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: conducting a review for harm — even if the error is not preserved. See Baker v. Hansen, 679 S.W.2d 480, 481 (Tex.1984). Second, we apply fundamental-error review when an important public interest or public policy is at stake. See, e.g., Ramsey, 205 S.W.2d at 983. “Pub . 1350, 25 L.Ed.2d 594, on remand, 457 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.1970). Substantively, public-interest-based fundamental error is rare, implicated only when our most significant state public interests are at stake. The meaning of the “public interest” that is adversely affected must be extremely circumscribed, or the exception would swallow the rule. Thus, it cannot be enough to allege that an error violates a party’s constitutional rights. See Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Sherry, 46 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex.2001) (<HOLDING>) (citing Dreyer v. Greene, 871 S.W.2d 697, 698 Options: A. holding that by fading to timely raise the issue before the trial court the defendant had waived the right to raise the issue on appeal that the trial court failed to consider less severe sanctions B. holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus waived appellate review of that issue C. holding that because appellant had waived review of constitutional challenge to sentencing statute by failing to raise it at the first opportunity the trial court correctly proceeded to examine whether the appellants trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise constitutional challenges to the sentencing statutes D. holding that constitutional claim that paternity suit should not be barred by statute of limitations is waived by failing to raise the issue before the trial court E. holding that appellant waived issue by failing to raise it in opening brief

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that constitutional claim that paternity suit should not be barred by statute of limitations is waived by failing to raise the issue before the trial court
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any provision of this Agreement which is prohibited or unenforceable in any jurisdiction shall, as to such jurisdiction only, be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or unenforceability without invalidating the remaining provisions hereof, and any such prohibition or unenforceability in any jurisdiction shall not invalidate or render unenforceable such provision in any other jurisdiction.

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: It is hereby agreed that Employee’s rights and obligations under this Agreement are personal and may not be delegated or assigned. No assignment by the Company shall be effective unless the assignee expressly agrees in writing to become bound by the terms and conditions hereof.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the defendant attorneys on the counts premised on the alleged breach of the Disciplinary Rules. In affirming the summary judgment, this Court stated: “The Alabama courts, state and federal, have never addressed the issue of whether a breach of a Disciplinary Rule under the Code of Professional Responsibility provides the basis for a private cause of action. However, courts in other jurisdictions which have confronted this issue have expressly held that a violation of a Disciplinary Rule does not create a private cause of action. Tew v. Arky, Freed, Stearns, Watson, Greer, Weaver, & Harris, P.A., 655 F.Supp. 1573 (S.D.Fla.1987); Bickel v. Mackie, 447 F.Supp. 1376 (N.D.Iowa 1978), aff'd mem., 590 F.2d 341 (8th So.2d 363, 367 (Ala.1996) (<HOLDING>); Baker v. Baker, 862 So.2d 659, 663 Options: A. holding that a breach of the rules of professional conduct would not justify setting aside a divorce judgment and citing terry cove north for the proposition that the sole remedy for a violation of the rules of professional conduct was the imposition of disciplinary measures B. holding that the disciplinary rules of the code of professional responsibility are not laws of the state of texas for purposes of statute which excludes the admission of evidence obtained in violation of law C. holding that the rules of professional conduct are selfimposed internal regulations and do not play a role in determining the admissi bility of evidence and citing terry cove north for the proposition that the sole remedy for a violation of the rules of professional conduct was the imposition of disciplinary measures D. holding violation of the rules of professional conduct does not create a legal duty on the part of the lawyer nor constitute negligence per se although it may be used as some evidence of negligence E. holding professional rules do not provide basis for civil liability

