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: United States v. Gabourel, 9 F.Supp.2d 1246 (D.Colo. 1998); United States v. Dunlap, 17 F.Supp.2d 1183 (D.Colo.1998); United States v. Pungitore, 15 F.Snpp.2d 705 (E.D.Pa.1998); United States v. Eisenhardt, 10 F.Supp.2d 521 (D.Md.1998) (“[T]he undersigned ... concluded that [the vacated Singleton decision] was amazingly unsound, not to mention nonsensical____ The chances of ... the Supreme Court reaching the same conclusion as the Singleton panel are, in this Court’s judgment, about the same as discovering the entire roster of the Baltimore Orioles consists of cleverly disguised leprechauns.”); United States v. Guillaume, 13 F.Supp.2d 1331 (S.D.Fla.1998); United States v. Reid, 19 F.Supp.2d 534, 1998 WL 481459 (E.D.Va.1998); United States v. Arana, 18 F.Supp.2d 715 (E.D.Mich.1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Duncan, No. 97-CR-217, 1998 Options: A. holding the result of the singleton panel to be an absurdity B. holding that the final determination of witness credibility and the weight to be accorded evidence is reserved to the appellate panel and it is not the task of an appellate court to weigh the evidence as found by the appellate panel C. holding that one panel of this court is bound by the precedent of an earlier panel absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision of the supreme court D. holding that one panel of this court is not bound by dicta in a previously published panel opinion E. holding stare decisis applies when one court of appeals panel is faced with previous decision of different panel

assistant: The best answer is A. holding the result of the singleton panel to be an absurdity
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: no amazon service , nor any part of any amazon service , may be reproduced , duplicated , copied , sold , resold , visited , or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without express written consent of amazon .

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: required under the Act was timely given....”)); United States for Use of Altman v. Young Lumber Co., 376 F.Supp. 1290, 1295 (D.S.C.1974) (“Rule 6(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, applies to the Miller Act limitation.”); United States for Use and Benefit of Lincoln Elec. Products Co. v. Greene Elec. Serv. of Long Island, Inc., 252 F.Supp. 324, 327 (E.D.N.Y.1966) (“The Miller Act 90-day notice time should be computed in accordance with Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure .... ”), aff'd, 379 F.2d 207 (2nd Cir.1967); United States for Use and Benefit of Pre-Fab Erectors, Inc. v. A.B.C. Roofing & Siding, Inc., 193 F.Supp. 465, 465 (S.D.Cal.1961) (same). But see United States for the use of Magna Masonry, Inc. v. R. T. Woodfield, Inc., 709 F.2d 249, 250 (4th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Austin and Seaboard argue that Options: A. holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the oil pollution act B. holding that rule does not apply where defendant made false representations C. holding that trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for rule 11 sanctions without adequate explanation D. holding without explanation or citation that rule 6a does not apply to the miller act E. holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act

assistant: The best answer is D. holding without explanation or citation that rule 6a does not apply to the miller act
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the subject matter Berquist testified to at trial (reasons why major railroads were amending their safety rules). ¶46. Accordingly, the discovery violation arguments made by Illinois Central do not require a reversal of the jury verdict. C. ¶47. Illinois Central also argues that Berquist’s testimony and opinions were not relevant. However, we find no evidence in the record (either in Illinois Central’s motion in limine, arguments at trial or post-trial motions) that Illinois Central objected to the relevance of Berquist testimony. Only now on appeal does Illinois Central argue that Berquist’s testimony was not relevant. Thus, Illinois Central is procedurally barred from raising this argument on appeal. Chantey Music Publ’g, Inc. v. Malaco, Inc., 915 So.2d 1052, 1060 (Miss.2005) (<HOLDING>). Procedural bar aside, we find little merit to Options: A. holding that an issue raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered by this court B. holding that courts of appeals will generally not consider arguments raised on appeal for first time in reply brief C. holding that this court does not entertain arguments made for the first time on appeal as the case must be decided on the facts contained in the record and not on assertions in the brief D. holding that because a claim was never raised in the district court this court would not consider it for the first time on appeal E. holding court will generally not consider arguments presented for the first time on appeal

