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: plea agreement between myself and the prosecutor.” The State argues this provision controls over the following handwritten notation on the plea form: “Defendant reserves his right to appeal the adverse ruling on defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence.” The State contends the handwritten notation, just above the preprinted waiver, was a pre-plea attempt to reserve his appeal rights, which did not survive the trial court’s acceptance of the plea bargain. There is no reporter’s record of the plea hearing, and the State does not explain why the following notation on the judgment was lined out: “Appeal waived, No permission for appeal granted.” On this record, we conclude appellant did not waive his right to appeal. See Alzarka v. State, 90 S.W.3d 321, 324 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (<HOLDING>). Cf. Freeman v. State, 913 S.W.2d 714, 716-17 Options: A. recognizing that exception to requirement of timely filing of notice of appeal exists in cases where defendant either was not told of right to appeal or was not furnished attorney to exercise those rights or was furnished attorney for that purpose who failed to perfect and complete appeal B. holding attorney lacked standing to challenge amount of attorney fees awarded plaintiffs not parties to the appeal C. holding that in determining whether the defendant has a prior conviction for burglary under the armed career criminal act the federal court may look only to the terms of the charging document the terms of a plea agreement or transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual basis for the plea was confirmed by the defendant or to some comparable judicial record of this information D. holding defendant did not waive appeal and that record in which trial judge district attorney and defendants attorney repeatedly made statements agreeing defendant would be permitted to appeal directly contradicted and rebutted any presumption raised by terms of boiler plate plea form defendant signed E. holding that trial counsel owes a criminal defendant a duty to file a notice of appeal regardless of whether the attorney was retained for the appeal or not

assistant: The best answer is D. holding defendant did not waive appeal and that record in which trial judge district attorney and defendants attorney repeatedly made statements agreeing defendant would be permitted to appeal directly contradicted and rebutted any presumption raised by terms of boiler plate plea form defendant signed
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: doctrine. Williams noted that, in Cronic itself the United States Supreme Court held that a newly-appointed attorney, who was afforded only twenty-five days to prepare for trial in a case which the government spent four and one-half years investigating and preparing, was not per se ineffective. The fact that counsel was a young real estate attorney trying his first criminal case, the severity of the criminal charges, the complexity of the matter, and the inaccessibility of witnesses to counsel did not, individually or in combination, provide a basis for concluding that counsel could not render adequate stewardship. Id. at 140, 950 A.2d at 813 (citing Cronic, 466 U.S. at 663-66, 104 S.Ct. at 2049-51); see also Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S. 444, 450, 60 S.Ct. 321, 324, 84 L.Ed. 377 (1940) (<HOLDING>); Com. ex rel. Crosby v. Rundle, 415 Pa. 81, Options: A. holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel B. holding that a confession of judgment provision is not per se unconstitutional and may be valid where the confession was voluntary knowing and intelligently made C. holding that the fact that the members of the grievance committee and the disciplinary counsel are appointed by the supreme court is not enough by itself to establish a per se violation of due process D. holding that capital counsel appointed three days before trial were not per se ineffective where they performed their full duty intelligently and well and presented the accuseds defense at trial E. holding that one must voluntarily and intelligently waive the right to counsel

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that capital counsel appointed three days before trial were not per se ineffective where they performed their full duty intelligently and well and presented the accuseds defense at trial
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 parties agree that the remedy at law for any actual or threatened breach of this Agreement by either would be inadequate and that each party shall be entitled to specific performance hereof or injunctive relief, or both, by temporary or permanent injunction or other appropriate judicial remedy, writ, or order in addition to any damages which each party may legally be entitled to recover, together with reasonable expenses of litigation including attorney’s fees incurred in therewith.

assistant: Remedies
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: betterpoints.uk aims to fully comply with the governing law but is not responsible in the event of any misuse of funds , loss of funds , money laundering or any other form of misdemeanour , misuse or error to do with the transfer of funds to causes .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: examination, in response to a question from the prosecutor asking her whether the two men in her garage “could” have been Billings and Ross, Quick answered, “Yes.” Billings and Ross both objected, and the trial court sustained the objection on the ground that the testimony was mere speculation. The court instructed the jury to disregard Quick’s answer. Billings then moved for a mistrial, but Ross did not make his own mistrial motion or join in Billings’s motion. The court denied Billings’s motion. Ross asserts that Billings’s motion for a mistrial was sufficient to preserve the issue so that Ross can challenge the trial court’s denial of the motion on appeal. That is incorrect; Ross forfeited his right to appeal that ruling. See Mathis v. State, 291 Ga. 268, 271 (728 SE2d 661) (2012) (<HOLDING>); Stokes v. State, 281 Ga. 875, 877 (644 SE2d Options: A. holding that failure to raise issue at district court forecloses party from raising same issue on appeal B. holding that the court bars a party from raising an issue on remand that was not raised on appeal C. holding that failure to object does not preclude raising the issue on appeal where erroneous evidence is offered in violation of an order in limine D. holding that a defendants failure to object or join in a codefendants objection to an issue bars the defendant from raising the issue on appeal E. holding that although a defendant filed a motion in limine on an evidentiary issue a failure to object to the evidence at trial waives the issue for appeal