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the rules of professional conduct are selfimposed internal regulations and do not play a role in determining the admissi bility of evidence and citing terry cove north for the proposition that the sole remedy for a violation of the rules of professional conduct was the imposition of disciplinary measures
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 closing of the transactions contemplated hereby (the “ Closing ”) shall occur within three (3) Business Days after the date on which all of the conditions (except those conditions that are to be satisfied at Closing) set forth in Articles VI and VII have been satisfied or waived at the offices of Winston & Strawn LLP located at 35 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60601, at 9:00 a.m. local time, or at such other place, date and time as the parties shall mutually agree (the “ Closing Date ”). The delivery of all documents and the performance of all acts at the Closing shall be deemed to have occurred or to have been taken simultaneously, and the Closing shall be deemed to be effective as of the close of business (local time in the respective offices of Seller) on the day immediately preceding the Closing Date. By mutual agreement of the parties, the Closing may take place by conference call and electronic (i.e., email/PDF) or facsimile delivery.

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: over individual ones. Eisen holds merely that a court cannot conduct a “preliminary hearing” into the merits and conclude that the plaintiff is likely to prevail on the litigation as a basis for shifting to the defendant the cost of providing notice to absent class members. Eisen thus prevents a district court from requiring defendants to a class action to pay the costs of the litigation before any definitive resolution of the defendants’ liability has been made. But surely Eisen does not prevent a court from determining how many individuals will be affected by certain defenses in an effort to gauge, not whether the class will prevail, but whether common questions transcend merely individual ones. See Strong v. Arkansas Blue Cross & Blue Shield, Inc., 87 F.R.D. 496 (E.D.Ark. 1980) (<HOLDING>); see also Dura-Bilt Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Options: A. holding that while it is not appropriate to consider the merits in determining certification the admissibility of all evidence which has relevance to the merits is not barred if it is relevant to the purpose of refuting or supporting the existence of a class B. holding that it is not C. holding that while the nonprevailing partys financial condition is not appropriate to consider in determining whether to award attorneys fees it is appropriate to consider when determining the amount of the attorneys fees D. holding that the court cannot examine the underlying merits of the claims in determining whether to certify a class E. holding certification is not an occasion for inquiry into the merits

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that while it is not appropriate to consider the merits in determining certification the admissibility of all evidence which has relevance to the merits is not barred if it is relevant to the purpose of refuting or supporting the existence of a class
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 juror rather than leaving a doubt as to his or her impartiality.” Weinstein Design Group, Inc. v. Fielder, 884 So.2d 990, 994 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (quoting Bryant v. State, 765 So.2d 68, 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)). We conclude that prospective jurors Forber and Spurlin’s responses were sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to their impartiality. Admittedly, the State attempted to rehabilitate these prospective jurors and they said they could follow the jury instructions and be fair and impartial. However, based on the totality of the answers given, we find a reasonable doubt as to the ability of these two prospective jurors to serve impartially in this case. Consequently, they should have been stricken for cause. See, e.g., Somerville v. Ahuja, 902 So.2d 930 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>); Bell v. Greissman, 902 So.2d 846 (Fla. 4th Options: A. holding that the trial court did not err by allowing the prosecution to question prospective jurors regarding their ability to announce a death sentence in an appropriate case B. holding that prospective jurors should have been excused for cause because they did not affirmatively state that their bias against the plaintiffs would not affect their ability to render an impartial verdict C. holding that a defendant could not establish stricklands prejudice prong because any erroneous exclusion of an impartial juror was harmless because we have every reason to believe the replacement was also an impartial juror the defendant does not dispute that he was convicted and sentenced by an impartial jury and he presents no reason to think that a jury composed of a slightly different set of impartial jurors would have reached a different verdict D. holding that plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not sue the party with the clear ability to act E. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike for cause two potential jurors who had heard andor read about the case but indicated that they could render a fair and impartial verdict based on the evidence presented

