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: law does not occupy the field governing private corrections employees’ actions. The government contractor defense is not likely to apply because there is no indication that the United States directed the GEO employees’ treatment of Pollard. See Malesko, 534 U.S. at 74 n. 6, 122 S.Ct. 515 (noting that “[t]he record here would provide no basis for such a defense,” which is available when “the government has directed a contractor to do the very thing that is the subject of the claim”). Because the conduct at issu recognizing that a police officer fails to act with due care if the officer confines a prisoner in an unfit and unsanitary place); Richardson, 176 P. at 208 (stating that the keeper of a jail has a common law duty to keep the jail warm and sanitary); Dabney, 25 Va. (4 Rand.) 256 (<HOLDING>); see generally M.L. Schellenger, Annotation, Options: A. recognizing that new mexico has adopted the common law unless otherwise abrogated by specific statutory provisions and that the power of a trial court to change venue on its own motion if necessary to assure the defendant a fair trial is part of that common law B. holding that the statute in question served to modify prior common law and that the legislature was empowered to make such changes in the common law based on the public interest C. holding that new york law has no common law right of privacy embracmg such claims as false light as any such privacy right is purely statutory D. holding that under the common law a claim for personal injuries died with the victim E. holding that under common law a jailor has a duty to provide a prisoner with necessary supplies such as fuel for heat and bed covering

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that under common law a jailor has a duty to provide a prisoner with necessary supplies such as fuel for heat and bed covering
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the term Confidential Information will not include information which: (iii) becomes available to the Receiving Party on a non-confidential basis from a source other than the Disclosing Party or any of its Representatives, provided that the Receiving Party does not know or have reason to believe that the source is bound by a confidentiality agreement with, or other contractual, legal or fiduciary obligation of confidentiality to, the Disclosing Party with respect to such information; or (ii) this Agreement will not prohibit or restrict either Party’s right to develop, make, use, market, license or distribute products or services similar to or competitive with those of the other Party disclosed in the Confidential Information as long as such Party does not thereby breach this Agreement. Each Party acknowledges that the other may already possess or have developed products or services similar to or competitive with those of the other Party disclosed in the Confidential Information; and

assistant: No
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 Lender, upon execution and delivery of this Agreement or upon executing and delivering an Assignment Agreement, as the case may be, represents and warrants as of the Amendment Effective Date or as of the applicable Effective Date (as defined in the applicable Assignment Agreement) that (i) it is an Eligible Assignee; (ii) it has experience and expertise in the making of or investing in commitments or loans such as the applicable Revolving Commitments or Revolving Loans, as the case may be; and (iii) it will make or invest in, as the case may be, its Revolving Commitments or Revolving Loans for its own account in the ordinary course of its business and without a view to distribution of such Revolving Commitments or Revolving Loans within the meaning of the Securities Act or the Exchange Act or other federal securities laws (it being understood that, subject to the provisions of this Section 9.6 , the disposition of such Revolving Commitments or Revolving Loans or any interests therein shall at all times remain within its exclusive control).

assistant: Representations
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 JOC procurement in order to maintain its viability in Italy.” PL’s Mot. 30. Mr. Hagner explained that BBSSI’s exclusion from the JOC competition has impacted its financial viability in Italy, as well as its “ability to operate elsewhere,” thereby requiring BBSSI to undertake administrative changes to ensure that it can remain competitive and can maintain oversight and control over its existing contracts. Hagner Deck ¶ 15; see also id. (noting that “there is no real prospect for alternatives for this kind of work on the market in Italy”). BBSSI’s loss of work flow and dependency upon the work encompassed by the JOC solicitation in order to maintain its viability in Italy constitute irreparable injuries. See Cardinal Maint. Serv., Inc. v. United States, 63 Fed.Cl. 98, 110 (2004) (<HOLDING>); accord PGBA, LLC v. United States, 57 Fed.Cl. Options: A. holding that potential loss of a contract constitutes irreparable injury B. recognizing that a party suffers irreparable injury when it loses the opportunity to compete on a level playing field with other bidders wjhen a plaintiff shows that it was excluded from the bidding process perhaps solely because of the governments improper conduct the plaintiff has satisfied requirement for irreparable injury C. holding that where the uncontradicted evidence shows that a former employee is working for a direct competitor no finding of irreparable injury is necessary to support a permanent injunction to protect trade secrets because irreparable injury is established as a matter of law D. holding that lost opportunity to compete on level playing field is sufficient to establish irreparable harm E. holding that loss of the opportunity to fairly compete for a contract constitutes irreparable harm

