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: was legally insufficient to prove lost profits). They also argue there was undisputed evidence that she retained the shares, sold assets of the company, and kept the proceeds for herself. When examining a legal-sufficiency challenge, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the challenged finding and indulge very reasonable inference that would support it. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 822 (Tex.2005). We credit favorable evidence if reasonable jurors could and disregard contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not. Id. at 827. The evidence is legally sufficient if it would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to reach the verdict under review. Id. When examining a factual-sufficie , Inc., 744 S.W.2d 945, 949 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1987, writ denied) (<HOLDING>), Here, the jury was instructed that the Options: A. holding that where the customary measure of damages for a vendors failure or refusal to convey land was inapplicable the measure of damages must be flexible enough to vary with the necessities of the situation B. holding that the proper measure of damages was the present value of all unaccrued payments that the plaintiff would have received if the contract had been performed C. holding failure to raise issue of improper measure of damages in trial court waived review of complaints that proper measure of damages was not submitted to jury and that plaintiff failed to present evidence on the proper measure D. holding in conflict of laws analysis that it was proper to apply the law of the state of washington as to the measure of damages which involved the substantive rights of the parties E. holding that the proper measure of damages to repair defects for a building contract that has not been substantially performed is the contractually agreed upon measure of damages

assistant: The best answer is C. holding failure to raise issue of improper measure of damages in trial court waived review of complaints that proper measure of damages was not submitted to jury and that plaintiff failed to present evidence on the proper measure
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: was jurisdictional for both the pro se motion and any amended motion filed on behalf of the movant. Id. at 918. Similarly the southern district of the court of appeals correctly determined verification to be jurisdictional and mandatory in Batson v. State, 774 S.W.2d 882, 885 (Mo.App.1989) in a case under a Rule 24.035 motion. In Reynolds v. State, 783 S.W.2d 500 (Mo.App.1990), the southern district held that the correct course for trial courts faced-with unverified motions under Rule 29.15 in which the time limit for filing a new motion had passed is summary dismissal of the motion. Any lingering question concerning the plain language of the rule was dispelled with this Court’s holding last term that unverified motions are a nullity. Kilgore v. State, 791 S.W.2d 393 (Mo. banc 1990) (<HOLDING>). The verification requirement is not a shallow Options: A. holding that causation is an essential element in failure to warn claim B. holding that for purposes of rule 2915 the verification requirement is an essential element of the postconviction motion C. holding that damage to the property of another is an essential element of the offense of criminal mischief D. holding that failure to instruct on an essential element was harmless error because the element was so clearly established E. holding dollar amount is not an essential element

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that for purposes of rule 2915 the verification requirement is an essential element of the postconviction motion
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: scrutiny is not harmonious with the analysis of claims brought pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”); Cooper v. Or. Sch. Activities Ass’n, 52 Or. App. 425, 629 P.2d 386, 395 (1981) (“We are aware that one state court has used over-breadth as a basis for declaring a similar transfer rule to be in Activities Ass’n, 682 F.2d 147 (8th Cir.1982) (upholding transfer rule denying eligibility for one year after transfer as denying neither equal protection nor due process of the federal Constitution); Walsh v. La. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 616 F.2d 152 (5th Cir.1980) (finding Louisiana’s version of transfer rule not to violate equal protection rights of transferring students); Barnhorst v. Mo. State Sch. Activities Ass’n, 504 F.Supp. 449 (W.D.Mo.1980) (<HOLDING>); Kulovitz v. Ill. High Sch. Ass’n, 462 F.Supp. Options: A. holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection B. holding missouri transfer rule did not violate equal protection C. holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection as rule was uniformly applied not arbitrary and rationally related to legitimate government interest D. holding that the cap does not violate equal protection E. holding illinois high school associations version of the transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection

assistant: The best answer is B. holding missouri transfer rule did not violate equal protection
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: linden lab may offer you the opportunity ( directly or through an applicable payment service provider ) to purchase or use virtual credits , points , tokens , services , or items ( `` virtual goods and services '' ) .