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that prospective jurors should have been excused for cause because they did not affirmatively state that their bias against the plaintiffs would not affect their ability to render an impartial verdict
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: Cady, subsequent federal and state decisions (other than those of Illinois, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Tennessee) consistently describe the doctrine as an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s restrictions on warrantless searches and seizures. See, e.g., Lockhart-Bembery v. Sauro, 498 F.3d 69, 75 (1st Cir.2007) (observing that the question is not “whether there was a seizure” because, “under the community caretaking doctrine, police action can be constitutional notwithstanding the fact that it constitutes a seizure.”); United States v. Coccia, 446 F.3d 233, 237-38 (1st Cir.2006) (“Generally, a law enforcement officer may only seize property pursuant to a warrant based on probable cause describing the place to be searched and the property to be seized. There are, however, exc (2009) (<HOLDING>); People v. Slaughter, 489 Mich. 302, 803 Options: A. recognizing that the community caretaking exception is distinct from the emergency aid or emergency assistance exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement B. recognizing that police perform a community caretaking function separate and apart from the enforcement of criminal statutes C. recognizing a discretionary function exception to that waiver D. recognizing that the community caretaking function as an exception and enunciating a test for its application E. recognizing the community caretaking exception but holding it inapplicable to justify the police action at issue

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that the community caretaking function as an exception and enunciating a test for its application
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 contained in this Section shall survive the resignation of the Administrative Agent, the LC Issuer and the Swingline Lender, the replacement of any Lender, the termination of the Commitments and the repayment, satisfaction or discharge of the 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), We subsequently granted Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. Thus, this appeal is now properly before this Court. 5 . Plaintiffs also assert that American Optical "failed to raise contractual negligence as an affirmative defense.” However, Plaintiffs misunderstand the basis for American Optical’s motion to dismiss and the district court’s analysis. Reflecting the affirmative defense of prescription American Optical properly raised in its answer, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1)(A), American Optical appropriately moved to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiffs’ nullity claim was prescribed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Belanger v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 623 Fed.Appx. 684, 685 (5th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>); Tigert v. Am. Airlines, No. 10-30069, 2010 WL Options: A. recognizing that failing to convert a rule 12b6 motion to a motion for summary judgment will not constitute reversible error if the dismissal can be justified without considering the outside materials B. holding that dismissal based on the political question doctrine is properly entertained pursuant to rule 12b6 C. recognizing that a rule 12b6 motion is an appropriate vehicle on which to seek dismissal of a claim barred by a prescription statute D. holding that dismissal pursuant to rule 12b6 is appropriate if the plaintiff is unable to articulate enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face E. holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid dismissal under rcfc 12b6 by asserting a new claim

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that a rule 12b6 motion is an appropriate vehicle on which to seek dismissal of a claim barred by a prescription 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: in the law. See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 (2006) (defining agency as “the fiduciary relationship that arises when [a principal] manifests assent to [an agent] that the agent shall act on the principal’s behalf and subject to the principal’s control”). Moreover, as discussed below, the Court concludes on the pleadings before it that there is no basis to hold IBM liable under theories of respondeat superior or vicari ous liability for the actions of the John Doe defendant, even if the attacks were actually carried out by an IBM employee or agent. Under District of Columbia law, an employer cannot be held liable for its employees’ intentional conduct solely on the basis of an employer-employee relationship. See Haddon v. United States, 68 F.3d 1420, 1424 (D.C.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); see also Keys v. Wash. Options: A. holding that section 1220 provides an exclusive remedy for tort like actions against an insurer B. holding that an employer who commits an intentional tort against his employee cannot claim that the act was accidental so that workers compensation is the employees exclusive remedy C. holding improper conduct to be an element of the tort of intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship D. holding that it is not enough that an employees job provides an opportunity to commit an intentional tort E. holding in an employees action to recover for injury sustained during work against the employer and other defendants did not state an intentional tort claim against contractor

