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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company and its Subsidiaries maintain for its or their benefit, insurance or a membership in a mutual protection and indemnity association covering its properties, operations, personnel and businesses in such amounts, and of the type, as deemed adequate by the Company; such insurance or membership insures or will insure against such losses and risks to an extent which is adequate in accordance with customary industry practice to protect the vessels owned by the Company (each, a “ Vessel ” and collectively, the “ Vessels ”) and, in the case of insurance or a membership maintained by or for the benefit of the Company and its Subsidiaries, their businesses; any such insurance or membership maintained by or for the benefit of the Company and its Subsidiaries is and will be fully in force; there are no material claims by the Company or any subsidiary under any insurance policy or instrument as to which any insurance company or mutual protection and indemnity association is denying liability or defending under a reservation of rights clause; neither the Company nor any of its Subsidiaries is currently required to make any material payment, or is aware of any facts that would require the Company or any subsidiary to make any material payment, in respect of a call by, or a contribution to, any mutual protection and indemnity association; and neither the Company nor any subsidiary has reason to believe that it will not be able to renew or cause to be renewed for its benefit any such insurance or membership in a mutual protection and indemnity association as and when such insurance or membership expires or is terminated.

assistant: Insurances
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 the Asset Representations Reviewer is required by applicable law, regulation, rule or order issued by an administrative, governmental, regulatory or judicial authority to disclose part of the Confidential Information, it may disclose the Confidential Information. However, before a required disclosure, the Asset Representations Reviewer, if permitted by law, regulation, rule or order, will use its reasonable efforts to provide the Issuer, the Sponsor and the Servicer with notice of the requirement and will cooperate, at the Sponsor’s expense, in the Issuer’s and the Sponsor’s pursuit of a proper protective order or other relief for the disclosure of the Confidential Information. If the Issuer or the Sponsor is unable to obtain a protective order or other proper remedy by the date that the information is required to be disclosed, the Asset Representations Reviewer will disclose only that part of the Confidential Information that it is advised by its legal counsel it is legally required to disclose.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: these terms of use are the entire agreement between you and vivino with respect to the service and use of the site , service , content or user submissions and supersede all prior or contemporaneous communications and proposals ( whether oral , written or electronic ) between you and vivino with respect to the site .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: TATUM DISCLAIMS ALL REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTIES OF QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS OF USE OR PURPOSE. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, TATUM MAKES NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE TATUM PROFESSIONAL OR THE SERVICES PROVIDED HEREUNDER, AND TATUM WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ACTION TAKEN BY THE COMPANY IN FOLLOWING OR DECLINING TO FOLLOW ANY OF THE TATUM PROFESSIONAL’S ADVICE OR RECOMMENDATIONS. THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY TATUM AND THE TATUM PROFESSIONAL HEREUNDER ARE FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY AND NOT ANY UNNAMED THIRD PARTIES. THE SERVICES WILL NOT CONSTITUTE AN AUDIT, REVIEW, OPINION, OR COMPILATION, OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT REPORTING OR ATTESTATION ENGAGEMENT THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE RULES OF THE AICPA OR OTHER SIMILAR STATE OR NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL BODIES OR LAWS AND WILL NOT RESULT IN AN OPINION OR ANY FORM OF ASSURANCE ON INTERNAL CONTROLS.