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: In order to provide the Company with the opportunity to claim the benefit of any income tax deduction which may be available to it upon the exercise of the Option and in order to comply with all applicable federal or state income tax laws or regulations, the Company may take such action as it deems appropriate to insure that, if necessary, all applicable federal or state payroll, withholding, income or other taxes are withheld or collected from Participant. In accordance with the terms of the Plan, and such rules as may be adopted by the Compensation Committee of the Company under the Plan, Participant may elect to satisfy its federal and state income tax withholding obligations arising from the receipt of the Shares by (i) delivering cash, check (bank check, certified check or personal check) or money order payable to the order of the Company, (ii) having the Company withhold a portion of the Shares otherwise to be issued upon such exercise having a Fair Market Value on the date of exercise equal to the amount of the employer's minimum statutory withholding requirements, or (iii) delivering unencumbered Shares previously acquired by Participant having a Fair Market Value on the date of exercise that is equal to the amount of such taxes. The Company will not deliver any fractional Share but will pay, in lieu thereof, the Fair Market Value of such fractional Share. Participant's election must be made on or before the date that the amount of tax to be withheld is determined.

assistant: 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the term of this Agreement, Selten will maintain Comprehensive General Liability Insurance, including Product Liability Insurance, with a reputable and financially secure insurance carrier to cover the activities of Selten and its Sublicensees. Within *** days of filing an IND or immediately prior to any testing of Licensed Products in humans, whichever is earlier, the insurance will provide minimum limits of liability of $*** and will include all Stanford Indemnitees and HHMI Indemnitees as additional insureds. Insurance must cover claims incurred, discovered, manifested, or made during or after the expiration of this Agreement and must be placed with carriers with ratings of at least A- as rated by A.M. Best. Within *** days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Selten will furnish a Certificate of Insurance evidencing primary coverage and additional insured requirements. Selten will provide to Stanford *** days prior written notice of cancellation or material change to this insurance coverage. Selten will advise Stanford in writing that it maintains excess liability coverage (following form) over primary insurance for at least the minimum limits set forth above. All insurance of Selten will be primary coverage; insurance of Stanford Indemnitees, and HHMI Indemnitees will be excess and noncontributory.

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: All of the representations and warranties made by or on behalf of the Borrower, the Guarantors and their respective Subsidiaries in this Agreement and the other Loan Documents or any document or instrument delivered to the Agent or the Lenders pursuant to or in connection with any of such Loan Documents are true and correct in all material respects, and neither the Borrower nor any Guarantor has failed to disclose such information as is necessary to make such representations and warranties not misleading. All information contained in this Agreement, the other Loan Documents or otherwise furnished to or made available to the Agent or the Lenders by or on behalf of the Borrower, any Subsidiary or any Guarantor (other than projections and estimates), as supplemented to date, is and, when delivered, will be true and correct in all material respects and, as supplemented to date, does not, and when delivered will not, contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading. The written information, reports and other papers and data with respect to the Borrower, any Subsidiary, any Guarantor or the Unencumbered Pool Assets (other than projections and estimates) furnished to the Agent or the Lenders in connection with this Agreement or the obtaining of the Commitments of the Lenders hereunder was, at the time so furnished, complete and correct in all material respects, or has been subsequently supplemented by other written information, reports or other papers or data, to the extent necessary to give in all material respects a true and accurate knowledge of the subject matter in all material respects; provided that such representation shall not apply to (a) the accuracy of any appraisal, title commitment, survey, or engineering and environmental reports, or any other reports, prepared by third parties or legal conclusions or analysis provided by the Borrower’s or the Guarantors’ counsel (although the Borrower and the Guarantors have no reason to believe that the Agent and the Lenders may not rely on the accuracy thereof) or (b) budgets, projections and other forward-looking speculative information prepared in good faith by the Borrower (except to the extent the related assumptions were when made manifestly unreasonable).