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that it is not enough that an employees job provides an opportunity to commit an intentional tort
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 assist his attorney, the presence of any drug and/or alcohol problems, his mental health history, and his potential for rehabilitation. See id. at 2464, 2467-69. This is not an exhaustive list. Because the Miller decision was so recently decided, there has been no advocacy by the parties regarding individualized sentencing for juveniles convicted of homicide offenses. As such, on remand, we anticipate that the trial court will order briefs by the Commonwealth and Knox, and accept briefs from their respective amici, if any, on this issue. As the United States Supreme Court has expressly stated that a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional as applied to juvenile offenders, Whitaker is overruled. See Whitaker, 30 A.3d at 1197-98 (<HOLDING>); supra n. 20. Likewise, to the extent that the Options: A. holding that a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for a juvenile convicted of firstdegree murder is not cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the united states and pennsylvania constitutions B. holding that the imposition of a true life sentence on a minor convicted of felony murder was cruel and unusual based on the specific circumstances surrounding the offense C. holding that a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole for possession of 650 or more grams of cocaine is so grossly disproportionate that it violates the prohibition of cruel or unusual punishment in const 1963 art 1 16 D. holding cruel and unusual punishment complaint not preserved E. holding that a sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole as applied to a threetime offender is constitutional

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for a juvenile convicted of firstdegree murder is not cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the united states and pennsylvania constitutions
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: a defendant's post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence violates a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights. United States v. Velarde-Gomez, 269 F.3d 1023, 1029 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) ("post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence cannot be admitted into evidence in the government’s case in chief’’); United States v. Moore, 104 F.3d 377, 386 (D.C.Cir.1997) ("It simply cannot be the case that a citizen’s protection against self-incrimination only attaches when officers recite a certain litany of his rights.’’); United States v. Hernandez, 948 F.2d 316, 322-23 (7th Cir.1991) (silence pre-Miranda cannot be used in the government’s case in chief). The Second Circuit has assumed, without expressly deciding, that the use of pre-Miranda silence is impermissible. United States v. Caro, 637 F.2d 869, 876 (2d Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). The First and Sixth Circuits have gone even Options: A. holding that an instructional error is harmless if no rational jury could have made its findings without also finding the omitted fact to be true B. holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error C. holding exclusion was harmless error D. holding without discussion that premiranda silence could not be used in the states caseinchief but finding the error harmless E. recognizing that where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt