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that a party suffers irreparable injury when it loses the opportunity to compete on a level playing field with other bidders wjhen a plaintiff shows that it was excluded from the bidding process perhaps solely because of the governments improper conduct the plaintiff has satisfied requirement for irreparable injury
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to his person, property or character, and to obtain justice freely and without purchase, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, conformable to the laws.” Minn. Const, art. I, § 8. Minnesota courts have never stated that the right to sue a governmental entity is “fundamental” for the purpose of invoking strict scrutiny. Further, when reviewing constitutional challenges to other governmental immunity statutes, courts have applied a rational-basis test rather than strict scrutiny. See, e.g., Bernthal v. City of St. Paul, 376 N.W.2d 422, 424 & n. 5 (Minn.1985) (noting that all constitutional challenges of the municipal tort liability statute have required application of the rational-basis test); Green-Glo Turf Farms, Inc. v. State, 347 N.W.2d 491, 494 (Minn.1984) (<HOLDING>); Lloyd v. City of St. Paul, 538 N.W.2d 921, Options: A. holding that central assessment by the unit method of valuation did not violate the equal protection clause of the united states constitution or the uniform operation of laws provision in the utah constitution B. holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection C. holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection D. holding the exclusion did not violate the equal protection clause of the wyoming constitution or the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution E. holding that state outdoor recreational immunity statute did not violate equal protection clause of united states constitution under rationalbasis test

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that state outdoor recreational immunity statute did not violate equal protection clause of united states constitution under rationalbasis test
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: If that intention is clear and it contravenes no rule of law and sufficient words are used to arrive at the intention, it shall be enforced irrespective of all technical or arbitrary rules of construction.”). 9 Atlanta Emergency Servs., 328 Ga. App. at 12 (1) (punctuation omitted); accord Stefano Arts v. Sui, 301 Ga. App. 857, 860 (1) (690 SE2d 197) (2010). 10 Atlanta Emergency Servs., 328 Ga. App. at 12 (1) (punctuation omitted); accord Bd. of Comm’rs of Crisp Cty., 315 Ga. App. at 699. 11 Atlanta Emergency Servs., 328 Ga. App. at 12 (1) (punctuation omitted); accord Bd. of Comm’rs of Crisp Cty., 315 Ga. App. at 699. 12 Typographical errors in original. 13 Emphasis supplied. 14 Cf. Bd. of Trustees of N. Kan. City. Mem. Hosp. v. Conway, 675 SW2d 36, 36-39 (I) (Mo. Ct. App. 1984) (<HOLDING>). 15 OCGA § 13-2-2 (4); see also Paul v. Paul, Options: A. holding a wife liable for necessary medical expenses incurred by her husband under the doctrine even though the wife did not sign as a guarantor and did not request that her husband be admitted nor anticipate that her husband would be admitted B. holding that equity demanded that patients pay for medical services rendered by hospital in birth of child to prevent unjust enrichment C. holding that where hospital used balance billing its lien was unenforceable because the hospital had been paid in full for the services it provided to patient and there was consequently no debt to secure by the existence of the lien D. holding that wife made an unambiguous unqualified promise to pay for the hospital services rendered to her husband when she signed a document that was separate from the patients registration form which she did not sign and which listed her husband as the person responsible for this account and when the separate document was entitled guarantee of account and provided i will pay any unpaid balance on dismissal and i agree to be responsible for hospital services rendered to this patient E. holding that where missouri insured was injured in missouri when car in which she was riding was struck by separate uninsured vehicle driven by her husband and where missouri law precluded wife from suing husband insured was not entitled to um benefits because coverage was provided only when um motorist was legally responsible for damages noting that action against insurer was upon contract not tort and that the terms of the contract govern