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that this court does not entertain arguments made for the first time on appeal as the case must be decided on the facts contained in the record and not on assertions in the brief
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: is identical to an issue actually determined in the prior proceeding; (2) the party against whom estoppel is asserted has been a party to or is in privity with a party to the prior proceeding; (3) there is a final judgment on the merits in the prior proceeding; and (4) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding. Bebo Constr., 990 P.2d at 85; Guar. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Williams, 982 P.2d 306, 308 (Colo.1999); Indus. Comm'n, 732 P.2d at 619-20. Only when each of these elements has been satisfied are the equitable purposes of the doctrine furthered by issue preclusion. -It is settled law that a full and fair opportunity to litigate an issue requires not only the availability of procedur 1211-1212 (1989) (<HOLDING>), as well as from differences in the potential Options: A. recognizing that even though standards of proof and findings in care and protection proceeding are identical to those in subsequent consent to adoption proceeding collateral estoppel inapplicable because incentive to litigate custody or appeal findings from earlier proceeding which are limited and do not carry same degree of finality may be substantially less than incentive to litigate or appeal findings in adoption proceeding which permanently terminates legal parentchild relationship B. holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding C. holding no state court jurisdiction in an adoption proceeding D. holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding E. recognizing that parents incentive to defend in a child in need of supervision proceeding where resulting order is temporary in nature and entitles parent and child to government services is dramatically different from incentive to vigorously litigate same issues in parentaltermination proceeding where the result is permanent and completely severs parentchild relationship

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that even though standards of proof and findings in care and protection proceeding are identical to those in subsequent consent to adoption proceeding collateral estoppel inapplicable because incentive to litigate custody or appeal findings from earlier proceeding which are limited and do not carry same degree of finality may be substantially less than incentive to litigate or appeal findings in adoption proceeding which permanently terminates legal parentchild relationship
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: Yellow, 406 F.Supp.2d at 1219. In reaching this conclusion, the court undertook an extensive analysis of the case law and legislative history surrounding the requirement that the defendant attach process to a notice of removal. Id. at 1215-19. First, the court noted that a majority of courts have held that “ ‘mere modal or procedural defects [in removal] are not jurisdictional’ and that under § 1446(b) missing state court papers may be supplied later.” Id. at 1215 (quoting Covington, 251 F.2d at 933). Because process may be supplied later, failure to attach it is a curable defect rather than a substantive error that requires remand. Id. at 1216. The court also recognized that a failure to attach process — although never addressed by the Tenth Circuit— was 29-30 (D.Mass.1958) (<HOLDING>). While recognizing that some districts have Options: A. holding that the information supporting removal in a copy of an amended pleading must be unequivocally clear and certain to start the time limit running for a notice of removal internal quotation omitted B. holding that notice of removal was defective on its face because it failed to contain a copy of the process as required by the removal statute C. holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand D. holding that the defendants filing of a notice of removal before being served by plaintiffs did not render removal defective E. holding that the defendants motion to amend their notice of removal was proper due to plaintiffs waived objections to the sufficiency of the notice of removal by failing to seek remand within thirty days of removal

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that notice of removal was defective on its face because it failed to contain a copy of the process as required by the removal statute
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Borrower has not dealt with any person, firm or corporation who is or may be entitled to any finder’s fee, brokerage commission, loan commission or other sum in connection with the execution of this Agreement, the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby and the making of the Loan by Agent to Borrower, other than as disclosed to Agent.

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: jurisdiction over the appeal, other grounds would prevent us from granting appellant the relief he requests. Those grounds follow. 1. Issa is Distinguishable First, Issa v. State involved a situa o encompass appellant’s situation is a matter for the legislature to decide. Id. (stating that procedural changes are for the legislature to consider). 2. Punishment Hearing Already Held or Complaint Waived Because appellant was not granted probation under section 5, section 23(a) con trolled and enabled the trial court, following revocation, to “dispose of the case as if there had been no community supervision ” or to reduce the sentence within certa unity to present evidence previously, he was not entitled to do it again at revocation. Duhart v. State, 668 S.W.2d 384, 387 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, if the opportunity to Options: A. holding that fairness would dictate that the accused be given opportunity to present evidence on punishment if it has not already been elicited in the proceeding B. recognizing fundamental fairness requires criminal defendants be granted a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense C. holding that the constitutional right to be present is satisfied so long as the defendant is given an opportunity to register his opinions with counsel after juror questioning and is present when the exercise of strikes is given formal effect even if the defendant is not present when his lawyer actually exercises the peremptory challenges D. holding that fundamental fairness demands at least an opportunity to present rebuttal to surprise evidence E. holding that an essential component of procedural fairness is an opportunity to be heard