assistant: The best answer is D. holding without discussion that premiranda silence could not be used in the states caseinchief but finding the error harmless
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Following the Executive’s last day of employment by the Company, the Executive shall reasonably cooperate with the Company and its subsidiaries in connection with: (a) any internal or governmental investigation or administrative, regulatory, arbitral or judicial proceeding involving the Company and any subsidiaries with respect to matters relating to the Executive’s employment with or service as a member of the Board or the board of directors of any subsidiary (collectively, “ Litigation ”); or (b) any audit of the financial statements of the Company or any subsidiary with respect to the period of time when the Executive was employed by the Company or any subsidiary (“ Audit ”). The Executive acknowledges that such cooperation may include, but shall not be limited to, the Executive making himself available to the Company or any subsidiary (or their respective attorneys or auditors) upon reasonable notice for: (i) interviews, factual investigations, and providing declarations or affidavits that provide truthful information in connection with any Litigation or Audit; (ii) appearing at the request of the Company or any subsidiary to give testimony without requiring service of a subpoena or other legal process; (iii) volunteering to the Company or any subsidiary pertinent information related to any Litigation or Audit; (iv) providing information and legal representations to the auditors of the Company or any subsidiary, in a form and within a time frame requested by the Board, with respect to the Company’s or any subsidiary’s opening balance sheet valuation of intangibles and financial statements for the period in which the Executive was employed by the Company or any subsidiary; and (v) turning over to the Company or any subsidiary any documents relevant to any Litigation or Audit that are or may come into the Executive’s possession. The Company shall reimburse the Executive for reasonable travel expenses incurred in connection with providing the services under this Section 6.1, including lodging and meals, upon the Executive’s submission of receipts.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: during the course of representation). 8 . See Bellino v. Simon, 1999 WL 1277535 (E.D.La.1999) (disqualifying counsel and his firm because counsel was a necessary witness, his testimony would contradict his client's assertions, and his actions were in question). See also Lange v. Orleans Levee Dist., 1997 WL 668216 at *5 (E.D.La.1997) (disqualifying plaintiff's lawyers and the rest of their firm because the lawyers were likely to be called as witnesses to testify adversely to the client). 9 .The old § 23:1006 did not have a prescriptive period, but the courts drew on tort analogies to assign a one-year prescriptive period. See Winbush v. Normal Life of Louisiana, Inc., 599 So.2d 489, 491 (La.App. 3d Cir.1992). 10 . See Roth v. N.J. Malin & Assocs., 1998 WL 898367 at *2 (E.D.La.1998) (<HOLDING>). The statute similarly does not provide a Options: A. recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress B. holding that act did not bar intentional infliction of emotional distress claim C. holding that intentional infliction of emotional distress is a personal injury tort D. holding that the prescriptive period of 23333c now codified at 23303d applies only to causes of action arising under chapter 3a of title 23 which does not include intentional infliction of emotional distress or retaliatory discharge E. recognizing validity of cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the prescriptive period of 23333c now codified at 23303d applies only to causes of action arising under chapter 3a of title 23 which does not include intentional infliction of emotional distress or retaliatory discharge
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: we reject Chavez’s contrary interpretations of the record even though they might also be reasonable. See Broomfield, 201 F.3d at 1273. A. Retention of Chavez’s Bus Ticket If, as the Government urges, Agent Basset returned Chavez’s bus ticket immediately after questioning Chavez about his luggage and checking the ticket for luggage receipts, then Agent Basset’s brief retention of Chavez’s ticket, without more, did not transform the consensual encounter into a seizure. See United States v. Boone, 67 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir.1995) (hold ing that the defendant was not seized where officers at a bus station held the defendant’s ticket while asking him a series of questions, many of which concerned information from the ticket); United States v. Soto-Lopez, 995 F.2d 694, 698 (7th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); cf. United States v. Lambert, 46 F.3d 1064, Options: A. holding that the defendant had been subjected to an illegal arrest when after detectives requested and did not return his airline ticket and drivers license he was asked to come with the officers from the concourse into an interrogation room approximately 40 feet away where his suitcases were searched B. holding no seizure occurred when law enforcement officers returned the plane ticket and identification immediately after looking at them C. holding that the defendant was not seized where one officer read information from the defendants airline ticket and another officer took notes observing that the officers immediately returned the ticket after examination and did not retain the ticket for an unusual length of time D. holding fourth amendment not implicated when police officers asked defendant to see his airline ticket asked for identification and requested consent to search him E. holding fourth amendment not implicated when police officers approached defendant who was standing outside of an airport terminal and asked to see his airline ticket and identification

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the defendant was not seized where one officer read information from the defendants airline ticket and another officer took notes observing that the officers immediately returned the ticket after examination and did not retain the ticket for an unusual length of time
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: than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration.” Id. at 120, 129 S.Ct. 2360 (quoting Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 444, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970)). “In a criminal case, a defendant seeking to invoke collateral estoppel bears the burden of demonstrating that the issue he seeks to foreclose was actually decided in the first proceeding.” United States v. Rigas, 605 F.3d 194, 217 (3d Cir.2010). Furthermore, issue preclusion only applies when the issue determined by the jury in the first trial is an “ultimate issue” in the retrial — that is, the issue necessarily decided must be an issue which the government must prove in the second trial beyond a reasonable doubt. See Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 348-49, 110 S.Ct. 668, 107 L.Ed.2d 708 (1990) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Console, 13 F.3d 641, 664 Options: A. holding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies when an issue of ultimate fact has necessarily been determined by a valid final judgment B. holding that the estoppel doctrine did not apply because unlike the situation in ashe v swenson the prior acquittal did not determine an ultimate issue in the present case C. holding that the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply where promise was supported by bargained for consideration D. recognizing the doctrine of collateral estoppel in agency proceedings E. holding that a prior acquittal does not preclude the admission of evidence of a defendants other alleged crimes in a prosecution for the bank robbery on the basis of collateral estoppel principles because the prior acquittal did not determine an ultimate issue in the present case