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company and its Subsidiaries have, or have rights to use, all Intellectual Property as necessary or required for use in connection with their respective businesses and which the failure to so have could have a Material Adverse Effect (collectively, the “ Intellectual Property Rights ”). Neither the Company nor any of its Subsidiaries has received a written notice that any of the Intellectual Property Rights has expired, terminated or been abandoned, or is expected to expire or terminate or be abandoned, within five (5) years from the date of this Agreement, except where such occurrence could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. Neither the Company nor any of its Subsidiaries has received a written notice of a claim or otherwise has any knowledge that the Intellectual Property Rights violate or infringe upon the rights of any Person, except as could not have or reasonably be expected to not have a Material Adverse Effect. To the Company’s knowledge, all such Intellectual Property Rights are enforceable and there is no existing infringement by another Person of any of the Intellectual Property Rights. The Company and its Subsidiaries have taken reasonable security measures to protect the secrecy, confidentiality and value of all of their intellectual properties, except where failure to do so could not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 378 U.S. 554 84 S.Ct. 1905 12 L.Ed.2d 1024 Victor A. MEYERS, Secretary of State of Washingtonv.James THIGPEN et al. No. 381. Supreme Court of the United States June 22, 1964 John J. O'Connell, Atty. Gen. of Washington, Philip H. Austin, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lyle L. Iversen, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant. Vincent H. D. Abbey, Myron L. Borawick, and Stimson Bullitt, for appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment below is affirmed on the merits, insofar as it relates to the apportionment of seats in the Washington Legislature. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362. The case is remanded for further proceedings, with respect to relief, consistent with the views stated in our opinions in Reynolds v. Sims and in the other cases relating to state legislative apportionment decided along with Reynolds. Since o question relating to the correctness of that part of the decision below holding valid the scheme of congressional districting in the State of Washington is presented in this appeal, we do not consider or pass upon that issue. 2 Mr. Justice CLARK would affirm on the grounds stated in his opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 587, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1395. 3 Mr. Justice STEWART would remand for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in his dissenting opinion in Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U.S. 713, 744, 84 S.Ct. 1459, 1477. 4 Mr. Justice HARLAN dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 589, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1395.

assistant: 2
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 644, 646 (Fed.Cir.1994). However, “[mjany, if not most, suits for patent infringement give rise to numerous and complex fact issues, rendering those suits inappropriate for summary disposition.” Union Carbide Corp. v. Am. Can Co., 724 F.2d 1567, 1571 (Fed.Cir.1984). An issue of material fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Where the party opposing summary judgment raises a genuine issue of material fact by proffering expert testimony in conflict with the positions of the moving party, summary judgment is properly denied. See, e.g., Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bancorp Serv., L.L.C., 527 F.3d 1330, 1338-39 (Fed.Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). In determining whether summary judgment is Options: A. holding that when a plaintiff seeking an injunction raises a genuine issue of fact material to the defendant governments claim regarding its justification for a policy summary judgment is inappropriate B. holding that the original pto declarations create a genuine issue of material fact C. holding the conflict in expert declarations created a genuine issue of materi al fact that made summary judgment inappropriate D. holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment E. holding summary judgment inappropriate to resolve an essentially procedural conflict

assistant: The best answer is C. holding the conflict in expert declarations created a genuine issue of materi al fact that made summary judgment inappropriate
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, the case shall be remanded.”). It is not clear to the court that there is any basis for subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs declaratory judgment action. Of the nine defendants named in the complaint, four are citizens of Virginia. Plaintiff seeks a declaration of “each party’s respective rights, status and other legal relations and obligations under the applicable law and insurance policies.” (Compl. at 6.) Thus, whether any of the Virginia defendants is a party-in-interest to the declaratory judgment is, at a minimum, a difficult question. However, because even if there were diversity in this case the court would decline jurisdiction, the issue need not be reached. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584-85, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 143 L.Ed.2d 760 (1999) (<HOLDING>). When a case is removed from state to federal Options: A. holding that riggins does not present novel constitutional issues B. holding that there is no mandatory sequencing of jurisdictional issues and we have leeway to choose among threshold grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits quoting ruhrgas ag v marathon oil co 526 us 574 584 585 119 sct 1563 143 led2d 760 1999 C. holding that steel co does not dictate a sequencing of jurisdictional issues and stating that it is hardly novel for a federal court to choose among threshold grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits D. holding that exhaustion of issues is jurisdictional E. holding that a dismissal on limitations grounds is a judgment on the merits