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that fairness would dictate that the accused be given opportunity to present evidence on punishment if it has not already been elicited in the 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the body-cavity search, which was performed at approximately 2:15 a.m., officials placed Thompson in a room with seven other prisoners until 7:00 a.m. The room lacked toilet facilities, and at least one of the prisoners urinated on the floor. An official then led Thompson, in his bare feet, to a damp toilet stall, where he was directed to give a urine sample. No one cleaned the toi occurred, but whether the search was hygienic. Because of the strikingly unsanitary conditions under which the officials searched Thompson and performed the urinalysis, I believe that the prison officials in the instant case violated clearly established law. Nor could the prison officials reasonably have believed that their conduct was lawful. See Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 871 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). The California Department of Corrections Options: A. holding that government officials receive qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a constitutional right and the law to this effect was clearly established under thenexisting law such that a reasonable official would have known that his behavior was unlawful B. holding that in deciding whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity it is not only the evidence of clearly established law that is for the court but also whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful in light of the information the officer had C. holding that because a city inspector was not entitled to official immunity the city was not entitled to vicarious official immunity D. holding that second element of qualified immunity test is whether the law violated was clearly established E. holding that if official has violated clearly established law he is entitled to qualified immunity only if reasonable official could have believed conduct was lawful

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that if official has violated clearly established law he is entitled to qualified immunity only if reasonable official could have believed conduct was lawful
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 Executive’s employment, Executive agrees not to defame, disparage or criticize the Company, its business plan, procedures, products, services, development, finances, financial condition, capabilities or other aspect of its business, or any of its officers, directors, agents or assigns (and their direct and indirect shareholders, members and partners, and directors and officers) in any medium (whether oral, written, electronic or otherwise, whether currently existing or hereafter created), to any person or entity, without limitation in time. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, Executive may confer in confidence with Executive’s advisors and make truthful statements as required by law or to the Board or Chief Executive Officer or Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: exercises control over spectators’ access to a sports facility; the Ninth Circuit’s and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Martin, however, require an expanded analysis. While prior decisions by other courts have focused largely on a private entity’s control over the public spectator areas of a “place of public accommodation,” the decisions in Martin also recognize that control exerted over access to the field of play can subject a private entity to ADA requirements. 532 U.S. at -, 121 S.Ct. at 1890 (“[T]he underlying premise of the cases dealing with disabled student-athletes is that Title III applies to the playing field, not just the stands.”). See also Olinger v. United States Golf Ass’n, 205 F.3d 1001, 1004-05 (7th Cir.2000), rev’d, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 2212, 150 L.Ed.2d 207 (2001) (<HOLDING>). The Ninth Circuit in Martin I noted that the Options: A. holding failure to immediately approve request for accommodation even for employee with known disability did not constitute denial of reasonable accommodation where employer was working on solution over several months B. holding that the public use exception was not applicable because the injury to the tenants employee occurred in an area of the leased premises that was not open to the public but was used only by employees C. holding that insurance company administering employerprovided disability plan was not place of public accommodation under ada because employees received their benefits through employment not through a public accommodation D. holding that the competitive area of golf course used for us open did constitute a place of public accommodation E. holding section 625 only requires a showing that the conduct was done in a place that is open to the public or where the public has a right to be

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the competitive area of golf course used for us open did constitute a place of public accommodation
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: To the extent required by law, the Company shall withhold from benefit payments hereunder, or with respect to any amounts credited to a Participant’s Deferral Account hereunder, any Federal, state, or local income or payroll taxes required to be withheld and shall furnish the recipient and the applicable government agency or agencies with such reports, statements, or information as may be legally required.

assistant: Tax Withholdings
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: (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied sub nom. Rodriguez v. United States, 513 U.S. 1156, 115 S.Ct. 1113, 130 L. Ed.2d 1077 (1995), is similar. After instances of possible exposure to inherently prejudicial publicity had been brought to its attention, the court conducted a collective voir dire. The negative response received on each occasion disclosed that jury exposure did not occur and supported the court’s discretionary decision that individual voir dire was unnecessary. The Bermea court wrote: “We have found nothing in our cases to support a rule that midtrial publicity requires individual voir dire even after the district judge has made a collective inquiry to the jury and received no positive response.” Id. at 1560; see also United States v. Tolliver, 61 F.3d 1189, 1204 (5th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). In Bey I, the court was at pains to point out Options: A. holding that preservation of error in the trial court is not necessary as to lack of standing B. holding that prejudice or injury is a necessary element of standing C. holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a 2 claim D. holding that a twostep inquiry is necessary to assess whether individualized voir dire is necessary because of midtrial publicity concerning the nature of the media coverage and its prominence E. holding that it is not necessary to ascertain whether a plan is tax qualified but only that it is covered by erisa