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the estoppel doctrine did not apply because unlike the situation in ashe v swenson the prior acquittal did not determine an ultimate issue in the present case
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: those portions of the same report indicating that §§ 365 and 502(b)(6) apply only to true leases. Compliance with local law is necessaiy to create the lien that gives rise to any security interest. As a result, to be considered a security interest under the Bankruptcy Code, a lease must constitute a lien under local law. It is certainly possible for a given agreement to fall outside the coverage of § 365, because it is not a true lease, and also fail to confer a "security interest” because the requirements of local law for creation of a lien have not been satisfied. Because the Bankruptcy Code itself uses "lease” in § 365 to mean a true lease, state law should not be used to reach a contrary result. See Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637, 652-53, 91 S.Ct. 1704, 29 L.Ed.2d 233 (1971) (<HOLDING>). 7 . The UCC definition of "security interest” Options: A. holding the illinois statute at issue in templeton invalid under the supremacy clause B. holding an illinois statute and regulation that conflicted with the social security act invalid under the supremacy clause C. recognizing that the supremacy clause is not a source of any federal rights D. holding a california regulation that conflicted with the social security act invalid under the supremacy clause E. holding in a bankruptcy context that any state legislation which frustrates the full effectiveness of federal law is rendered invalid by the supremacy clause

assistant: The best answer is E. holding in a bankruptcy context that any state legislation which frustrates the full effectiveness of federal law is rendered invalid by the supremacy clause
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 Company shall prepare and file with the SEC from time to time such amendments and supplements to the Registration Statement and Prospectus used in connection therewith as may be necessary to keep the Registration Statement (or a successor Registration Statement filed with respect to such Registrable Shares) effective and to comply with the provisions of the Securities Act with respect to the disposition of the Registrable Shares covered thereby until the Shelf Registration Expiration Date. The Company shall use commercially reasonable efforts to file any supplement or post-effective amendment to the Registration Statement with respect to the plan of distribution or a Holder’s ownership interests in his, her or its Registrable Shares that is reasonably necessary to permit the sale of such Holder’s Registrable Shares pursuant to the Registration Statement; provided , that Holders shall, upon request, promptly furnish the Company with updates of all necessary information required for filing such amendments and supplements, and provided , further , that the Company shall not be required to file any such amendment or supplement more frequently than quarterly. The Company shall file any necessary listing applications or amendments to the existing applications to cause the Shares registered under the Registration Statement to be then listed or quoted on the NYSE or such other primary exchange or quotation system on which the Common Stock is then listed or quoted.

assistant: Amendments
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: By the issuance of a Letter of Credit (or an amendment to a Letter of Credit increasing the amount thereof) and without any further action on the part of any Issuing Bank or the Lenders, each Issuing Bank hereby grants to each Lender, and each Lender hereby acquires from each Issuing Bank, a participation in such Letter of Credit equal to such Lender’s Applicable Percentage of the aggregate amount available to be drawn under such Letter of Credit. In consideration and in furtherance of the foregoing, each Lender hereby absolutely and unconditionally agrees to pay to the Administrative Agent in dollars, for the account of each Issuing Bank, such Lender’s Applicable Percentage of (i) each LC Disbursement made by such Issuing Bank in dollars and (ii) the Dollar Equivalent, using the Exchange Rates on the date such payment is required, of each LC Disbursement made by such Issuing Bank in an Alternative Currency and, in each case, not reimbursed by the Borrower on the date due as provided in clause (e) of this Section 2.05, or of any reimbursement payment required to be refunded to the Borrower for any reason (or, if such reimbursement payment was refunded in an Alternative Currency, the Dollar Equivalent thereof using the Exchange Rates on the date of such refund). Each Lender acknowledges and agrees that its obligation to acquire participations pursuant to this clause in respect of Letters of Credit is absolute and unconditional and shall not be affected by any circumstance whatsoever, including any amendment, renewal or extension of any Letter of Credit or the occurrence and continuance of a Default or reduction or termination of the Commitments, and that each such payment shall be made without any offset, abatement, withholding or reduction whatsoever.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: we will notify our members of material changes to these terms and conditions by either sending a notice to the email address provided to us at registration or by placing a notice on our website .