assistant: Warranties
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: Lender agrees to take normal and reasonable precautions to maintain the confidentiality of any information designated in writing as confidential and provided to it by Borrower or any Subsidiary, except that such information may be disclosed (a) to any Affiliate, Participant or advisor of Lender, including without limitation accountants, legal counsel and other advisors, provided that Lender shall have taken reasonable steps to assure that such Affiliates, participants, and advisors will maintain such information in confidence to the same extent required of Lender hereunder, (b) to the extent required by applicable laws or regulations or by any subpoena or similar legal process, (c) to the extent requested by any regulatory agency or authority, (d) to the extent that such information becomes publicly available, other than as a result of a breach of this Section 8.12 , or which becomes available to Lender on a nonconfidential basis from a source other than Borrower, (e) in connection with the exercise of any remedy hereunder or any suit, action or proceeding relating to this Agreement or the enforcement of rights hereunder, and (f) subject to provisions substantially similar to this Section 8.12 , to any actual or prospective assignee or Participant, or (g) with the consent of Borrower. Any Person required to maintain the confidentiality of any information as provided for in this Section shall be considered to have complied with its obligation to do so if such Person has exercised the same degree of care to maintain the confidentiality of such information as such Person would accord its own confidential information.

assistant: Confidentiality
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: ( b ) to the extent permitted by law , headspace and its affiliates , suppliers , clients , or licensors ( collectively , the `` protected entities '' ) shall not be liable for any consequential , exemplary or punitive damages arising from , or directly or indirectly related to , the use of , or the inability to use , the products or the content , materials and functions related thereto , your provision of information via the products , or lost business or lost sales , or any errors , viruses or bugs contained in the products , even if such protected entity has been advised of the possibility of such damages .

assistant: Limitation of liability
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: are not bound by lower federal court decisions involving either constitutional or statutory interpretation, we do give such decisions due respect in an attempt to create “judicial comity” and avoid forum shopping. Dewey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 121 N.J. 69, 79-80, 577 A.2d 1239 (1990). We are not bound by lower federal courts because “state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is parallelism but not paramountey for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court.” State v. Coleman, 46 N.J. 16, 36, 214 A.2d 393 (1965) , cert. denied, 383 U.S. 950, 86 S.Ct. 1210, 16 L.Ed.2d 212 (1966) . See also State v. One 1994 Ford Thunderbird, 349 N.J.Super. 352, 364, 793 A.2d 792 (App.Div.2002) (<HOLDING>). We are not free to determine whether Ray’s Options: A. holding that although walker v birmingham 388 us 307 87 sct 1824 18 led2d 1210 1967 upheld a rule that barred collateral challenges of contempt citations appellant nevertheless could challenge his contempt citation on habeas because california elected not to adopt a collateral bar rule B. holding that our courts are bound by the united states supreme courts interpretation of the federal constitution C. holding the rule that an accused has a right to counsel at any critical confrontation announced in united states v wade 388 us 218 87 sct 1926 18 led2d 1149 and gilbert v california 388 us 263 87 sct 1951 18 led2d 1178 not to be retroactive D. holding that errors of federal constitutional dimension occurring at the penalty phase of a capital trial are generally subject to harmlesserror review under the beyondareasonabledoubt test of chapman v california 1967 386 us 18 24 17 led2d 705 710711 87 sct 824 24 alr3d 1065 E. holding that bjecause there has never been a definitive statement by the united states supreme court clarifying the recognized ambiguity in cooper v california 386 us 58 87 sct 788 17 led2d 730 1967 we are free to adopt our own view of its holding unconstrained by opinions of federal courts of appeal

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that bjecause there has never been a definitive statement by the united states supreme court clarifying the recognized ambiguity in cooper v california 386 us 58 87 sct 788 17 led2d 730 1967 we are free to adopt our own view of its holding unconstrained by opinions of federal courts of appeal
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: prejudicial and on a practical level is not easily subject to testing by cross examination or contradiction”). Thus, neither a lay nor an expert witness “may testify to his opinion as to the guilt of a defendant, whether by direct statement or inference.” Black, 109 Wn.2d at 348. A law enforcement officer’s opinion testimony may be especially prejudicial because the “officer’s testimony often carries a special aura of reliability.” Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d at 928. ¶14 The State conceded Officer Starks’ opinion testimony was improper. “As in Montgomery Officer Starks’ testimony would be considered improper under current case law because it is an expression by a police officer that goes to the guilt of Defendant.” Br. of Resp’t at 12; see State v. Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d 577, 183 P.3d 267 (2008) (<HOLDING>). But, the State argues, because the officer’s Options: A. holding that error in classifying agents testimony as lay opinion and failing to subject it to the disclosure requirements was harmless B. holding states opinion testimony was improper but finding that error harmless and concluding on other grounds that defendant had been prejudiced C. holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error D. holding improper vouching is subject to harmless error analysis E. holding exclusion was harmless error