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a twostep inquiry is necessary to assess whether individualized voir dire is necessary because of midtrial publicity concerning the nature of the media coverage and its prominence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice to be given under the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and addressed to the Company at its principal Canadian corporate office to the attention of the Secretary, and to the Executive at the address last reflected on the Company’s payroll records, or such other address as either party may hereafter designate in writing to the other. Any such notice shall be delivered in person or shall be enclosed in a properly sealed envelope addressed as aforesaid, registered or certified, and deposited (postage and registry or certification fee prepaid) in a post office or branch post office regularly maintained by Canada Post. Any such notice shall be deemed given only when received, but if the Executive is no longer employed by the Company or a subsidiary, such notice shall be deemed to have been duly given five (5) business days after the date mailed in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Section.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: determine whether a liability insurer has the initial duty to defend third-party actions against the insured by matching the third party’s complaint with the policy provisions. Herbert A. Sullivan, 439 Mass, at 394, 788 N.E.2d at 530. “[I]f the allegations of the complaint are ‘reasonably susceptible’ of an interpretation that they state or adumbrate a claim covered by the policy terms, the insurer must undertake the defense.” Id. “The scope of an insurer’s duty to defend is based on ‘the facts alleged in the complaint and those facts which are known to the insurer.’ ” Id. (quoting Boston Symphony Orch., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 406 Mass. 7, 10-11, 545 N.E.2d 1156, 1158 (1989)); see also Open Software Found., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 307 F.3d 11, 14-15 (1st Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). In the absence of a complaint that might Options: A. holding that for purposes of determining whether complete diversity exists a court must examine the plaintiffs pleading as of the time of the petition for removai B. holding that under massachusetts law insurer must examine plaintiffs allegations in conjunction with facts it knows or readily should know when determining whether coverage exists under policy C. holding that when the insurer takes the position that the policy does not cover the complaint the insurer must 1 defend the suit under a reservation of rights or 2 seek a declaratory judgment that there is no coverage if the insurer fails to take either of these actions it will be estopped from later raising policy defenses to coverage D. holding that jurisdiction exists for determining if disputed facts are material E. holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that under massachusetts law insurer must examine plaintiffs allegations in conjunction with facts it knows or readily should know when determining whether coverage exists under policy
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In exchange for the valuable consideration described in Section 2, Consultant hereby releases the Company, the Company Group, and each of their employees, officers, directors, stockholders, agents, affiliates, subsidiaries, parent corporations, successors, legal representatives and assigns, as well as each of the above entities’ past and present officers, directors, employees, shareholders, members, trustees, joint ventures, attorneys, partners, and anyone claiming through them (collectively, the “ Released Parties ”), from any and all claims, actions, causes of action, demands, rights, damages, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees and compensation in any form whatsoever, whether known or unknown, which Consultant now has or may have, or which may hereafter accrue against any of the Released Parties on account of or in any way growing out of Consultant’s prior employment with the Company or the termination thereof or otherwise arising up to and including the date Consultant signs this Agreement, including, but not limited to, claims for wrongful discharge, breach of implied or express contracts, breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with contract or prospective economic advantage, violation of public policy, intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring/supervision, defamation, fraud, or other wrongful conduct, including, specifically, any claims arising out of any legal or contractual restriction on the Company’s right to terminate its employees, claims for wages, bonuses, incentives, employment benefits, and claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, Consultant Retirement Income Security Act, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, or Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Equal Pay Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, all as amended, or any other provision of federal, state or local statutory or common law or regulation.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event of any equity restructuring (within the meaning of Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, Compensation—Stock Compensation) that causes the per share value of shares of Stock to change, such as a stock dividend, stock split, spinoff, rights offering or recapitalization through an extraordinary dividend, the number and class of securities subject to the Award shall be equitably adjusted by the Committee. In the event of any other change in corporate capitalization, including a merger, consolidation, reorganization, or partial or complete liquidation of the Company, such equitable adjustments described in the foregoing sentence may be made as determined to be appropriate and equitable by the Committee (or, if the Company is not the surviving corporation in any such transaction, the board of directors of the surviving corporation) to prevent dilution or enlargement of rights of participants. If any adjustment would result in a fractional security being subject to the Award, the Company shall pay the Holder in connection with the first settlement, in whole or part, occurring after such adjustment, an amount in cash determined by multiplying (i) such fraction (rounded to the nearest hundredth) by (ii) the Fair Market Value of such security on the settlement date as determined by the Committee. The decision of the Committee regarding any such adjustment and the Fair Market Value of any fractional security shall be final, binding and conclusive.