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: that if the last overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed on July 12, 1979, the July 12, 1984 indictment was filed one day too late. Id. at 1531. Finding the Guerro decision persuasive, the Eleventh Circuit held that in conspiracy cases — whether an overt or covert act is alleged — the day following the event is when the statute of limitation begins to run. Id. at 1532-33. In a case where the conspiracy continued until July 12, 1979, the following day was the first day of the limitation period, and the indictment filed on July 12, 1984 was timely. Id. at 1533. This Circuit has long held that the day of the offense is excluded when determining the trigger date for the statute of limitation. See, e.g., Wiggins v. United States, 64 F.2d 950, 950-51 (9th Cir.1933) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Tawab, 984 F.2d Options: A. holding that threeyear statute of limitations was not an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus B. holding that an indictment returned on march 7 1930 was not barred by a threeyear limitation statute where the offense occurred on march 71927 C. holding that subsections 7751515 16 did not apply where threeyear statute of limitations expired on january 25 2006 and thus prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations D. holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense E. holding that an allegation as to the time of the offense is not an essential element of the offense charged in the indictment and within reasonable time limits proof of any date before the return of the indictment and within the statute of limitations is sufficient

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an indictment returned on march 7 1930 was not barred by a threeyear limitation statute where the offense occurred on march 71927
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: indemnity : you agree to indemnify , defend and hold rovio , its partners , affiliates , contractors , officers , directors , employees and agents harmless from and against any and all damages , losses and expenses arising directly or indirectly from : ( i ) your acts and omissions to act in using the rovio services pursuant to the terms of the eula ; or ( ii ) your breach of this eula .

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: render their individual declaratory claims moot. Fox, 42 F.3d at 140; Mincone, 923 F.Supp. at 403. However, a student who has graduated may still be found to have a justiciable claim if he or she sued in a “representational capacity” as the leader of a student organization. See Brandon v. Bd. of Educ. of Guilderland Cent. Sch. Dist., 635 F.2d 971, 973 n. 1 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1123, 102 S.Ct. 970, 71 L.Ed.2d 109 (1981) (finding that high school students who had since graduated were acting in a representational capacity in challenging defendants’ refusal to allow their student prayer group to conduct daily prayer meetings on school property); Trachtman v. Anker, 563 F.2d 512, 514 n. 1 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 925, 98 S.Ct. 1491, 55 L.Ed.2d 519 (1978) (<HOLDING>). Although Plaintiff Rivas-Cinque brought this Options: A. holding that university violated first amendment by expelling student for printing indecent newspaper despite student code prohibiting indecent conduct or speech B. holding that juveniles use of the f word in dispute with principal and another student over whether student had stolen her money did not constitute fighting words C. holding constitutional the granting of student activity funds to the campus newspaper D. holding that graduation of one plaintiff who was editorinchief of student newspaper did not render moot an action to establish newspapers right to conduct and publish a survey since plaintiffs were acting on behalf of student association and its members both of whom had continuing stake in the litigation E. holding proper remedy when a christian student newspaper was denied student activities funds was to make funds available to the religious paper not to deny funds to nonreligious student groups