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a defendants failure to object or join in a codefendants objection to an issue bars the defendant from raising the issue on 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices hereunder shall be in writing, and if to the Company or the Committee, shall be delivered to the Board or mailed to Actua’s principal office, addressed to the attention of the Board; and if to Grantee, shall be delivered personally sent by facsimile transmission or mailed to Grantee at the address appearing in the records of the Company. Such addresses may be changed at any time by written notice to the other party given in accordance with this Paragraph 10.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: this amount represented only twenty percent of Burnison’s holdings. Id. ¶ 12. Marksman alleges, however, that the sale was highly unusual, in that Burnison had not sold any of her Chantal stock in the previous three years. Id. Twenty percent of a corporate insider’s shares, especially where the dollar amounts involved are high, may constitute a “suspicious amount” sufficient to support a scienter allegation. See Alfus, 764 F.Supp. at 605; In re Gupta Corp., 900 F.Supp. at 1231-32; McCarthy v. C-COR Electronics, Inc., 909 F.Supp. 970, 978-79 (E.D.Pa.1995); In re Apple Computer, 886 F.2d at 1117. In this case, Burnison’s volume of traded stocks, in excess of $6,300,000, and the percentage of her holdings sold support an allegation of motive. See In re Gupta Corp., 900 F.Supp. at 1231-32 (<HOLDING>). In addition, the alleged “motive” is Options: A. holding that total proceeds from insider sales of 106 million raised inference of scienter B. holding that sales of corporate stock by six individual defendants for a total of approximately 4200000 were sufficient to support inference of scienter against them under prepslra pleading standard C. holding the pslra standard for pleading scienter is more stringent than the second circuits standard prior to the act and that motive and opportunity is not an independent basis to show defendants had scienter D. holding that stock sales by one defendant of approximately 8000 shares for profit of 173000 raised strong inference of fraudulent intent E. holding that 20 of individual defendants holdings raised an inference of scienter

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that sales of corporate stock by six individual defendants for a total of approximately 4200000 were sufficient to support inference of scienter against them under prepslra pleading standard
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 “guaranteed minimum” for royalties rather than sufficient consideration to preclude plaintiff from recovering for lost profits under the contract. Id. at 112. The District Court concluded that these factors permitted the jury to draw the inference that the parties expected Morson to exercise reasonable diligence to operate a Palazzetti store for ten years. Id. The District Court also quoted the jury instructions, which laid out that the jury was to find that the defendants anticipatorily repudiated or that plaintiffs breached. The jury found that defendants breached or repudiated, a result that allows plaintiffs to claim damages for total breach. See, e.g., Norcon Power Partners, L.P. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 458, 462-63, 682 N.Y.S.2d 664, 667, 705 N.E.2d 656 (1998) (<HOLDING>). We agree with the District Court that the Options: A. holding that party may not recover damages for breach of contract where its own bad faith caused the other partys breach B. holding that future benefits are available upon a finding of bad faith because repudiation is a legal conclusion which the trial court reaches after the fact finder makes its determinations about whether there was a breach and whether the breach was in bad faith C. holding that anticipatory repudiation permits the other party to claim damages for total breach D. holding that repudiation alone gives rise to a claim for damages for total breach E. holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that anticipatory repudiation permits the other party to claim damages for total breach
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 may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which counterparts, when so executed and delivered, shall be deemed to be an original and all of which counterparts, taken together, shall constitute but one and the same Agreement. A signed copy of this Agreement delivered by facsimile, portable document format (PDF) or other means of electronic transmission shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original signed copy of this Agreement. This Agreement and all of the provisions hereof shall be binding upon and effective as to each Person who (i) executes this Agreement in the appropriate space provided in the signature pages hereto notwithstanding the fact that other Persons who have not executed this Agreement may be listed on the signature pages hereto and (ii) may from time to time become a party to this Agreement by executing a counterpart of or joinder to this Agreement.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower and each Guarantor, by signing below, hereby waives and releases the Administrative Agent and each of the Lenders (including the 2017 Incremental Term Lenders) and their respective Related Parties from any and all claims, offsets, defenses and counterclaims of which the Borrower and any Guarantor is aware, such waiver and release being with full knowledge and understanding of the circumstances and effect thereof and after having consulted legal counsel with respect thereto.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: or personal property belonging to an estate may be sold, mortgaged, leased or exchanged under court order when necessary for any of the following purposes: (a) [F]or the payment of claims allowed against the estate[.] Ind.Code § 29-l-15-3(a) (emphasis added). “By its terms, [Indiana Code section] 29-1-15-3 ... places the decision to sell estate realty within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Rainier v. Snider, 174 Ind.App. 615, 624, 369 N.E.2d 666, 671 (1977). Chapter 15 does not contain any time limitations upon a court’s ability to issue an order for the sale of real estate. In fact, we have held, “[R]eal estate is available until the estate is closed to pay allowed claims and administrative expenses!.]” See Estate of Baker v. Lahrman, 505 N.E.2d 104, 107 (Ind.Ct.App.1987) (<HOLDING>). As has been observed by one authority, Options: A. recognizing that distributees interest to estate property is subject to divestment until estate is closed B. holding that for estate tax purposes property is to be valued as it exists in the hands of the estate C. holding that erisa benefits are not property of the estate D. holding that a broadcasting license was property of the estate but not subject to a security interest E. recognizing that exempt property ceases to be property of the estate

