentality which caused the injury not merely a contribution which causes a condition which in turn causes the injury

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the alleged fraudulent communications satisfy the causes tortious injury by an act or omission in this state portions of the ohio longarm 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 436 U.S. at 690-91, 98 S.Ct. 2018; see also Board of County Comm’rs of Bryan County, Okla. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997) (citing Monell). Counties, like municipalities, cannot be held liable under section 1983 on a respondeat superior theory. See Brown, 520 U.S. at 403, 117 S.Ct. 1382. The county must be the “moving force” behind the injury. See id. át 404, 117 S.Ct. 1382. The district court properly found that Fox has neither alleged nor presented any evidence that Hartrum and Van Oosterum acted pursuant to county policy or custom when they refused to return Fox’s driver’s license. No evidence indicates that this was anything more than a one-time, isolated event for which the county is not responsible. Cf. Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91, 98 S.Ct. 2018 (<HOLDING>). Fox also claims that Stewart failed to Options: A. holding that a municipality may only be held liable under 1983 for a policy practice or custom B. holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983 C. holding that a plaintiff must identify a municipal policy custom or practice to support a claim against a municipality under monell D. holding that a municipality may not assert the defense of qualified immunity but may be held liable under 1983 only for a constitutional deprivation inflicted by the execution of a governments policy or custom whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy E. holding that absent a formal policy a section 1983 plaintiff must establish that the deprivation was caused by a governmental custom

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that absent a formal policy a section 1983 plaintiff must establish that the deprivation was caused by a governmental custom
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that Mr. Hrezo’s car was parked in an alternate boat ramp in a wooded area away from the main parking area where there were no other people or vehicles. The deputy testified that he intended to make a citizen contact to find out who was in the vehicle and why they were there, and “probably” to tell them that it was dusk and time to leave the park. There is no suggestion that the officer had a reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity or even a traffic infraction at the time he made this decision. Before approaching Mr. Hrezo’s vehicle on foot, the deputy turned on his patrol car’s emergency lights and takedown lights. He explained that he turned on these lights for his own safety and so he could see inside the vehicle. When he approached the car, the deputy requested identi 95) (<HOLDING>); State v. Gonzalez, 2000 WL 1207186 at *5 Options: A. holding that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to stop the defendant for obstructing traffic because there was no evidence of intent to impede or hinder traffic where the vehicle was only briefly stopped in the roadway and the officer approaching the vehicle from behind did not have to stop or drive around the defendants vehicle B. holding police display of blue lights after pulling behind stopped vehicle constituted a stop C. holding police turning on blue light showed display of authority such that reasonable person would not feel free to leave D. holding that fourth amendment rights of a passenger of a legally stopped vehicle were not violated by police officers instruction that he remain inside the vehicle during traffic stop after passenger repeatedly tried to exit E. holding that the stop of defendants vehicle was unlawful where officers stopped the vehicle to check the license and registration but had observed no suspicious activity

assistant: The best answer is B. holding police display of blue lights after pulling behind stopped vehicle constituted a stop
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: Grantor shall (a) preserve and maintain its corporate existence (except as otherwise permitted pursuant to Section 9.02(a) of the Loan Agreement), (b) preserve and maintain its rights, franchises, permits, licenses, approvals and privileges, in the case of its rights, franchises, permits and privileges, except to the extent that failure to do so could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect and (c) qualify and remain qualified in good standing in each jurisdiction, in each case except to the extent that failure to do so could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect .

assistant: Existence
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 first common pattern arises where the repossession occurred post-petition but at a time pri- or to the creditor being informed of the filing, either by receipt of notice from the Court or by notice given by the debtor or debtor’s counsel. A repossession in these circumstances is void ab initio, but the creditor is not liable in damages for the act of repossession since there was no actual notice of the pendency of the case. See In re Miller, 10 B.R. 778 (Bankr.D.Md.1981), aff'd., 22 B.R. 479 (D.Md.1982). Although the automatic stay was violated, the violation was without notice of the pendency of the case and thus is not considered “willful.” Some courts described these violations as “technical or inadvertent.” See Commercial Credit Corp. v. Reed, 154 B.R. 471 (E.D.Tex.1993) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, the creditor has an affirmative Options: A. holding that the automatic stay barred a suit for injunctive relief to prevent postpetition antitrust violations B. holding that the denial of a motion to find a violation of the automatic stay was a final order C. holding that creditor who repossessed vehicle postpetition and returned automobile within twenty hours of receiving notice only committed technical violation of automatic stay D. holding that creditor who proceeded with foreclosure after receiving actual notice from debtor was liable for violating the automatic stay E. holding judgment in violation of automatic stay void