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that steel co does not dictate a sequencing of jurisdictional issues and stating that it is hardly novel for a federal court to choose among threshold grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits
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: Act (“PLRA”) provides: “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2006). The United States Supreme Court and the Third Circuit repeatedly have held that this provision means what it says. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002) (“[W]e hold that the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong.”); Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 227, 230 (3d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Nyhuis v. Reno, 204 F.3d 65 (3d Cir.2000) Options: A. holding that the plras exhaustion requirement contains a procedural default component B. recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different C. holding in addition that 1997eas exhaustion requirement includes a procedural default component D. holding that section 1252d effects a statutory exhaustion requirement which accordingly precludes any common law exceptions for procedural default E. holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim alleged to be cause for the procedural default of other claims is itself an independent claim subject to the procedural requirements of exhaustion

assistant: The best answer is C. holding in addition that 1997eas exhaustion requirement includes a procedural default component
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: at *13-*14. We overrule Palavan’s third and fifth issues. Declaratory Judgment Action In his fourth issue, Palavan argues the county court improperly granted summary judgment on McCulley and TBW Development’s declaratory judgment action. Even if we agreed with Palavan, however, he has failed to establish how he has been injured by a dismissal of McCulley and TBW Development’s declaratory judgment action. See CBS Outdoor, Inc. v. Potter, No. 01-11-00650-CV, 2013 WL 269091, at *17 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 24, 2013, pet. denied) (mem.op.) (“In order to obtain reversal on appeal, the appellant must show that it suffered harm as a result of an alleged error.”). We overrule Palavan’s fourth issue. Conclusion We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1 . See Palavan (Tex.2008) (<HOLDING>); Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56, 58 Options: A. holding that what constitutes a criminal instrument is determined by both its design or adaptation and its intended use B. holding nature of motion is determined by its substance not its title C. holding that because pleadings are to be liberally construed if the nature of the motion is clear from its substance an improper caption is not fatal D. holding that possession of a controlled substance is a crime only if the defendant knowingly possesses the substance and has knowledge of the nature of that substance E. holding that the economic substance of a transaction rather than its form determines its tax treatment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding nature of motion is determined by its substance not its title
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: only exposure to media reports, rather than formation of opinions, or because other responses from these potential jurors during general voir dire adequately demonstrated that no opinions had been formed. ¶ 17. The court carefully considered defendant’s requests and properly exercised its discretion. We emphasize that defendant makes no claim that any of the jurors who remained on the panel should have been dismissed for cause; it is only the procedure he challenges. Denial of permission for individual voir dire on the issue of exposure to pretrial publicity was within the judge’s discretion and reversible only under “extraordinary circumstances.” Woodmansee v. Stoneman, 133 Vt. 449, 456, 344 A.2d 26, 30 (1975); see also State v. Calloway, 157 Vt. 217, 218-20, 596 A.2d 368, 370 (1991) (<HOLDING>). No extraordinary circumstances are shown here Options: A. holding that the trial court in a sexual assault case erred by refusing to allow evidence of prior testimony by the complainant in an unrelated rape prosecution B. holding the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow a question to prospective jurors on their feelings against recommending probation as punishment in a murder case C. holding trial court did not err by refusing to allow counsel to question potential jurors on personal exposure to sexual assault and instead asking all jurors a general question about fairness and impartiality in a sexual assault case D. holding that merger did not apply because sexual assault was not a lesser included offense of seconddegree kidnapping involving sexual assault E. holding that the trial court did not err by allowing the prosecution to question prospective jurors regarding their ability to announce a death sentence in an appropriate case