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that distributees interest to estate property is subject to divestment until estate is closed
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: paid to reduce prejudgment interest. Brainard v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 216 S.W.3d 809, 816 (Tex.2006); see also Battaglia v. Alexander, 177 S.W.3d 893, 904-12 (Tex.2005). B. Analysis We agree with Hudspeth that prejudgment interest should have been calculated beginning six months after Enterprise received the April 7, 2006 written notice of her claim. “The prejudgment interest statute does not set forth requirements for what constitutes adequate ‘written notice of a claim’ ” sufficient to trigger the 180-day period before prejudgment interest begins accruing. Robinson v. Brice, 894 S.W.2d 525, 528 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, writ denied). Texas courts have held, however, that a written notice that an injured party is seeking specific compensation for a specific injury is enough. Id. (<HOLDING>); see also Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Smith, 99 Options: A. holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act B. holding that wife was entitled to prejudgment interest on alimony and child support arrearages from the date those payments were due C. holding that interest does not begin to accrue until the date of judgment not the date of verdict D. holding that it is proper to award prejudgment interest at the legal rate from the date the monies were due under the contract E. holding trial court erred in calculating prejudgment interest from date lawsuit filed rather than date that insurer received letter from insured requesting certain attached medical bills be reimbursed and lost wages be paid

assistant: The best answer is E. holding trial court erred in calculating prejudgment interest from date lawsuit filed rather than date that insurer received letter from insured requesting certain attached medical bills be reimbursed and lost wages be paid
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: use of property that forms the basis of the underlying forfeiture action, the Court agrees with Harborside that when a CSA violation is alleged, only the Government qualifies as a proper movant for purposes of Rule G(7)(a). As indicated above, the starting point for this analysis is § 882 of the CSA, which authorizes district courts to enjoin violations of the CSA consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, Rule G cannot be read in isolation; rather, the CSA provides the parameters for any requested relief as long as it is consistent with the Federal Rules, As Harborside points out, courts have consistently held that there is n o Rule G(7)(a) to stop alleged violations of the CSA would thus give them power not intended under the CSA. See Jones, 745 F.Supp.2d at 892 (<HOLDING>). Concourse and Ms. Chretien’s only response is Options: A. recognizing that under the act states are granted federal funds to provide disabled children with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment B. holding that 1983 does not provide a remedy if there is no violation of federal law C. holding that it may be decided as a matter of law D. recognizing that when congress has decided not to provide a particular federal remedy we are not free to supplement that decision in a way that makes it meaningless E. recognizing appellate courts are not free to rewrite rules