assistant: The best answer is B. holding states opinion testimony was improper but finding that error harmless and concluding on other grounds that defendant had been prejudiced
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: occur without anyone’s negligence”). We see no harm in explaining to the jury through an inferential rebuttal instruction that no such implication is intended. But giving multiple instructions on every possible rebuttal inference has the potential to skew the jury’s analysis in the other direction. As we have noted, the Texas Pattern Jury Charges presently parse inferential rebuttal defenses into five separate instructions. Comm. On Pattern Jury Charges, State Bar of Tex., Texas Pattern Jury Charges — General Negligence & Intentional Personal Torts PJC 3.1-3.5 (2003). Many of these instructions overlap to create redundancies that encourage parties to request several so that the point can be repeatedly emphasized. See Schuhmacher Co. v. Holcomb, 142 Tex. 332, 177 S.W.2d 951, 953 (1944) (<HOLDING>). For example, an occurrence caused by severe Options: A. holding that the defendant who is the same defendant as in this case clearly is entitled to headofstate immunity B. holding the same C. holding defendant was entitled to both unavoidableaccident and soleproximatecause instructions despite objection that this allowed defendant to slice two defenses from precisely the same facts D. holding that the defendant could not raise affirmative defenses initially in its dispositive motion but remanding the case to the trial court to determine if leave to amend answer to incorporate affirmative defenses was appropriate so that the defendant could then properly raise those defenses in its dispositive motion E. holding that two suits related to the same set of facts because they both concerned the events leading to the plaintiffs termination

assistant: The best answer is C. holding defendant was entitled to both unavoidableaccident and soleproximatecause instructions despite objection that this allowed defendant to slice two defenses from precisely the same facts
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Upon Administrative Agent’s request and at Borrower’s sole cost and expense, the Borrower shall execute, acknowledge and deliver any other instruments and perform any other acts necessary, desirable or proper, as reasonably determined by Administrative Agent, to carry out the purposes of this Agreement and the other Loan Documents or to perfect and preserve any Liens created by the Loan Documents. The Borrower shall cooperate with the Administrative Agent and any Lender with respect to any proceedings arising out of or relating to the Property, Borrower, Guarantor, the Loan or the Loan Documents before any court, board or other Governmental Authority which may in any way adversely affect the rights of the Administrative Agent or any Lender hereunder or any rights obtained by Administrative Agent or such Lender under any of the Loan Documents and, in connection therewith, permit the Administrative Agent and any Lender, at its election, to participate in any such proceedings. The Borrower shall cooperate with the Administrative Agent and any Lender in obtaining for the Administrative Agent or any Lender the benefits of any insurance proceeds lawfully or equitably payable to the Administrative Agent or any Lender in connection with the Property.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Plan shall take effect on the Effective Date, subject to approval by the stockholders of the Company as required by Section 423 of the Code, which approval must occur within twelve months of the adoption of the Plan by the Board.