assistant: The best answer is C. holding trial court did not err by refusing to allow counsel to question potential jurors on personal exposure to sexual assault and instead asking all jurors a general question about fairness and impartiality in a sexual assault case
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Transport 22 percent at fault and Clemmer 78 percent at fault for plaintiffs damages. Combined Transport appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court had erred in excluding the evidence of Clemmer’s intoxication. The Court of Appeals held that that evidence was relevant to two issues: “Although Clemmer admitted that she was negligent, the jury was required to consider evidence of the circumstances relating to the accident to determine whether Combined Transport’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing decedent’s death and, if so, to apportion fault between defendants. Clemmer’s intoxication was relevant to those determinations. See Lyons v. Walsh & Sons Trucking Co., Ltd., 183 Or App 76, 84, 51 P3d 625 (2002), aff'd, 337 Or 319, 96 P3d 1215 (2004) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the trial court erred in Options: A. holding that criminal conduct of third party is not superseding cause that relieves negligent actor from liability when criminal conduct is foreseeable result of actors negligence B. holding that where there has been no settlement or judgment of liability regarding the underlying claim any imposition of liability is not so immediate as to warrant declaratory relief on the issue of indemnification C. holding that the evidence supports the conclusion that individual issues of fact predominate with respect to whether defendants product benefitted or harmed any particular person since it would require consideration of each particular plaintiffs medical history D. holding that massachusetts statute did not create a sufficiently close nexus between private hospital and the state to warrant labeling private actors state actors E. holding that wlhether any particular cause or any individual actors conduct is sufficiently substantial to warrant the imposition of liability depends properly on a consideration of the whole

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that wlhether any particular cause or any individual actors conduct is sufficiently substantial to warrant the imposition of liability depends properly on a consideration of the whole
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 a matter of law, and should be decided by the court. See In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed.Cir.1993); In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200 (Fed.Cir.1993). Defendants assert that this Court should therefore independently determine whether the patent specifications meet the enablement requirement of Section 112. Although the issue of enablement may be one of law, it is dependent on several factual questions which were appropriately submitted to the jury. See In re Wright, 999 F.2d at 1561 (stating that “[a]s a statutory requirement, enablement is a question of law that we review de novo; however we review for clear error any underlying facts found ... in rendering [the] enablement determination.”); Quaker City Gear Works, Inc. v. Skil Corp., 747 F.2d 1446, 1453-54 (Fed.Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Newell Companies, Inc. v. Kenney Options: A. recognizing that while the issue of enablement is a matter of law it may involve resolution of subsidiary questions of fact B. holding that it may be decided as a matter of law C. holding that while subsidiary factual questions are subject to 2254ds presumption the ultimate legal question of confessions constitutional voluntariness is a matter for independent federal determination D. holding that when agreement is reasonably susceptible to more than one construction issue is properly submitted to jury for resolution as a matter of fact E. holding that subject matter questions may be but are not necessarily decided before questions of personal jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that while the issue of enablement is a matter of law it may involve resolution of subsidiary questions of fact
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: Not asserting any other arguments in support of her claim, Amundsen has failed to satisfy her burden of demonstrating that the toxicology exams violated a constitutional right. We therefore reverse the district court’s decision on this count. y For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 . Amundsen did not elaborate on these latter two claims before the district court, and she does not raise them on appeal. 2 . Utah County, representing the sheriff's office, also moved for summary judgment because Amundsen failed to identify any county policy responsible for her deprivation of rights, and the district court granted the motion. Amundsen has not asserted a cross-appe 63 (Nev. 1987) (<HOLDING>). Simply because these indicia are often noted Options: A. holding only reasonable suspicion is required to conduct a field sobriety test B. holding that a car that moved from side to side left the paved portion of the road and weaved over the center of the road created reasonable suspicion of driving while intoxicated C. holding that while each separate item standing alone did not provide reasonable suspicion a combination of factors clearly satisfied the reasonable suspicion requirement D. holding that reasonable suspicion justified the field sobriety tests because the driver drove erratically had bloodshot and wateiy eyes slurred speech and had trouble exiting the vehicle E. holding that reasonable suspicion justified the field sobriety tests where the driver weaved across lanes stumbled out of the vehicle swayed while standing and admitted to drinking three beers