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that creditor who repossessed vehicle postpetition and returned automobile within twenty hours of receiving notice only committed technical violation of automatic stay
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 that statute, he must show “(1) that the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice declared unlawful by the [Tennessee Consumer Protection Act] and (2) that the defendant’s conduct caused an ‘ascertainable loss of money or property, real, personal, or mixed, or any other article, commodity, or „ thing of value wherever situated....’” Hanson v. J.C. Hobbs Co., Inc., No. W2001-02523-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 5873582, at *9 (Tenn.Ct.App. Nov. 21, 2012) (quoting Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-18-109(a)(l)). To prevail, therefore, the Tennessee attorney general need not show that S & P violated CRARA or any other federal provision. That is, the right that he seeks to vindicate “is the right not to be lied to in a fashion that causes reliance and results in financial 195 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). By contrast, if S & P had never invoked Options: A. holding that state law claim regarding breach of settlement agreement was preempted by federal labor law B. holding that dalessio did not justify removal where the gravamen of plaintiffs complaint was that defendants made materially false statements to them in a manner prohibited by new york law and in violation of duties created by new york law and no construction or interpretation of federal law was required C. holding the same where the plaintiff alleged breach of a contract provision that incorporated federal law by reference and breach of a new york statute by failing to provide uniform rates allegedly required by federal law D. holding under new york law in fact the failure to prove damages is fatal to a plaintiffs breach of contract cause of action E. holding that federal statutes and regulations can form the basis of a breach of contract claim if expressly incorporated into the contract

assistant: The best answer is C. holding the same where the plaintiff alleged breach of a contract provision that incorporated federal law by reference and breach of a new york statute by failing to provide uniform rates allegedly required by 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of this Plan shall bind and inure to the benefit of the Company and other Employer and their successors and assigns, and on the Participant and the Participant’s designated Beneficiaries. By executing and delivering a Plan Agreement, a Participant agrees on his or her own behalf and on behalf of all Beneficiaries to be bound by the terms of the Plan and the Plan Agreement.

assistant: Successors
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: VII because the action of the Sheriff’s Office interfered with his employment opportunities with third party employers. Because defendants moved for summary judgment only on the question of the employment relationship between plaintiff and defendants, it is not necessary for us to decide the viability of this theory. We note, however, that the Fifth Circuit apparently has not resolved the question of whether an “employer” as defined by Title VII, can be liable under Title VII for interference with a plaintiff's employment opportunities with a third party. See Diggs v. Harris Hospital-Methodist, Inc., 847 F.2d 270, 272 & n. 2 (5th Cir.1988); Daniels v. Allied Elec. Contractors Inc., 847 F.Supp. 514 (E.D.Tex.1994). See also Sibley Memorial Hosp. v. Wilson, 488 F.2d 1338 (D.C.Cir.1973) (<HOLDING>). 4 . The instant motion was based solely on Options: A. holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii B. holding that such a theory is viable under title vii C. holding the title vii mixedmotive theory does not apply to adea claims D. holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original E. holding that there is no individual liability under title vii

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that such a theory is viable under title vii
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: b. Seller, Key Personnel and Shareholder hereby acknowledge that the Proprietary Property is the sole and exclusive property of the Company that the Proprietary Property is a valuable, special and unique asset of the business of the Company, developed at considerable expense to the Company, and is not available to the public at large or other persons engaging in businesses which are the same as or similar to the business of the Company.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as could not reasonably be expected, individually or in the aggregate, to result in a Material Adverse Effect, each Group Member owns, or has license or other valid and enforceable rights to use all Intellectual Property necessary for the conduct of its business as currently conducted. Except as could not reasonably be expected, individually or in the aggregate, to result in a Material Adverse Effect, no claim has been asserted and is pending by any Person challenging or questioning the use of any Intellectual Property or the validity or effectiveness of any Intellectual Property, nor does the Parent Borrower know of any valid basis for any such claim. The use of Intellectual Property by each Group Member does not infringe on the rights of any Person in any material respect.