assistant: Effective Dates
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: Subject to Section 6.4, Participant will be entitled to receive payment, if any, under an Award if the Participant is still employed by Atlas on the last day of the Program Year for which the Award is paid, unless in the period between the last day of the Program Year and any payout under the Program, the Participant is terminated by Atlas for Cause (as defined in Section 7) or the Participant terminates his employment with Atlas for any reason. A Participant will receive an Award in the manner and at the times set forth in this Sections 6.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: lie, after lie, after lie.” This comment alone is not sufficiently prejudicial to entitle the defendants to a new trial. Therefore, we must determine whether counsel’s other references to defense witnesses’ veracity constituted gross improprieties entitling defendants to a new trial because of the court’s failure to correct them ex mero motu. In North Carolina, “[i]t is improper for a lawyer to assert his opinion that a witness is lying.” State v. Locklear, 294 N.C. 210, 217, 241 S.E.2d 65, 70 (1978). However, the mere fact that counsel makes such an argument does not automatically establish that the argument is grossly improper so as to require a new trial when the trial court does not intervene ex mero motu. See State v. Solomon, 340 N.C. 212, 218-20, 456 S.E.2d 778, 782-84 (1995) (<HOLDING>); State v. Noell, 284 N.C. 670, 696, 202 S.E.2d Options: A. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing recross where the prosecutor did not raise any new matters during redirect B. holding that various expressions of personal belief by the prosecutor in closing argument were improper warrant ing admonishment by the trial court C. holding that prosecutors statements regarding his opinion as to the truthfulness of a defense witness considering the evidence against the defendant did not reach the level of the grossly improper statements which would require the trial court to correct them ex mero motu D. holding a trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to require disclosure of an informants name E. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to intervene ex mero motu to prevent closing argument by the prosecutor that the defendant lied during his testimony

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to intervene ex mero motu to prevent closing argument by the prosecutor that the defendant lied during his testimony
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: Brookline hereby agrees with Company: (i) to maintain in confidence any non-public information disclosed to Brookline with respect to Company; (ii) to use such information only in connection with the provision of services to Company hereunder; and (iii) to comply with applicable securities laws with respect to such information. Brookline agrees to keep confidential during the Term, and for five years after any termination of this Agreement, all non-public information provided to it by Company or its advisors, except as required by law, pursuant to an order of a court of competent jurisdiction or the request of a regulatory authority having jurisdiction over Brookline (a “ Regulatory Request ”), or as contemplated by the terms of this Agreement, provided Brookline shall, if permitted by law, give notice to Company of the requirement, order or Regulatory Request to furnish the non-public information (other than a Regulatory Request made in the ordinary course and not specific to the non-public information). Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, Brookline may disclose non-public information to its affiliates, agents and advisors whenever it determines that such disclosure is necessary to provide the services contemplated hereunder, provided that it advises such persons of the obligation to maintain the confidentiality of such information and remains liable under this Agreement for any breach of confidentiality by such affiliates, agents and advisors. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, this Section shall not bar disclosure of, and Brookline and its representatives or agents may disclose, without limitation of any kind, any information with respect to the “tax treatment” and “tax structure” (in each case, within the meaning of Treasury Regulation Section 1.6011-4) of the Offering and related transactions and all materials of any kind (including opinions or other tax analyses) that are provided to Brookline or Company or such representatives or agents relating to such tax treatment and tax structure, provided that with respect to any document or similar item, this sentence shall only apply to such portions of the document or similar item that relate to the tax treatment or tax structure of the transactions.

assistant: Confidentiality
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 indemnify and hold harmless any person who was or is a party to any proceeding, including any proceeding brought by a member in the right of the Company or brought by or on behalf of any member of the Company, by reason of the fact that he is or was a Manager or an officer of the Company, against any liability incurred by him in connection with such proceedings unless he engaged in willful misconduct or knowing violation of the criminal law or any federal or state securities laws. Furthermore, in any such proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Company or bought by or on behalf of the members of the Company, no Manager or officer shall be liable to the Company or its members for any monetary damages with respect to any transaction, occurrence, course of conduct or otherwise, except for liability resulting from such Manager’s or officer’s having engaged in willful misconduct or a knowing violation of the criminal law or any federal or state securities laws.