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that reasonable suspicion justified the field sobriety tests where the driver weaved across lanes stumbled out of the vehicle swayed while standing and admitted to drinking three beers
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: against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment") (emphasis added) and cases decided thereunder. See, e.g., King v. Chrysler Corp., 812 F.Supp. 151, 153 (E.D.Mo.1993) (rejecting need for employee-employer relationship between plaintiff and defendant under § 2000e-2); Pardazi v. Cullman Medical Ctr., 838 F.2d 1155, 1156 (11th Cir.1988) (defendant's interference with plaintiff’s employment relationship with third party suffices under § 2000e-2). But, as King now apparently concedes, § 2000e-2 is inapplicable to cases against the federal government, and the plain terms of § 2000e-16, which govern here, require a plaintiff to be an employee of the defendant agency. See, e.g., Spirides v. Reinhardt, 613 F.2d 826, 829 (D.C.Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). 8 . As noted, the text may not always support Options: A. holding that glc 152 15 provides that the only party immune from suit under the statute is the direct employer a special employer is not immune because the special employer is not liable for the payment of workers compensation and there was no agreement between the direct employer and the special employer that the special employer would be liable for the payment of such compensation B. holding that under the fmla an employer includes both individuals and public agencies and therefore also includes individuals in public agencies C. holding honest services statute covers only bribery and kickback schemes D. holding that plaintiffs claims were precluded by csra because actions complained of arose from federal employment relationship even though many of the alleged violations occurred after the employment relationship was terminated E. holding that 2000e16 covers only those individuals in a direct employment relationship with a government employer

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that 2000e16 covers only those individuals in a direct employment relationship with a government employer
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 Amendment may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same agreement. Execution copies of this Amendment may be delivered by facsimile or other electronic communication, which shall be deemed to be an original for the purposes of this paragraph.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: this opinion, we hold that this decision shall be applicable to the claim of Benson and to future claims arising out of injuries occurring to agricultural employees on and after July 1, 1981.” Benson, supra, 283 N.W.2d at 108. In Kitto, the court adopted modified prospectivity, applying a new rule of law to the parties in the instant case and to claims arising after some specified future date. This court has on numerous occasions followed the rule on modified prospectivity announced in Kitto. See, e.g., Soo Line Railroad Co. v. State, 286 N.W.2d 459, 466 (N.D.1979); Benson, supra, 283 N.W.2d at 107-108; State ex rel. Olson v. Maxwell, 259 N.W.2d 621, 623 (N.D.1977). See also Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of the Department of Insurance, 373 N.W.2d 399, 408 (N.D.1985) (<HOLDING>). There is no conflict between application of Options: A. recognizing rule B. recognizing the validity of the product rale C. recognizing continued validity of the modified prospectivity rule of kitto D. recognizing validity of rule stated in marhal E. recognizing continued validity of rule barring adjudication of a foreign tax suit