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that wife made an unambiguous unqualified promise to pay for the hospital services rendered to her husband when she signed a document that was separate from the patients registration form which she did not sign and which listed her husband as the person responsible for this account and when the separate document was entitled guarantee of account and provided i will pay any unpaid balance on dismissal and i agree to be responsible for hospital services rendered to this patient
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 SEIU has abandoned this claim. Additionally, the preliminary injunction was issued by the district court pursuant to section 301(a). Thus, our resolution of the jurisdictional issue has relevance to the ongoing litigation. Moreover, and essential to our determination here, in the preliminary injunction the district court explicitly preserved a portion of the TRO as still effective after issuance of the injunction. The preliminary injunction states, “all defendants in this action remain subject to paragraph three of the TRO and subsequent orders regarding the imaging of electronic devices.” (Order Granting In Part Mot. For Prelim. Inj. at 17). Thus it seems the TRO has not expired and remains enforceable. Compare Am. Tunaboat Ass’n v. Brown, 67 F.3d 1404, 1407 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>), with Negrete, 523 F.3d at 1098 (holding Options: A. holding that where a noncompetition clause in a contract had expired by its own terms the plaintiffs appeal from the district courts denial of the plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction enforcing the clause was moot B. holding an appeal of injunction moot where the injunction expired three months before the appellate court heard arguments in the case C. holding plaintiffs appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction moot where defendants directive no longer in effect D. holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction E. holding that where a district courts preliminary injunction preventing the appellant from terminating its agreement with the defendant had expired the appellants appeal of the district courts decision to grant that injunction was moot

assistant: The best answer is C. holding plaintiffs appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction moot where defendants directive no longer in effect
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: defendant’ ” were among the “several factors” relevant to the analysis. McDonald, 141 Md.App. at 380, 785 A.2d 836. In McDonald, the weapon was found on the floor of the car in which the defendant was riding, and the defendant was “the only person in the back seat of the car.” Id. He was also “the person closest to the weapon.” Id. Moreover, the police officer saw the defendant “reaching down to place something on the floorboard,” and observed “the butt of a handgun sticking out between appellant’s feet.” Id. We regarded the evidence as sufficient to support a finding that the defendant constructively possessed the handgun, and that he “put it on the floor in an attempt to hide it from the police.” Id. at 380, 785 A.2d 836. See also State v. Smith, 374 Md. 527, 550, 823 A.2d 664 (2003)(<HOLDING>). Cook v. State, 84 Md.App. 122, 578 A.2d 283 Options: A. holding that once a vehicle has been lawfully stopped an officer may order the driver out of the vehicle without violating the fourth amendment B. holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle C. holding the evidence insufficient to support a finding that the defendant a front seat passenger in a car owned by the driver possessed cocaine recovered from inside a box of pots and pans in the trunk of the vehicle D. holding the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the lessee driver of a vehicle had knowingly transported a handgun recovered from the trunk of the vehicle in question E. holding automobile exeeption did not apply to warrantless search of vehicle where vehicle was not readily mobile because the vehicle was legally parked in parking lot occupants of vehicle were seated on a bench in the playground near the parking lot police officers surrounded the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was handcuffed for safety purposes

assistant: The best answer is D. holding the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the lessee driver of a vehicle had knowingly transported a handgun recovered from the trunk of the vehicle in question
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: in addition , the look and feel of this website , including all page headers , custom graphics , button icons and scripts , is the service mark , trademark and/or trade dress of tripadvisor and may not be copied , imitated or used , in whole or in part , without the prior written permission of tripadvisor .