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

user: If Investor or its Representatives receive a subpoena or other validly issued administrative or judicial process requesting Evaluation Material, or if Investor or its Representatives are requested or required to disclose any Evaluation Material under law, governmental order, judicial order, regulatory or statutory requirement, discovery request, oral questions, interrogatories, requests for information or documents, subpoena, civil investigative demand or similar process, Investor shall notify the Company reasonably promptly following Investor or its Representatives first becoming aware of such requested disclosure, so that the Company may seek a protective order or other appropriate remedy or, in the Company’s sole discretion, waive compliance with the terms of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a group of persons similarly situated to Cerón on account of his membership in a particular social group. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2)(i). Although Cerón raised his pattern or practice argument in his initial October 2013 brief filed pro se, Cer-ón has not shown that the BIA did, or was required to, consider that brief. After Cer-ón filed his October 2013 brief, the BIA remanded the case to the IJ who issued a supplemental decision. The BIA then issued another briefing schedule and Cerón filed a pro se brief in December 2013, and another brief in April 2014 through counsel. Neither the December 2013 brief nor the April 2014 brief sufficiently asserted a pattern or practice of persecution of a group of persons. See Tall v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, Ceron’s December 2013 pro se brief Options: A. holding that petitioner did not exhaust his due process claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing by arguing that due process was violated on the ground that the ij admitted uncertified evidence B. holding that a petitioner must show prejudice in order to prevail on a claim that he or she was denied a full and fair hearing in violation of due process C. holding that there is no due process violation where the ijs finding was not arbitrary and the alien was not denied a full and fair opportunity to present his claims D. holding that an alien is entitled to the fifth amendment guarantee of due process which is satisfied by a full and fair hearing E. holding that the petitioners due process claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing because the immigration judge was biased was the kind of procedural error that required exhaustion

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that petitioner did not exhaust his due process claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing by arguing that due process was violated on the ground that the ij admitted uncertified evidence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: On the date the Extension Request is given there shall exist no Default or Event of Default and on the then applicable Revolving Credit Maturity Date (as determined without regard to such extension) there shall exist no Default or Event of Default.

assistant: No Defaults
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 payment of any amounts otherwise payable to the Executive on account of termination of employment under this Agreement which constitute deferred compensation within the meaning of Section 409A and which are subject (among other conditions, if any) to a release of claims in a customary form mutually satisfactory to the Company and Executive may be delayed at the discretion of the Company for up to three (3) days following the Executive’s delivery of release and such release becoming irrevocable (an “ Effective Release ”)) but in no event later than sixty (60) days following the Executive’s termination of employment, subject to Section ‎19.1. Regardless of any payment, however, all such amounts remain conditioned on an Effective Release such that if the Executive fails to deliver (or if the Executive revokes) the Executive’s release the Executive will forfeit and must immediately return such amounts on the Company’s demand. If the sixty (60)-day period following a separation from service begins in one calendar year and ends in a second calendar year (a “ Crossover 60-Day Period ”) and if there are any payments that are subject to Section 409A that are: (i) conditioned on the Executive signing and not revoking a release of claims and (ii) otherwise due to be paid during the portion of the Crossover 60-Day Period that falls within the first year, then such payments will be delayed and paid in a lump sum during the portion of the Crossover 60-Day Period that falls within the second year.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 45 U.S.C. § 56, and 46 U.S.C. § 30106, are essentially identical, stating that the action must be “commenced” or “brought” within the three year period. The Supreme Court in Burnett specifically found that the state court suit had been properly “commenced” although it was filed in an improper venue. 380 U.S. at 426, 85 S.Ct. at 1053. Furthermore, because the principle of uniformity that drove the Burnett decision applies with equal force to a general maritime action, other courts have correctly held that Burnett applies in general maritime cases. See, e.g., Prejean, 721 So.2d at 1276 (citing 1 Martin J. Norris, The Law of Maritime Personal Injuries § 5:10 (4th ed.1990)); Davis, 659 F.Supp. at 156-157; People of the Living God v. Star Towing Co., 289 F.Supp. 635, 639 (E.D.La.1968) (<HOLDING>). Defendant’s second argument for distinction Options: A. holding that feres doctrine is equally applicable to family member claims derivative of a service members injuries B. holding that uniformity is as important in maritime survival actions as it is in maritime wrongful death actions C. holding that courts apply substantive admiralty law to claims that sound in admiralty regardless of whether the complaint invokes diversity or admiralty jurisdiction D. holding that burnett and its justification of uniformity is equally applicable to admiralty actions E. holding that a complaint that asserts both admiralty jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction is not an adequate 9h designation to trigger admiralty procedures