assistant: Adjustments
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 Executive agrees that the Company’s goodwill and reputation are assets of great value to the Company which were obtained through great costs, time and effort. Therefore, the Executive agrees that during his employment and after the termination of his employment, the Executive shall not in any way, directly or indirectly, disparage, libel or defame the Company, its beneficial owners or its affiliates, their respective business or business practices, products or services, or employees or agents.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution and delivery of this Agreement by the Consultant: (a) does not require the consent of any third party or governmental entity under any laws; (b) does not violate any laws applicable to the Consultant and (c) does not violate or breach any contractual obligation to which the Consultant is a party.

assistant: No Conflicts
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: 1152 ("The doctrine of alter ego does not rest upon a particular creditor's dealings with or reliance on the control entity, nor does the doctrine require a showing of fraud on a particular creditor.”). 32 . 11 U.S.C. § 304 (1994). 33 . In re Koreag, 961 F.2d at 348. 34 . See H.R.Rep. No. 95-595, 2nd Sess., at 324-25 (1977). 35 . In re Culmer, 25 B.R. 621, 624 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1982). 36 . 11 U.S.C. § 304(c)(1)-(6) (1994). 37 . S.I. Acquisition, 817 F.2d at 1148; In re Davis, 191 B.R. 577, 586 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (compiling citations). 38 . S.I. Acquisition, 817 F.2d at 1147-48; Audio Data Corp. v. Monus, 789 S.W.2d 281, 286 (Tex.Ct.App.1990). 39 . Courts have noted, with curiosity, the different statutory language used in subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2). See, e.g., In re Koreag, 961 F.2d at 349 (<HOLDING>). 40 . 81 B.R. 267 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1988). 41 . Options: A. holding that because property was no longer property of the estate the court could not order turnover B. recognizing that exempt property ceases to be property of the estate C. recognizing that congress per mits injunctions to be issued under subsection b1 regarding property involved in the foreign proceeding but subsection b2 only authorizes turnover of property of the estate leading to the conclusion that the two sections must perform different functions D. holding that funds held in escrow are property of the estate only to the extent of the debtors independent right to that property E. holding that determining the nature and extent of property of the estate is also a fundamental function of a bankruptcy court and therefore the turnover action is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 usc 157b2a

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that congress per mits injunctions to be issued under subsection b1 regarding property involved in the foreign proceeding but subsection b2 only authorizes turnover of property of the estate leading to the conclusion that the two sections must perform different functions
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: Reid’s contrary testimony. These findings are not clearly erroneous. And, in light of these findings, this aspect of Reid’s challenge to counsel’s effectiveness must fail. IV. Reid next contends that because he did not understand what an Alford plea was or that he could face the death penalty under such a plea, his plea was not knowing and voluntary. Reid faults the trial court for failing to inquire adequately into whether Reid understood the charges against him and for not assessing the impact of Reid’s mental deficiencies on his competence to plead guilty. Reid presented this claim for the first time in his state habeas petition, and the Virginia Supreme Court concluded that the claim was defaulted under the rule of Slayton v. Parrigan, 215 Va. 27, 205 S.E.2d 680, 682 (1974) (<HOLDING>). Absent cause and prejudice or a miscarriage Options: A. holding that a claim not raised before the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal B. holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered C. holding claims must be raised on direct appeal or waived D. holding that an issue raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered by this court E. holding that claims not properly raised on direct appeal will not be considered as a basis for collateral relief