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: consisted of tattoos and clothing containing devil’s heads and demonic insignia. In addition, the government’s evidence highlighted the name of the gang, the Diablos, which means “devils” in Spanish. The introduction of gang membership linked to satanic imagery is clearly inflammatory. The possible prejudicial effect of the gang testimony was further aggravated by the fact that the government had no direct evidence that the defendants were jointly transporting the drugs or were jointly intending to sell them. The highly charged gang-affiliation evidence served as a substitute for such direct evidence, increasing the chance of guilt purely by association. See United States v. Johnson, 28 F.3d 1487, 1497-98 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 768, 130 L.Ed.2d 664 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Thomas, 86 F.3d at 653-54 (same). This Options: A. holding appellate counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to appeal district courts decision to admit evidence that defendant was a member of a gang because gang membership was relevant to show motive and intent B. holding the district court properly admitted expert testimony on defendants active gang membership C. holding gang membership admissible because it did not substitute for evidence of actual participation in the drug distribution conspiracy D. holding that evidence of gang membership was admissible because the testimony also reflected harriss motive for possessing these particular firearms E. holding that it was not plain error for the district court to find the police officers identification of a defendant as a member of the fresno bulldogs gang and testimony about the nature and identifying characteristics of the organization including drug distribution were relevant in a drug conspiracy case

assistant: The best answer is C. holding gang membership admissible because it did not substitute for evidence of actual participation in the drug distribution conspiracy
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 prevent the declarant from testifying” as also being constitutionally required to admit the hearsay of an f undercover police officer involved with the defendant in drug transactions while in the process of arresting the defendant); United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 630 (5th Cir.1982) (“We conclude that a defendant who causes a witness to be unavailable for trial [by murdering him] for the purpose of preventing that witness from testifying also waives his right of confrontation[.]”); Steele v. Taylor, 684 F.2d 1193, 1199, 1201 (6th Cir.1982) (concluding that the constitutional waiver was applicable where the defendant caused a witness under his control to refuse to testify based on the fifth amendment privilege); United States v. Balano, 618 F.2d 624, 629-30 (10th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds as recognized by Options: A. holding that where witness refused to take the oath and testify his grand jury testimony should not have been admitted because he was not subject to cross examination before the grand jury B. holding that testimonial hearsay statements of a witness who does not appear at trial are inadmissible under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to crossexamine the witness C. holding that witness grand jury testimony was admissible when defendant waived his constitutional right of confrontation by making witness unavailable by threats to his life D. holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness E. holding that defendant waived his confrontation rights by threatening witness not to testify

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that witness grand jury testimony was admissible when defendant waived his constitutional right of confrontation by making witness unavailable by threats to his life
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Motion that Figure 7 of the FAC contains an accurate version of the endorsement email. See ECF No. 42. 5 . Plaintiffs selectively quote this blog post in the FAC, but the Court takes judicial notice of the entire document, which is available at http://blog.linkedin.com/2009/03/27/how-to-report-abusive-behavior-on-linkedin/, because the document has been incorporated by reference into the FAC. See infra Section II.C. 6 . In addition, Plaintiffs attach two judicial documents (an order and a complaint) to their Request for Judicial Notice, though they do not explicitly request judicial notice of these documents. See ECF No. 25-2, Exs. E-F. The Court takes judicial notice of these documents. See Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861, 866 n. 1 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). 7 . Defendants, in a footnote, move to strike Options: A. recognizing that a court may take judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record B. holding that undisputed matters of public record are proper subjects for judicial notice C. holding that another courts decision is a proper subject of judicial notice D. holding that the existence of prior convictions are typically matters of public record of which the trial court can take judicial notice without violating the defendants right to due process E. holding that courts may take judicial notice of sec filings that are matters of public record

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that undisputed matters of public record are proper subjects for judicial notice
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 and all acts and transactions pursuant hereto and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be governed, construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to principles of conflicts of law, unless preempted by applicable federal law.