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that burnett and its justification of uniformity is equally applicable to admiralty actions
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and held that a failure to do so amounted to ineffectiveness of counsel warranting the grant of a new trial. A review of our case law prior to the Brooks decision, however, indicates that this Court had declined to evaluate ineffectiveness claims alleging the failure to prepare based solely on the existence or duration of counsel’s pretrial face-to-face consultation with the defendant. See Harvey, 812 A.2d at 1196-97 (rejecting a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for consulting with defendant for only one hour prior to trial where defendant failed to allege any issues that counsel should have raised or any beneficial information that his counsel would have discovered had further pretrial consultations been held); Commonwealth v. Mason, 559 Pa. 500, 741 A.2d 708, 715-16 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Porter, 556 Pa. 301, 728 A.2d Options: A. holding that counsels limited pretrial consultation with defendant did not render him ineffective because defendant did not identify issues that should have been raised and the defendants ability to convey pertinent information to counsel was impaired due to his severe intoxication at the time of the offense B. holding that for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to be established a defendant must show that but for counsels error the outcome of his proceedings would have been different C. holding that defense counsels failure to present voluntary intoxication as a defense in a capitalmurder prosecution was not beyond the range of reasonable professional judgment and thus did not amount to ineffective assistance in view of inconsistency of intoxication defense with deliberateness of the defendants actions during the shootings D. holding that the defendant did not show prejudice to support ineffective assistance of counsel because any evidentiary error was harmless E. holding counsels strategic decision not to present a voluntary intoxication defense did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel determined the murder was not committed while floyd was under the influence of cocaine

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that counsels limited pretrial consultation with defendant did not render him ineffective because defendant did not identify issues that should have been raised and the defendants ability to convey pertinent information to counsel was impaired due to his severe intoxication at the time of the offense
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: failed in determining whether it breached the contract. Because “Question 1” submitted only a single theory of liability and the trial court did not otherwise instruct the jury to consider erroneous matters, we conclude that the trial court did not err by submitting an invalid theory of liability in “Question 1.” Cf. Bush, 122 S.W.3d at 857-58; Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc., 211 S.W.3d at 757 (“When, as here, the broad-form questions submitted a single liability theory (negligence) to the jury, Casteel’s multiple-liability-theory analysis does not apply.”); Mustafa v. Matrut, No. 01-08-00985-CV, 2010 WL 1492419, at *4-5 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 15, 2010) (mem. op.), supplemented, No. 01-08-00985-CV, 2010 WL 1839944 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] May 6, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>); Formosa Plastics Corp., USA v. Kajima Int’l., Options: A. holding that evidence of nonpayment of salary and writing of bad checks did not result in submission of unpled theories of fraud liability where evidence supported pled fraud claim based on nonpayment of loan B. holding that the submission of false information with regard to loan applications was not the result of spur of the moment conduct C. holding that where an agent is guilty of independent fraud for his benefit knowledge of the fraud is not imputed to the principal D. holding that defendant was not harmed by submission of invalid fraud claim E. holding that fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that evidence of nonpayment of salary and writing of bad checks did not result in submission of unpled theories of fraud liability where evidence supported pled fraud claim based on nonpayment of loan
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: court's rejection of the defendant's insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim was not unreasonable under AEDPA); Knowles, 556 U.S. at 114, 129 S.Ct. 1411 (finding that the Ninth Circuit erred because the state court’s decision that the defendant was not deprived of effective counsel was not "contrary to, or ... an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Wright, 552 U.S. at 126, 128 S.Ct. 743 (reversing the Seventh Circuit and stating, "because our cases give no clear answer to the question presented, let alone one in [the defendant's favor, it cannot be said that the state court unreasonably applied clearly established Federal law.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Carey, 549 U.S. at 72, 127 S.Ct. 649 (<HOLDING>); Rice, 546 U.S. at 334, 126 S.Ct. 969 (finding Options: A. holding that the sixth circuit erred in granting habeas relief because the state courts upholding of jury instructions and verdict forms regarding the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law citation and internal quotation marks omitted B. holding that the federal habeas courts task is to determine if the state courts decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the supreme court of the united states C. holding that the ninth circuit improperly granted habeas relief because the state courts decision that it was not inherently prejudicial when court spectators wore buttons depicting the murder victim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law D. holding that the ninth circuit improperly granted habeas relief because there exists no clearly established right under federal law to access a law library while in jail E. holding that the sixth circuit erred in finding that the state courts jury instructions were contrary to clearly established federal law