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: Pursuant to the Second Amended and Restated Partnership Agreement, there was created a class of Limited Partner Units designated as “Series A Convertible Preferred Units” (the “ Series A Preferred Units ”), with the designations, preferences and relative, participating, optional or other special rights, powers and duties as set forth in this Section 5.14 and elsewhere in this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the doctor demonstrate that the plaintiffs progress did not ensure a speedy recovery. Over the course of a year, the plaintiffs doctor noted that she showed “intermittent mild improvement,” id., Ex. 34, and slow improvement, id., Ex. 36, yet she also suffered relapses and “even the simplest demands regarding her work situation cause[d] such distress that [the plaintiff] [was] unable to cognitively process the demands,” id., Exs. 36, 40. “Coming to work regularly” is an essential function of performing one’s duties. Carr, 23 F.3d at 529. As such, indefinite leave is “something an employer is not required to grant.” Sampson v. Citibank, F.S.B., 53 F.Supp.2d 13, 18 (D.D.C.1999), aff'd without opinion, 221 F.3d 196 (D.C.Cir.2000); see also Myers v. Hose, 50 F.3d 278, 283 (4th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Bramwell v. Blakey, 2006 WL 1442655, at *7 Options: A. holding that the corroborating evidence need not be medical evidence if the appellant explains why medical evidence is not available B. holding that an employer is not financially responsible for medical and surgical treatment obtained by an employee for conditions unrelated to an accident arising out of and in the course of the employees employment C. holding that employer need not establish the exemption through public declaration D. holding that an employer need not wait indefinitely for medical conditions to be corrected E. holding that after properly knocking and announcing officers need only wait fifteen to twenty seconds before entering

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an employer need not wait indefinitely for medical conditions to be corrected
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 agreements in this Section and the indemnity provisions of Section 10.02(e) shall survive the resignation of the Administrative Agent the replacement of any Lender, the termination of the Aggregate Commitments and the repayment, satisfaction or discharge of all the 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (i) The Purchaser may not assign its rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the Company and (ii) the Company may not assign its rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the Purchaser. Subject to the preceding sentence, this Agreement shall be binding upon, inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the parties to this Agreement and their respective successors and permitted assigns. Any purported assignment other than in compliance with the terms hereof shall be void ab initio.

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: The waiver by either Party of a default or a breach of any provision of this Agreement by the other Party will not operate or be construed to operate as a waiver of any subsequent default or breach. The continued performance by either Party with knowledge of the existence of a default or breach will not operate or be construed to operate as a waiver of any default or breach. Any waiver by a Party of a particular provision or right will be in writing, will be as to a particular matter and, if applicable, for a particular period of time and will be signed by such Party.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: under armour owns or licenses all under armour trademarks , service marks , branding , logos , and other similar assets ( the `` ua trademarks '' ) .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of Connecticut without reference to principles of conflict of laws. The captions of this Agreement are not part of the provisions hereof and shall have no force or effect.

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: primary duties consist of teaching, spreading the faith, church governance, supervision of a religious order, or supervision or participation in religious ritual and worship,” the First Amendment precludes judicial resolution of the dispute. Rayburn, supra, 772 F.2d at 1168-69 (citing Bagni, supra, 79 Colum.L.Rev. at 1545). Cases in both the federal system and our own courts indicate that when an employee engages in “ministerial functions” for the employer, courts may not exercise jurisdiction over a suit to enforce the employment agreement. Minker, supra, 894 F.2d at 1356-58; Natal, supra, 873 F.2d at 1578; Rayburn, supra, 772 F.2d at 1168, 1171-72; Southwestern Baptist, supra, 651 F.2d at 283-85; see Little, supra, 929 F.2d at 947-48; cf. Chavis, supra, 93 N.J. at 112, 459 A.2d 674 (<HOLDING>). Those cases rely on the sound proposition Options: A. holding that removal proceedings are in the nature of process and defects in the removal procedures are waivable B. holding that the court of claims did not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs first amendment claim of improper removal C. recognizing congress clear intention to restrict removal and to resolve all doubts about the propriety of removal in favor of retained state court jurisdiction D. recognizing that first amendment provides qualified right of access to judicial documents E. holding that first amendment precludes judicial inquiry into propriety of removal procedures followed in defrocking of deacon