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing continued validity of the modified prospectivity rule of kitto
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: authorized to assert the mandatory injunction against defendants as they, according to plaintiff’s complaint, were the persons authorized and responsible for the land-disturbing activity. Accordingly, under the statute, the relief plaintiff was seeking did not require the inclusion of any other party besides defendants. That, however, does not end our inquiry. “ ‘The term “necessary parties” embraces all persons who have or claim material interests in the subject matter of a controversy, which interests will be directly affected by an adjudication of the controversy.’ ” Wall v. Sneed, 13 N.C. App. 719, 724, 187 S.E.2d 454, 457 (1972) (emphasis added) (citation omitted in original). In the instant case, it is undisputed that the subject matter of the controv , 611 S.E.2d 463, 465 (2005) (<HOLDING>). We therefore conclude that, the current Options: A. holding that the property owners testimony alone placed the value of the stolen property above the amount necessary to constitute grand larceny B. holding that all property owners affected by a residential use permit are necessary parties C. holding that speculation about occurrence of future event ordinarily does not render all parties potentially affected by that future event necessary or indispensable parties D. holding that the amendment was a use regulation which was in effect a condition on the use of property in the affected zone E. holding that the doctrine of strict liability applies where an owner of residential property brought a claim against the owners of a gasoline station immediately adjacent to a private residence after gasoline leaked into the property owners well

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that all property owners affected by a residential use permit are necessary parties
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: as “involuntary” roommates, this term is a misnomer. The only students who are assigned roommates are those who have requested a double room but not specified a particular individual with whom they would like to live — in essence asking that the university assign them a roommate. As such, all assigned roommates have voluntarily agreed to be assigned to whomever the university chooses for them. Despite defendants' word choice, there would be nothing "involuntary” about being assigned to room with plaintiff, or anyone else. 28 . Of course, she should be assigned a roommate only in the event she requests a double room and does not specify a particular individual with whom she would like to room. 29 . See also Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 104 S.Ct. 3457, 82 L.Ed.2d 746, n. 24 (1584) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, in this instance, the state is Options: A. recognizing there is some confusion among the circuit courts as to the availability of damages under 504 of the rehabilitation act and without expressing an opinion on the matter noting that courts generally agree damages are available for violations of 504 B. holding that emotional distress damages are not recoverable under section 504 C. recognizing conflicting eleventh circuit authority on whether 504 of the rehabilitation act could serve as the basis for a 1983 laws action D. holding that punitive damages may not be awarded in suits brought under 202 of the ada and 504 of the rehabilitation act E. holding 504 of the rehabilitation act does not require equivalent benefits for different disabilities

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing there is some confusion among the circuit courts as to the availability of damages under 504 of the rehabilitation act and without expressing an opinion on the matter noting that courts generally agree damages are available for violations of 504
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: final version of the statute, "the standard was to be an objective one, not dependent on the `intent' or schemes of the possessor." 457 F.2d at 1118. This view of "design" as objective is also found in the cases that contrast proof of a destructive device under subpart (3) through either design or intent. See, e.g., Urban, 140 F.3d at 232-34; Lussier, 128 F.3d at 1315. 7 . See Copus, 93 F.3d at 273 (question of whether detonators were designed as weapons was a jury question); see also United States v. Thomas, 111 F.3d 426, 428 (6th Cir.) (noting that the testimony of record established that the device in question. was not good for any industrial or social use), cert. denied, - U.S. , 118 S.Ct. 209, 139 L.Ed.2d 145 (1997); cf. United States v. Reindeau, 947 F.2d 32, 35-36 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). 8 . As a practical matter, we think it likely Options: A. holding that the defendant was denied due process because the procedural rule was not followed in any respect by the trial court B. holding no right to crossexamine in grand jury proceedings C. holding that the plaintiffs claim that he was wrongfully denied a promotion prior to his retirement accrued on the date that he was finally denied that promotion the date of his retirement at the lower rank D. holding that the defendant was denied wrongfully his right to crossexamine on the issue of whether the device was designed as a pipe bomb or as a firecracker and that the jury may have found reasonable doubt if that right was not denied E. holding that the defendant was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel when a codefendants plea bargain including a promise to testify against the defendant was negotiated by the law partner of the defendants counsel