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the ninth circuit improperly granted habeas relief because the state courts decision that it was not inherently prejudicial when court spectators wore buttons depicting the murder victim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware without regard to principles of conflicts of laws thereof or any other State. Any action brought by any party against any other party hereto concerning the transactions contemplated by this Agreement shall be brought only in the state courts of New York or in the federal courts located in the state and county of New York. The parties to this Agreement hereby irrevocably waive any objection to jurisdiction and venue of any action instituted hereunder and shall not assert any defense based on lack of jurisdiction or venue or based upon forum non conveniens . The parties executing this Agreement and other agreements referred to herein or delivered in connection herewith on behalf of the Company agree to submit to the in personam jurisdiction of such courts and hereby irrevocably waive trial by jury. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. In the event that any provision of this Agreement or any other agreement delivered in connection herewith is invalid or unenforceable under any applicable statute or rule of law, then such provision shall be deemed inoperative to the extent that it may conflict therewith and shall be deemed modified to conform with such statute or rule of law. Any such provision which may prove invalid or unenforceable under any law shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of any agreement. Each party hereto hereby irrevocably waives personal service of process and consents to process being served in any suit, action or proceeding in connection with this Agreement or any other transaction document contemplated hereby by mailing a copy thereof via registered or certified mail or overnight delivery (with evidence of delivery) to such party at the address in effect for notices to it under this Agreement and agrees that such service shall constitute good and sufficient service of process and notice thereof. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to limit in any way any right to serve process in any other manner permitted by law.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights, interests or obligations hereunder may be assigned or delegated by either of Seller or the Purchaser without the prior written consent of the other parties and any purported assignment or delegation in violation thereof will be null and void; except that the Seller may assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement to any of the direct or indirect parent entities or subsidiaries of the Seller, or any successor to its business. This Agreement is not intended to confer any rights or benefits on any Person other than the parties hereto, except to the extent specifically provided in Article VI . Any attempted assignment in contravention of the foregoing restrictions on assignment or transfer shall be null and void ab initio. Subject to the foregoing language in this Section 7.03 , this Agreement will apply to, be binding in all respects upon, and inure to the benefit of the successors, permitted assigns, heirs, executors, and personal representatives of the parties. Except as provided in this Section 7.03 , and except for the rights of Seller Indemnitees and Purchaser Indemnitees under Article VI , nothing expressed or referred to in this Agreement will be construed to give any Person other than the parties to this Agreement and their respective successors and permitted assigns any legal or equitable right, remedy, or claim under or with respect to this Agreement or any provision of this Agreement.