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that first amendment precludes judicial inquiry into propriety of removal procedures followed in defrocking of deacon
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that any one or more of the provisions or portion thereof contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the same shall not invalidate or otherwise affect any other provisions of this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be construed as if the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision or portion thereof had never been contained herein.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of this Agreement are severable, and if any part of it is found to be invalid or unenforceable, the other parts shall remain fully valid and enforceable. Specifically, should a court, arbitrator, or government agency conclude that a particular claim may not be released as a matter of law, it is the intention of the parties that the general release, the waiver of unknown claims and the covenant not to sue above shall otherwise remain effective to release any and all other claims.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of a coincidental match is very small and that properly calculated match probabilities are correct within a factor of about 10 either way.”); id. at 156 (“[T]he uncertainty of a value calculated from adequate databases (at least several hundred persons) by the product rule is within a factor of about 10 above and below the true value.”). Applying such a modified product rule to the data in this case reveals that as many as one in seventeen people may share the DNA characteristics of the blood found at the scene. Because of the widespread acceptance of the deficiencies with the product rule in calculating genetic profile frequencies, the vast majority of courts have permitted only modified versions of the product rule to be admitted. See, e.g., Shea, supra, 957 F.Supp. at 341-43 (<HOLDING>); Lowe, supra, 954 F.Supp. at 407-08 (finding Options: A. recognizing rule B. holding district court need not make findings and conclusions as required by rule 52a because under rule 81a3 that requirement could be modified by issuing an order C. holding that reasonable reliance upon the old rule is an important factor supporting prospective application of the new rule D. holding that product rule is only reliable and admissible under daubert if the rule is modified to account for likely uncertainties caused by population substructuring and random error allowing product rule when calculated using nrcs recommended factor of ten estimated value E. holding that because rule 403 and daubert act independently reviewing court need not consider trial courts application of daubert if evidence was properly excluded under rule 403

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that product rule is only reliable and admissible under daubert if the rule is modified to account for likely uncertainties caused by population substructuring and random error allowing product rule when calculated using nrcs recommended factor of ten estimated value
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 the colonists’ response to the unlimited intrusions by the British government into their privacy in the 1700s. Using a Writ of Assistance, British customs officials were able to enter any home and search the premises for evide he requirement for particularized and focused suspicion as a prerequisite for search. Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822, 829-30, 122 S.Ct. 2559, 2564-65, 153 L.Ed.2d 735, 744 (2002); Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995); Natl. Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 666, 109 S.Ct. 1384, 1391, 103 L.Ed.2d 685, 703 (1989); Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n. 489 U.S., 602, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989); New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733, 3 L.Ed.2d at 670-71 (<HOLDING>); drug testing of students, Earls, 536 U.S. at Options: A. holding that reinstatement of the grievant a railroad employee terminated for drug and alcohol use violated the welldefined and dominant public policy against a railroads employment of individuals whose impaired judgment due to the use of drugs or alcohol could seriously threaten public safety and placed the railroad at risk of violating the federal railroad administration regulations B. holding railroad rate exempt from state regulation C. holding that random drug testing for student athletes did not violate their fourth amendment rights D. holding railroad regulation requiring random drug testing without particularized suspicion to be reasonable in light of connection to public safety E. recognizing a selfevaluative privilege to railroad companys investigation of an accident in light of the publics stake in the improvement of railroad safety

assistant: The best answer is D. holding railroad regulation requiring random drug testing without particularized suspicion to be reasonable in light of connection to public safety
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of New York, without reference to its conflict of laws principles. Subject to Section 12.3, the Parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts of New York in the event that there is a dispute related to this Agreement.

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: This License may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and shall be effective once this License has been signed by all of the parties and all signature pages have been attached to one another, it not being necessary for the parties to have physically signed the same signature pages of this License. Signatures to this License received via facsimile or email shall be deemed original signatures.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Upon the exercise of a SAR, the Company shall pay to the Participant an amount equal to the number of shares of Common Stock subject to the SAR that are being exercised multiplied by the excess, if any, of the Closing Price of one share of Common Stock on the exercise date over the Strike Price, less an amount equal to any federal, state, local and non-U.S. income and employment taxes required to be withheld. The Company shall pay such amount in cash, in shares of Common Stock valued at Fair Market Value, or any combination thereof, as determined by the Committee.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: nexus element, the Board failed to consider evidence, raising an issue of reviewable legal error. He claims that because he experienced extortion and threats from MS-13 as a consequence of his business ownership, a conclusion of no nexus “ignores [his own] credible testimony.” His argument misses the point. It’s true that the immigration judge found Lopez generally credible, and observed that “there is some support” for Lopez’s fears of MS-13 given the gang’s proclivity toward violence. However, both the immigration judge and Board concluded that it wasn’t Lopez’s business ownership, or his non-compliance with the gang’s demands, that mattered for purposes of the withholding analysis. It was simply his (perceived) wealth. See generally In re V-T-S-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 792, 792 (BIA 1997) (<HOLDING>). Lopez thus failed to establish that his life Options: A. holding that material alterations in the applicants account of persecution are sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding B. holding that the weight afforded to the applicants evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the agency C. holding that the weight afforded to the applicants evidence in immigration proceedings lie largely within the discretion of the ij D. holding that an applicants wealth in the absence of evidence to suggest other motivations will not support a finding of persecution within the meaning of the immigration and nationality act E. holding that the weight afforded to the applicants evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the ij