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that claims not properly raised on direct appeal will not be considered as a basis for collateral relief
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: Purchaser is not an employee pension benefit plan subject to the provisions of Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as in effect from time to time (“ ERISA ”) or subject to the minimum funding standards under Part 3, Subtitle B, Title I of ERISA or Section 412 of the Code or Section 302 of ERISA, and none of its assets constitutes or will constitute assets of any such employee benefit plan subject to Part 4, Subtitle B, Title I of ERISA. Purchaser is not a “governmental plan” within the meaning of Section 3(32) of ERISA and the funds used by Purchaser to acquire the Property are not subject to any state statutes regulating investments of and fiduciary obligations with respect to governmental plans. The transactions contemplated by this Agreement are not specifically excluded by Part I(b) of PTE 84-14.

assistant: Erisa
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: No representation or warranty by the Parent contained in this Agreement, and no statement contained in the any document, certificate or other instrument delivered or to be delivered by or on behalf of the Parent pursuant to this Agreement, contains or will contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omits or will omit to state any material fact necessary, in light of the circumstances under which it was or will be made, in order to make the statements herein or therein not misleading. The Parent has disclosed to the Company all material information relating to the business of the Parent or any of its Subsidiaries or the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: calculated, and premeditated manner. The court found no statutory miti-gators, but found two nonstatutory mitigating circumstances: (1) Franqui had a poor family background and deprived childhood; and (2) Franqui was a caring husband, father, brother, and provider. See Franqui, 699 So.2d at 1316. Franqui appealed’ his convictions and sentences to this Court. In the direct appeal, we held that although the trial court erred in admitting codefendant San Martin’s written confession during the penalty phase of the trial, the error was harmless in light of Franqui’s own confession and other extensive evidence of guilt. Id. at 1328. We reversed the two attempted murder convictions on the authority of Valentine v. State, 688 So.2d 313 (Fla.1996) (citing State v. Gray, 654 So.2d 552 (Fla.1995) (<HOLDING>)). Franqui, 699 So.2d at 1323. We affirmed the Options: A. holding that the crime of attempted first degree felony murder does not exist B. holding that attempted felony murder was abolished C. holding attempted aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer is not a crime in florida D. holding that attempted felony murder is a logical impossibility E. holding that the crime of attempted felony murder no longer existed in florida

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the crime of attempted felony murder no longer existed in florida
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: plan benefit determination. Id. at 588. Because the plaintiffs suit against the plan fiduciary seeks the payment of benefits created and measured by the terms of the plan, the state law claims relate to the plan and are preempted. The plaintiff may seek his remedy under section 1132(a)(1)(B), upon which Count I of the complaint is based. Counts II, III, IV, and VI, however, must be dismissed. B. In Count V of the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he has been deprived of his property without due process of law because of the defendant’s actions. It is well recognized that the Constitution protects citizens from infringement of their rights by government and state actors, not by private parties. Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 156, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978) (<HOLDING>) (citing Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. Options: A. recognizing that most rights secured by the constitution are protected only against infringement by governments B. recognizing exception under state constitution C. holding parental rights are constitutionally protected fundamental interest D. holding that the montana constitution protects water rights against unreasonable state action E. holding a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the constitution and laws of the united states to state a claim under 1983

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that most rights secured by the constitution are protected only against infringement by governments
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any provision(s) of this Agreement are adjudged void, unenforceable or contrary to law, the balance of the Agreement nonetheless will remain in full force and effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: privilege)). However, the legislature may create exceptions to statutory privileges. Martin v. Reinstein, 195 Ariz. 293, 320, ¶ 96, 987 P.2d 779, 806 (App.1999) (stating that statutory privileges, such as the physician-patient pr t use the term “privileged” with respect to educational records. The statutes do not create an independent privilege for educational records. See also State v. Birdsall, 116 Ariz. 196, 198-99, 568 P.2d 1094, 1096-97 (App.1977) (concluding that FERPA and the predecessor statute to A.R.S. § 15-141 permitted disclosure of school'records pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum or other judicial order). Other jurisdictions have reached the same conclusion. See Rios v. Read, 73 F.R.D. 589, 598 (E.D.N.Y.1977) (“It is obvious ... that [FERPA] 517-19 (R.I.2006) (<HOLDING>). At most, the federal and state statutes make Options: A. holding that statute making child welfare agency records confidential but disclosable pursuant to a court order did not create an absolute privilege for such records B. recognizing privilege C. holding that there is no statutory deliberative process privilege in arizona and declining to create such a privilege under the common law D. holding that educational records are not privileged under ferpa E. holding that ferpa and state law did not create an educational records privilege