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that graduation of one plaintiff who was editorinchief of student newspaper did not render moot an action to establish newspapers right to conduct and publish a survey since plaintiffs were acting on behalf of student association and its members both of whom had continuing stake in the litigation
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any court or other Governmental Authority of competent jurisdiction issues an order or other decision holding any term or provision of this Agreement invalid, illegal or incapable of being enforced because of any Law, or if the FCC informally advises the parties that any provision in this Agreement is invalid, illegal or unenforceable under the Communications Act or FCC Rules (and will thus preclude the FCC’s grant of the FCC Application), the parties shall promptly amend this Agreement to eliminate the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision so as to effectuate their original intent as closely as possible in a mutually acceptable manner in order that the transactions contemplated hereby be consummated to the greatest extent possible without any material adverse effect upon either party. In the absence of any amendment, this Agreement shall be construed with the invalid, illegal or unenforceable term or provision deleted so long as such construction does not deprive either party of the benefits of this Agreement in any material respect.

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 execution and delivery by the Guarantor of this Guaranty and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby do not conflict with or result in a breach of the organizational documents of the Guarantor, or any applicable law or regulation, or any order, writ, injunction or decree of any court or governmental authority or agency, or any agreement or instrument to which the Guarantor is a party or by which it is bound or to which it is subject, or constitute a default under any such agreement or instrument. All partnership consents required to authorize execution of this Guaranty have been duly obtained.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: held unconstitutional, as long as the unlawfulness [of defendant’s actions] was apparent in light of pre-exist-ing law.” Malik v. Brown, 71 F.3d 724, 727 (9th Cir.1995). Butler cites no case directly demonstrating that the asserted right was clearly established in 2005. She contends that in 2005 it was clearly established that “a seizure becomes unlawful when it is more intrusive than necessary to accomplish the objectives that justified the seizure in the first place.” Be that as it may, the circumstances of Butler’s arrest do not demonstrate that her detention was unconstitutionally intrusive. To the contrary, it was established that Perez could detain Butler during the search of her car and home. See Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 705, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981) (<HOLDING>); see also Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, Options: A. holding that agents were allowed to seize and question occupants of business while executing search warrant for illegal aliens B. holding that it is permissible under the fourth amendment to detain occupants of a residence while executing a search warrant of the residence C. holding that a warrant to search for contraband founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted D. holding that officers may detain the occupants of a house while executing a search warrant E. holding that officers executing a search warrant for contraband have the authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that officers may detain the occupants of a house while executing a search warrant
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: damages and liability may be indivisible”); N.J. Election Law Enforcement Comm’n v. Citizens to Make Mayor-Council Gov’t Work, 107 N.J. 380, 388, 526 A.2d 1069 (1987) (explaining that, “[i]n choosing between [retroactivity/prospective application] options, the court must weigh considerations of fairness to the litigants as well as the dictates of sound public policy”); Riley v. New Rapids Carpet Ctr., 61 N.J. 218, 227, 294 A.2d 7 (1972) (stating class action rules “should be applied liberally ... if it is possible to do so with fairness to the litigants”); State v. McCann, 391 N.J.Super. 542, 553, 919 A.2d 136 (App.Div.2007) (stating that judicial disqualification implicates, among other concerns, fairness to litigants); Arenas v. Gari, 309 N.J.Super. 1, 19, 706 A.2d 736 (App.Div.1998) (<HOLDING>); Klajman v. Fair Lawn Estates, 292 N.J.Super. Options: A. recognizing that the focus must be on whether the facts alleged would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial B. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike for cause two potential jurors who had heard andor read about the case but indicated that they could render a fair and impartial verdict based on the evidence presented C. holding that a defendant could not establish stricklands prejudice prong because any erroneous exclusion of an impartial juror was harmless because we have every reason to believe the replacement was also an impartial juror the defendant does not dispute that he was convicted and sentenced by an impartial jury and he presents no reason to think that a jury composed of a slightly different set of impartial jurors would have reached a different verdict D. holding that a defendants claim that a jury was not impartial must focus on the jurors who ultimately sat E. holding that jurors must not only be fair and impartial they also must appear so in order to maintain the litigants confidence in the basic fairness of the trial

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that jurors must not only be fair and impartial they also must appear so in order to maintain the litigants confidence in the basic fairness of the trial