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the defendant was denied wrongfully his right to crossexamine on the issue of whether the device was designed as a pipe bomb or as a firecracker and that the jury may have found reasonable doubt if that right was not denied
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: possession and concurrent statement under Rule 404(b). Because I conclude the district court did abuse its discretion by admitting the extrinsic evidence and the error was not harmless, I would VACATE the conviction and REMAND for a new trial. First, while I agree that Joshua’s concurrent statement is relevant to Joshua’s motive, Joshua’s prior possession is not and thus fails even the first step of the Beechum analysis. For extrinsic evidence to be admissible under the first step of the Beechum analysis, the evidence must be “relevant to an issue other than the defen dant’s character.” United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir.1978). While the district court held the prior poss f the mental state, see, e.g., United States v. Garcia-Meza, 403 F.3d 364, 368 (6th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Second, the mental state shown must be, Options: A. holding admissible bad acts of defendant evidencing jealousy as motive for killing another B. holding prior assault on wife admissible to show husbands jealousy as motive for her murder C. holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial D. holding evidence of prior drug use admissible to show motive and the nature of the defendants relationship with coconspirators E. holding evidence of defendants extramarital affairs and discharge from the marine corps admissible to show motive in the murder of defendants wife

assistant: The best answer is B. holding prior assault on wife admissible to show husbands jealousy as motive for her murder
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: inconsistent out-of-court statements of a state witness which had implicated a defendant in the murder of a cashier at a gas station. The witness in Moffett, like the witnesses in the instant case, admitted making the prior statement but insisted that the contents were untrue. Moffett, 456 So.2d at 717. The Court in Moffett explained that where a nonparty witness admitted making the prior out-of-court statements, the statements where reduced to written form, should never be introduced into evidence. Id. at 719. The basis for not allowing such prior inconsistent written statements into evidence is that no necessity for further proof exists with respect to such statements once an admission of the prior inconsistency has been made. Id.; see Davis v. State, 431 So.2d 468, 473 (Miss.1983) (<HOLDING>); Sims v. State, 313 So.2d 388, 391 (Miss.1975) Options: A. recognizing that evidence of extra judicial statements by nonparty witness was admissable only to impeach B. holding that counsels failure to impeach a witness by showing bias was ineffective assistance C. holding in rule 3850 proceeding that trial counsel s failure to impeach witness with statements he made on night of murder was not reasonable under the circumstances D. holding that counsel was ineffective for inter alia failing to impeach a witness with prior inconsistent statements E. holding that the state could not impeach an expert witness with evidence concerning past issues with the payment of taxes

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that evidence of extra judicial statements by nonparty witness was admissable only to impeach
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: bad faith may certainly compel an adverse infer ence, the absence of bad faith may not necessarily preclude one. “Destruction of potentially relevant evidence obviously occurs along a continuum of fault—ranging from innocence through the degrees of negligence to intentionality.” Welsh v. United States, 844 F.2d 1239, 1246 (6th Cir.1988). Within the bounds of its discretion, the circuit court has the flexibility to fashion an appropriate sanction based on the facts of the case. In the present case, the missing evidence was the very object that plaintiffs alleged caused Stender’s injuries. Thus, although the circuit court found no bad faith or intentional misconduct on the plaintiffs’ part, we cannot say that it abused its discretion by giving the adverse infer 6, 79-80 (3d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The instant case, however, raised complex Options: A. holding that plaintiffs did not need to identify the specific defective lawn mower to sustain their claim of a design defect B. recognizing that because plaintiff alleged a design defect the need for immediate access to the particular saw involved in the accident was greatly diminished C. holding that complaint alleging design defect likely to cause damage failed to state a claim D. holding that where the defendants expert described the product design using superlatives namely the safest design you could possibly put on the machine the plaintiff should have been permitted to impeach the expert by inquiring why the safest design possible was modified following the plaintiffs accident E. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit a design defect products liability expert to submit an untimely addendum stating a new claim of failure to warn after defense expert refuted the basis of original design defect opinion

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that because plaintiff alleged a design defect the need for immediate access to the particular saw involved in the accident was greatly diminished
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: we reserve the right , but are not obligated , to remove or disable access to any content , at any time and without notice , including but not limited to , if we , at our sole discretion , consider any content to be objectionable or in violation of these terms .

assistant: Content removal