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: On the Closing Date, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein, substantially concurrent with the execution and delivery of this Agreement by the parties hereto, the Company agrees to sell, and the Purchasers, severally and not jointly, agree to purchase, up to an aggregate of $6,000,000 in principal amount of the Debentures. Each Purchaser shall deliver to the Company, via wire transfer or a certified check, immediately available funds equal to such Purchaser’s Subscription Amount as set forth on the signature page hereto executed by such Purchaser, and the Company shall deliver to each Purchaser its respective Debenture and a Warrant, as determined pursuant to Section 2.2(a), and the Company and each Purchaser shall deliver the other items set forth in Section 2.2 deliverable at the Closing. Upon satisfaction of the covenants and conditions set forth in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, the Closing shall occur at the offices of EGS or such other location as the parties shall mutually agree.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: any feedback , comments , or suggestions you may provide regarding twitter , or the services is entirely voluntary and we will be free to use such feedback , comments or suggestions as we see fit and without any obligation to you .

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: we are entitled , without any liability , to refuse , restrict , limit , suspend and/or interfere or interrupt the service or any part thereof , without any notice to you for the repair , improvement , and/or upgrade of the service or for any of the reasons for termination as mentioned below .

assistant: Unilateral termination
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: 806 (1986) (per curiam), the district cannot be held liable. For the reasons stated, the judgment of the district court is Affirmed. 1 . The parties do not tell us whether Pasiew-icz’s job suspension was lifted after his acquittal, but we would assume so. 2 . Pasiewicz claims that neither arresting officer had personal knowledge of the information providing probable cause. But both officers read Shannon's report. Sandahl was also present at the September 1 meeting when Peterson claimed that Pasiewicz was the man she had seen. Henning learned that the two women were close enough on August 30 to have clear N.D.Ill.1998) (finding no constitutional violation where officer lacked jurisdiction to stop plaintiff and issue a citation), with Ross v. Neff, 905 F.2d 1349, 1353-54 (10th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>), and United States v. Foster, 566 F.Supp. Options: A. holding that absent exigent circumstances an arrest within the home can only be effectuated with a warrant probable cause is insufficient B. holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant C. holding that an arrest made outside an officers jurisdiction absent exigent circumstances violates the fourth amendment D. holding that absent exigent circumstances the fourth amendment prohibits warrantless nonconsensual entry into a suspects home in order to make a felony arrest notwithstanding the existence of probable cause to arrest E. holding that an arrest made by an officer outside his jurisdiction does not violate the fourth amendment

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an arrest made outside an officers jurisdiction absent exigent circumstances violates the fourth 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Vendor represents and warrants that the Products will: (a) comply with all applicable federal, state, provincial and local laws, rules and regulations or judicial or administrative orders, judgments or decrees governing the Products, including without limitation, their manufacture, packaging, pricing, labeling, sale, use, transportation, importation or exportation, including, without limitation, California’s Proposition 65 and other similar laws, rules, regulations, standards, orders and directives, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended; (b) be free from defects in design, workmanship, materials and hazards to life, animal or property; (c) conform to any warranty, description, sample, data, drawing, representation, specification or documentation provided to PetSmart or set forth in the PetSmart Documents; (d) be suitable and fit for their intended purpose; (e) not infringe or encroach upon any other party’s personal, contractual or property rights, including without limitation, patents, trademarks, trade names, copyrights, rights of privacy, trade secrets and/or other intellectual property rights. Further, Vendor represents and warrants that it is not subject to or bound by any agreement that will or may be violated by the provision of the Products as provided in the applicable PO. In addition to the representations and warranties herein, Vendor assigns to PetSmart any manufacturer’s indemnities and warranties (both express and implied). Upon PetSmart’s request, Vendor will give PetSmart certificates of compliance with applicable laws, rules, regulations, standards, orders or directives. Vendor’s warranties extend to future performance under a PO with respect to the Products and will survive inspection, tests, acceptance, and payment. Vendor will adhere to PetSmart’s Supplier Code of Conduct in connection with Product delivery or performance under a PO, which Supplier Code of Conduct is available at www.petsmart.com/compliance.