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: array of fact patterns”). 4 . Although the actual statistics are not in the record as to the voter or total population of Coosa County during the relevant time period, this court notes that the U.S. Bureau of Census provides that in 1980 the total population of Coosa County was 11,377. See Fed. R.Evid. 201; Knox v. Butler, 884 F.2d 849, 852 n. 7 (5th Cir.1989) (observing that court may take judicial notice of census statistics on federal habeas review). 5 . The state court clerk's index recites that the trial court's order is on page 1142. The pages in the court's file, however, are not numbered. 6 . The Supreme Court of the United States has found presumed prejudice based on pretrial publicity in the following three cases: Sheppard, above; Rideau, 373 U.S. at 724, 83 S.Ct. 1417 (<HOLDING>); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 535-36, 85 Options: A. holding that in determining whether a substantial change of circumstances has occurred trial court must consider income available to parents new marital community B. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to continue trial three months where although trial was complex and records were voluminous court had already granted two prior continuances and continuance of three weeks was sufficient to prepare for trial C. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge D. holding that although the court disapproved of the prosecutors appeal to tell the defendant that this crime wont be tolerated in this community the remark was not so objectionable as to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant a mistrial E. holding that the defendants uncounselled 20minute custodial confession which was televised three times prior to the trial in the community where the crime and trial occurred was so pervasive and inflammatory as to saturate the community such that any subsequent court proceeding would be but a hollow formality

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the defendants uncounselled 20minute custodial confession which was televised three times prior to the trial in the community where the crime and trial occurred was so pervasive and inflammatory as to saturate the community such that any subsequent court proceeding would be but a hollow formality
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 Executive’s employment is terminated by reason of Executive’s Disability during the Employment Period, this Agreement shall terminate without further obligations to Executive, other than for payment of Accrued Obligations and the timely payment or provision of Other Benefits. Accrued Obligations shall be paid to Executive in a lump sum in cash within 30 days of the Date of Termination.

assistant: Disability
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 Article VI and Sections 3.03, 4.01, 4.02, 5.01, 8.01, 8.02, 8.03 and Articles IX and X will survive and continue in full force and effect notwithstanding the termination of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: A ny p r o visio n of t h i s Agreeme nt t h a t i s held to be invalid, illegal or u ne n f o rceabl e i n a ny juris d ictio n s h all , a s t o suc h jurisdicti on, be i n effectiv e t o t he e x te nt o f suc h invalidity, illegality or un e n forcea b ilit y wit ho u t affecting the validity, legality or enforceability of t he remai n i ng p r o visi ons hereof , a nd the invalidity i n a ny juris d icti on shal l n o t i n vali d at e o r re n de r u ne n forceabl e suc h p r o visi on i n a ny o t h e r j u risdicti on. T he partie s shal l e nd eav or i n g ood fait h neg o tiati o n s t o re p lac e t he invali d, illega l or un e n f o rceabl e pr o visi ons wit h vali d p r o visi o n s th e ec ono mi c effec t o f w h ic h c o me s a s cl o s e a s po ssibl e t o tha t of th e i n vali d, illega l or u ne n f o rceabl e pr o visi on s.

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: FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313, 113 S.Ct. 2096, 124 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993)). Under rational basis review, a classification is permissible “if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis.” Id. (quoting Beach Communications, 508 U.S. at 313, 113 S.Ct. 2096). Plaintiffs contend that the EO discriminates on the basis of religion and was designed to exclude Muslims from the United States. They further allege that it singles out citizens of seven different countries. At oral argument, plaintiffs relied on “astonishing evidence of intent” from President Trump which, in their view, demonstrates that EO was “substantially motivated by improper animus.” See Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 233, 105 S.Ct. 1916, 85 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Defendants responded that the cases examining Options: A. holding that the state law violated equal protection principles B. holding that where racial bias motivated its original enactment a facially neutral felon disenfranchisement law violated the equal protection clause C. holding that a provision in the alabama constitution violated equal protection even through it was facially neutral because it was motivated by animus D. holding complaint that sentence violated equal protection was waived because of failure to object at trial E. holding that an illinois countys facially neutral twotiered ballot ordering system did not violate the equal protection clause

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a provision in the alabama constitution violated equal protection even through it was facially neutral because it was motivated by animus