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an applicants wealth in the absence of evidence to suggest other motivations will not support a finding of persecution within the meaning of the immigration and nationality 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: drugs, told him to “obtain his own PC, probable cause, for a traffic stop,” and updated him on Lee’s whereabouts. R. 33 at 3-4. All of that information was based on the illegal search. Without the GPS tracking data, the DEA agents would not have known that Lee traveled to Chicago (his source for drugs), that he was returning to Kentucky along 1-75, or his exact position. As a result, Judge Ingram reasoned that the causal connection between the illegal search and the traffic stop remained intact. See R. 33 at 17. Judge Ingram’s conclusion is also supported by the Sixth Circuit’s binding decision in United States v. Gross, 662 F.3d 393, 405 (6th Cir.2011). In that case, a police officer made an illegal stop of an individual in a high-crime neighborhood. Id. at 396. In (6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). The dog search and confession are not, Options: A. holding that even if an officers stop of a defendant who was on foot was unlawful the search of a parked car was justified by a different officer observing a gun magazine in plain view in the car B. holding investigative stop based on officers observation of defendant apparently asleep in legally parked car was improper C. holding that the defendant abandoned the car he was driving thus relinquishing any reasonable expectation of privacy to the contents of the car when he jumped out of the stillmoving car and fled on foot during a high speed chase with police D. holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search E. recognizing that officers making initial contact with driver of car who was lawfully parked late at night in a park was an appropriate welfare check where officer testified he was concerned because towels were obscuring the car windows

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that even if an officers stop of a defendant who was on foot was unlawful the search of a parked car was justified by a different officer observing a gun magazine in plain view in the car
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 Hawkins reference also describes communication between the base unit and an outside telephone network in the event that the portable unit and base unit have matching IDs. Id. at [57]. The district court found this argument unpersuasive in part because “Lev, who already had both the Blum and Hawkins patents before him ..., added the Baker patent to the mix of prior art in the '009 prosecution, and then relied on it in rejecting claims to a portable handheld terminal.” Findings and Conclusions, slip op. at 25. “Clearly,” the court continued, “Examiner Lev did not view Baker as cumulative, but rather treated it as an important addition to the prior art previously cited by Mr. Schumann.” Id. (emphasis in original); cf. Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 1180 (Fed.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). The court also viewed the Baker patent as Options: A. holding that trial court did not err B. holding that superior court did not clearly err in finding that the parent had not remedied the problematic conduct C. holding that a district court did not clearly err in finding materiality where the prior art reference at issue had been considered material by examiners in related foreign patent applications D. holding that a trial court did not clearly err in finding that an attorney fees clause materially altered a contract E. holding that the district court to not clearly err in finding that a distance of 100 feet is within the curtilage

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a district court did not clearly err in finding materiality where the prior art reference at issue had been considered material by examiners in related foreign patent applications
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: therefore no Fourth Amendment violation. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const, amend. IV. The Supreme Court has established that one of the purposes of the prohibition on unreasonable seizures of property is the protection of the individual’s property rights in the seized item. See Soldal v. Cook County, Ill., 506 U.S. 56, 62-63, 113 S.Ct. 538, 121 L.Ed.2d 450 (1992) (<HOLDING>). However, the courts have yet to define the Options: A. holding fourth amendment protects right to be free from arrest without probable cause B. holding that the fourth amendment protects people not places C. holding that the fourth amendment protects property as well as privacy D. holding that it is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy spacious as well as clean wellbalanced as well as carefully patrolled E. holding that orneases unmistakably hold that the fourth amendment protects property as well as privacy

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the fourth amendment protects property as well as privacy