assistant: Representations
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: at 267. More importantly, even if an offer of judgment to a plaintiff is comprehensive and undisputed, courts will not dismiss the case as moot if there is a pending motion for conditional certification and additional individuals have opted in the litigation. See, e.g., Velasquez, 842 F.Supp.2d at 488 (“In view of the facts that an opt-in plaintiff has been identified and a motion for conditional collective action certification has been made, the court holds that this matter is not moot.”) Rubery, 494 F.Supp.2d at 181 (denying defendant’s motion to dismiss as premature in light of plaintiffs pending motion for collective action certification and the joinder of putative class members); Bah v. Shoe Mania, Inc., No. 08 Civ. 9380(LTS)(AJP), 2009 WL 1357223, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2009) (<HOLDING>). In general, “courts are wary of attempts by Options: A. holding that entry of settlement decree without notice to putative class members violated the due process rights of the class members B. holding that even if the offer of judgment was undisputed the case could not be dismissed in light of plaintiffs pending motion for conditional certification including authorization to issue optin notice to putative class members and the fact that one additional plaintiff had already joined the action C. holding that the right of all putative members of a proposed class in an action filed pursuant to kansass class action rule of civil procedure to file a separate action is preserved pending the determination of whether the initial case shall be maintained as a class action D. recognizing that in appropriate circumstances the court may limit the parties communications with putative class members prior to decision on conditional certification question in a 216b action E. holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that even if the offer of judgment was undisputed the case could not be dismissed in light of plaintiffs pending motion for conditional certification including authorization to issue optin notice to putative class members and the fact that one additional plaintiff had already joined the action
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 64 F.3d at 122. The court further noted that the attorney was not an imposter, in that he had graduated from an accredited law school, was originally certified by California as competent to practice law, had practiced law for a decade, and had been tested and found knowledgeable about Pennsylvania law. It also noted that his breaches of conduct were unrelated to his representation of the client. See, also, Bellamy v. Cogdell, 974 F.2d 302 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. denied 507 U.S. 960, 113 S. Ct. 1383, 122 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1993) (declining to find per se ineffective assistance of counsel where attorney represented client while disciplinary proceedings were pending against him and was then suspended following trial due to health concerns); Waterhouse v. Rodriguez, 848 F.2d 375 (2d Cir. 1988) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. People, 652 P.2d 595 (Colo. 1982), Options: A. holding hearing in chambers was not per se a violation of due process B. holding representation at a suppression hearing by lawyer disbarred on final day of hearing not per se ineffective C. holding appellant waived argument by failing to assert it at suppression hearing D. holding representation by attorney who met all requirements for obtaining license but failed to take oath for admission not per se ineffective distinguishing circumstance from representation by someone impersonating lawyer E. holding objection need not occur at suppression hearing