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that ferpa and state law did not create an educational records privilege
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: irresponsible and unfounded charges, and (2) encouraging the participation of witnesses by providing protection against retaliation and harassment. Owen v. Mann, 105 Ill.2d 525, 532-33, 86 Ill.Dec. 50 Inc. v. United States, 2004 WL 783106 (N.D.Ill.2004) (refusing to recognize the Illinois Medical Studies Act evidentiary privilege because, inter alia, the Government’s interest in accessing the information to investigate alleged health care fraud outweighed the policy underlying the peer-review privilege); State of Ill., 148 F.R.D. 587 (refusing to recognize the Illinois Medical Studies Act evidentiary privilege in a federal civil rights case because doing so would thwart the purpose of the underlying federal statute); but see Freeman v. J.W. Fairman, Jr., 917 F.Supp. 586 (N.D.Ill.1996) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff argues that regardless of the Options: A. holding that a claim of privilege to bank records pursuant to federal public policy was without merit B. holding that the statelaw protecting employees from retaliatory discharge was independent from the cba because the statelaw claim could be resolved without interpreting the agreement itself C. recognizing the statelaw privilege because there was no federal claim to which the records sought would be relevant D. recognizing privilege under federal rules E. recognizing privilege

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing the statelaw privilege because there was no federal claim to which the records sought would be relevant
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: weight. In light of the foregoing, the Court determines that the “relative means of the parties” factor is neutral in this case. C. Summary In sum, although the Court recognizes that the plaintiffs choice of forum should not be disturbed unless the other factors weigh strongly in favor of transfer, the Court finds that defendant has met its burden in this case. Despite the fact that plaintiffs attorney may need to travel to New Jersey, the other factors — particularly that the locus of operative facts occurred entirely in New Jersey and that the only connection plaintiff has with this District is that his counsel resides here— overwhelmingly support transfer. See, e.g., Scott v. Life Investors Ins. Co. of Am., No. 2:07 CV 29, 2007 WL 3390012, at *3, *6 (N.D. W. Va. Nov. 13, 2007) (<HOLDING>); Black v. JCPenny Life Ins. Co., No. C 01-4070 Options: A. holding that plaintiffs failure to prove decedents death was caused by the wrongful acts of the defendant precludes any recovery of wrongful death damages under mississippis wrongful death statute B. holding in case where plaintiff sought damages resulting from the defendants failure to pay the accidental death benefit claims she filed following death of her husband transfer to south carolina was warranted because with the exception of plaintiffs relocation to the state of west virginia following the death of the decedent the cause of action bears virtually no relation to the forum chosen by the plaintiff C. recognizing cause of action for wrongful death D. holding that personal representative may amend personal injury suit to state wrongful death claim following plaintiffs death E. holding that intent to cause death could be inferred from the nature and extent of the wounds and the fact that the defendant left decedent to bleed to death while he went home to bed

assistant: The best answer is B. holding in case where plaintiff sought damages resulting from the defendants failure to pay the accidental death benefit claims she filed following death of her husband transfer to south carolina was warranted because with the exception of plaintiffs relocation to the state of west virginia following the death of the decedent the cause of action bears virtually no relation to the forum chosen by the plaintiff
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of Mishawaka I, Church Park Apartments, Willow Creek Apartments, and Riverside Village Apartments—had twenty-year prepayment eligibility dates that occurred during the period that LIHPRHA was in effect. Defendant argues that plaintiffs’ claims accrued on each property’s twenty-year prepayment eligibility date. Plaintiffs, relying principally on Creppel v. United States, 41 F.3d 627, 632 (Fed.Cir.1994), wherein the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) explained that “property owners cannot sue for a temporary taking until the regulatory process that began it has ended,” contend that their claims accrued in 1996 when the HOPE Act ended the regulatory process that began the temporary taking. Cf. Greenbrier v. United States, 75 Fed.Cl. 637, 642 (2007) (<HOLDING>). The court concludes that plaintiffs’ claims Options: A. recognizing some dispute over the accrual date for temporary taking claims based on elihpalihprha mortgage payment restrictions B. holding that where payment toward judgment was for less than the total amount of principal and interest owed that payment then did not terminate the accrual of interest on the remaining principal C. holding that the date of sale for an installment contract was the date of contract formation not the date of the last payment due D. holding erisas accrual date for limitations period controlled despite contrary language in policy E. holding that accrual date begins to run on the date the employee is notified unambiguously of the adverse employment action

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing some dispute over the accrual date for temporary taking claims based on elihpalihprha mortgage payment restrictions