assistant: The best answer is B. holding representation at a suppression hearing by lawyer disbarred on final day of hearing not per se ineffective
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: (a) The Company agrees to pay to the Administrative Agent for the account of each Lender a commitment fee, which shall accrue at the Applicable Rate on the average daily amount of the Available Revolving Commitment of such Lender during the period from and including the Effective Date to but excluding the date on which such Commitment terminates. Accrued commitment fees shall be payable in arrears on the last day of March, June, September and December of each year and on the date on which the Commitments terminate, commencing on the first such date to occur after the date hereof. All commitment fees shall be computed on the basis of a year of 360 days and shall be payable for the actual number of days elapsed (including the first day but excluding the last day).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in all relevant respects to Arkansas’s act, providing, “Any person interested under a ... will ... may have determined any question of ... validity arising under the instrument ... and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder.” See id. at 1070 n. 1. The district court found that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case under Sutton v. English, 246 U.S. 199, 251, 337 N.E.2d 642, 645 (Ohio Ct.App.1974) (“[Djespite the use of the word ‘validity’ in [the declaratory judgment act], the exclusive method of challenging a will alleged to be invalid on the ground of undue influence is by a will contest action.”)); Martin v. Kenworthy, 92 Or .2d 664, 665 (1952) (North Carolina) (same). But see In re Estate of Boote, 198 S.W.3d 699, 715 (Tenn.Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>); Harkins v. Crews, 907 S.W.2d 51, 57 Options: A. holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment B. holding jeopardy had not attached because the district court was without power to enter a judgment of conviction in a pretrial proceeding C. holding that an action under the illinois declaratory judgment act to void a will must be construed as a will contest that is governed by the laws controlling such contests in probate proceedings D. holding that a plaintiffs declaratory judgment petition with a copy of the third codicil attached was sufficient to initiate a will contest in a probate proceeding E. holding that the determination by the probate court in the summary proceeding provided for by section 211516 revised code that assets should be included in an estate makes the question of title res judicata as between all parties to the proceeding but the judgment of the probate court may be attacked in a subsequent action by other interested persons who were not parties to the proceeding in probate court

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a plaintiffs declaratory judgment petition with a copy of the third codicil attached was sufficient to initiate a will contest in a probate proceeding
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 of this Amendment and the acceptance of all other agreements and instruments related hereto, and Lender’s consent to the Restructuring Transactions, shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any Default or Event of Default under the Credit Agreement or a waiver of any breach, default or event of default under any Security Document or other document held by the Lender, except to the extent provided in Section 14 hereof, or a consent to any future transactions, whether or not known to the Lender and whether or not existing on the date of this Amendment.

assistant: No Waivers
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Co. v. United States, 222 U.S. 20, 26-27, 32 S.Ct. 2, 56 L.Ed. 72 (1911) (upholding amendment to Safety Appliance Act, 27 Stat. at L. 531, chap. 196, U.S. Comp. Stat.1901, p. 3174, 32 Stat. at L. 943, chap. 976, U.S. Comp. Stat. Supp.1909, p. 1143, which provided for all locomotives, cars, and similar vehicles used on any railway engaged in interstate commerce to be equipped with certain designated safety appliances, regardless of whether the vehicles were used in moving intrastate or interstate traffic); Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 155-156, 91 S.Ct. 1357, 28 L.Ed.2d 686 (1971) (“[F]or example, the destruction of an aircraft (18 U.S.C. § 32), or ... thefts from interstate shipments (18 U.S.C. § 659)”); see also United States v. Cobb, 144 F.3d 319, 321 & n. 2 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). This underlying purpose, however, is not Options: A. holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute B. holding that an amendment to a policy in existence prior to the effective date of a statute requiring uninsured motorist coverage which substituted insured automobiles did not incorporate the new statute because to do so would be an unconstitutional impairment of the obligation of the contract C. holding that the statute qualifies as an exemption 3 statute D. recognizing the principle that gives precedence to the terms of the more specific statute where a general statute and a specific statute speak to the same concern E. recognizing that the federal carjacking statute fell within lopez s second category because the statute regulated harm to automobiles

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that the federal carjacking statute fell within lopez s second category because the statute regulated harm to automobiles
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: On the Closing Date, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein, substantially concurrent with the execution and delivery of this Agreement by the parties hereto, the Company agrees to sell, and the Purchasers, severally and not jointly, agree to purchase, an aggregate minimum of $3,500,000 and up to an aggregate of $5,000,000 in principal amount of the Debentures. Each Purchaser shall deliver to the Company, via wire transfer or a certified check, immediately available funds equal to such Purchaser’s Subscription Amount as set forth on the signature page hereto executed by such Purchaser, and the Company shall deliver to each Purchaser its respective Debenture and a Warrant, as determined pursuant to Section 2.2(a), and the Company and each Purchaser shall deliver the other items set forth in Section 2.2 deliverable at the Closing. Upon satisfaction of the covenants and conditions set forth in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, the Closing shall occur at the offices of EGS or such other location as the parties shall mutually agree.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: issue and holding that the 24 hour requirement is not an element of the crime but rather an affirmative defense). 5 . See Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 1745, 90 L.Ed.2d 116 (1986) (finding that jeopardy attaches by virtue of the pre-verdict acquittal, barring any future consideration); United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 98, 98 S.Ct. 2187, 2197-98, 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978) (the effect of the trial court's acquittal as a bar to retrial is not affected even if the acquittal resulted “ ‘from erroneous evidentiary rulings or erroneous interpretations of governing legal principles’ ”); Government of Virgin Islands v. Blake, 944 F.Supp. 434 (D.V.I.1996); accord, Government of the Virgin Islands v. Christensen, 673 F.2d 713, 720-21 (3d Cir.1982) ((Sloviter, J., concurring) (<HOLDING>)). 6 . U.S. Const. amend. VI, made applicable Options: A. recognizing that any attributes of sovereignty the virgin islands has derive from the revised organic act B. holding that an act of legislature may be required to waive sovereign immunity C. recognizing the virgin islands legislature as the sovereign author of local jurisdictional law including section 39c even before passage of the 1984 amendments to the revised organic act sometimes referred to as the virgin islands constitution D. holding that there were at least four amendments submitted to the people in a single proposition and for that reason the amendments were not submitted in accordance with the constitution and notwithstanding the action of the legislature in inserting them in the constitution are null and void and form no part of said constitution E. recognizing that virgin islands supreme court would essentially have the final word on the interpretation of local virgin islands law

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing the virgin islands legislature as the sovereign author of local jurisdictional law including section 39c even before passage of the 1984 amendments to the revised organic act sometimes referred to as the virgin islands constitution
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: have concluded that Remmer’s automatic presumption of prejudice no longer applies to cases involving extraneous juror communications. See, e.g., United States v. Williams-Davis, 90 F.3d 490, 497 (D.C.Cir.1996) (rejecting Remmer’s automatic presumption of prejudice and holding that the trial court has discretion “to inquire whether any particular intrusion showed enough of a ‘likelihood of prejudice’ to justify assigning the government a burden of proving harmlessness”); United States v. Pennell, 737 F.2d 521, 532 (6th Cir.1984) (“In light of Phillips, the burden of proof rests upon a defendant to demonstrate that unauthorized communications with jurors resulted in actual juror partiality. Prejudice is not to be presumed.”); People v. Wadle, 97 P.3d 932 40 N.M. 660, 146 P.3d 305 (<HOLDING>). {20} Second, as in Smith and Olano, the Options: A. holding that the remmer presumption did not apply where the communication was innocuous and the defendant had failed to present evidence that the communication was prejudicial B. holding that it is improper for a prosecutor to assume the existence of prejudicial facts not in evidence C. holding that extraneous information which is unrelated to the case being tried is not prejudicial D. holding that a defendant did not waive his right to be present at an ex parte encounter between the judge and juror because he was not present at the time of the communication and therefore had no opportunity to object when the error was committed E. holding that a communication between the judge and juror which is unrelated to the case being tried is not improper and prejudicial

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a communication between the judge and juror which is unrelated to the case being tried is not improper and prejudicial
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise defined herein or as the context may otherwise require, capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein are defined in Appendix A to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of the date hereof (as from time to time amended, supplemented or otherwise modified and in effect, the “ Sale and Servicing Agreement ”) among Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2017-3, Santander Consumer, as Servicer, the Purchaser, as Seller, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Indenture Trustee, which also contains rules as to usage that are applicable herein.

assistant: Definitions