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that when congress has decided not to provide a particular federal remedy we are not free to supplement that decision in a way that makes it meaningless
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: 7:08-CV-211-FL, 2010 WL 4484447 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 25, 2010). 6 . In providing guidance to lower courts as to what might constitute a watershed procedural rule falling within the second Teague exception, the Supreme Court has referred only to the rule of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), which held that state courts must provide counsel for indigent criminal defendants. Indeed, the Gideon decision "alter[ed] our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a proceeding.” Beard, 542 U.S. at 418, 124 S.Ct. 2504 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The new procedural rule announced in Padilla, in contrast, "has none of the primacy and centrality of the rule adopted in Gideon." Id. at 420, 124 S.Ct. 2504 (<HOLDING>). 7 . Petitioner, for her part, states in a Options: A. holding that plaintiffs have standing to pursue facial challenge to alleged prior restraint without the necessity of first applying for and being denied a permit citing city of lakewood v plain dealer publishing co 486 us 750 108 sct 2138 100 led2d 771 1988 B. holding that simmons announced a new rule and retrospective application of the rule was barred by teague C. recognizing that the rule announced in mills v maryland 486 us 367 108 sct 1860 100 led2d 384 1988 that the eighth amendment prohibits any barrier to the sentencers consideration of mitigating evidence was not a watershed procedural rule falling within the second teague exception D. holding that the rule announced in mills v maryland 486 us 367 108 sct 1860 100 led2d 384 1988 doesnt apply retroactively on collateral review E. holding that united states v gaudin 515 us 506 115 sct 2310 132 led2d 444 1995 which shifted the determination of materiality in a prosecution under 18 usc 1001 from the judge to the jury was not a watershed rule justifying retroactive collateral review under teague

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that the rule announced in mills v maryland 486 us 367 108 sct 1860 100 led2d 384 1988 that the eighth amendment prohibits any barrier to the sentencers consideration of mitigating evidence was not a watershed procedural rule falling within the second teague exception
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 constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of Borrower, enforceable in accordance with its terms, subject to applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or other laws affecting creditors’ rights generally and subject to general principles of equity, regardless of whether considered in a proceeding in equity or at law.

assistant: Enforceability
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 will not be assignable, in whole or in part, by either party without the prior written consent of the other party, except that the Company may, without the consent of Executive, assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement (1) to an Affiliate or (2) to any corporation or other person or business entity to which the Company may sell or transfer all or substantially all of its assets; provided, however, that the Company’s assignment of rights may only take place if the assignee accepts and agrees to all of the obligations to Executive under this Agreement. After any such assignment by the Company, the Company will be discharged from all further liability hereunder and such assignee will thereafter be deemed to be “the Company” for purposes of all terms and conditions of this Agreement, including this Section 12. For the avoidance of doubt, in the event of Executive’s death, all payments and obligations to Executive shall be paid to Executive’s estate.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All communications with respect to or under this Agreement, except as may be otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement, shall be in writing and, if sent to the Initial Purchasers, shall be mailed, delivered or telecopied and confirmed in writing to c/o Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, 50 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10020, Attention: High Yield Legal Department, with a copy for information purposes only to Vinson & Elkins L.L.P., 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2500, Houston, TX 77002 (fax: 713-758-2346), Attention: David Stone, Thomas Zentner, and if sent to the Issuers, shall be mailed, delivered or telecopied and confirmed in writing to Basic Energy Services, Inc., 801 Cherry Street, Suite 2100, Fort Worth, TX 76102 (telephone: 817-334-4100, fax: 817-334-4101; email: david.schorlemer@basicenergyservices.com), Attention: David Schorlemer, with a copy for information purposes only to Thompson & Knight LLP, 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500, Dallas, TX 75201, Attention: Wesley Williams (email: wesley.williams@tklaw.com).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: subsequently entered an order purporting to deny Cooner’s motion. Cooner purports to appeal from that order. The Board has moved to dismiss the appeal. The Board is essentially the “trial court” of the disbarment proceedings. Assuming that the Board had the authority to hear a postjudgment motion to alter, amend, or vacate its order of disbarment, see Rule 3(b), Ala. R. Disc. P., and Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P., it would not have the authority to consider a postjudgment motion filed more than 30 days after it entered its final decision. See generally George v. Sims, 888 So.2d 1224, 1227 (Ala.2004) (“Generally, a trial court has no jurisdiction to modify or amend a final order more than 30 days after the judgment has been entered .... ”); Cornelius v. Green, 477 So.2d 1363, 1365 (Ala.1985) (<HOLDING>); Dickerson v. Dickerson, 885 So.2d 160, 166 Options: A. recognizing that a final judgment may provide for a particular standard upon which to modify a final judgment B. holding that the trial court had no jurisdiction to modify its final order more than 30 days after its final judgment C. holding that the court lacks jurisdiction where a complaint was filed more than 30 days after the filing of the summons D. holding that trial court has no power to allow party to amend motion for new trial more than thirty days after trial court signed the final judgment and that denial of amended motion for new trial filed more than thirty days after judgment preserved nothing for appellate review E. holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the trial court had no jurisdiction to modify its final order more than 30 days after its final judgment
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: plaintiffs relief months and perhaps years earlier than would be possible in a litigation environment. The Proposed Settlement provides that class members may begin submitting claims if and when the Court issues its Final Order and Judgment. Additional benefits would then be provided if and when the Proposed Settlement receives final appellate court approval. Accordingly, the likely complexity and duration of continuing the litigation weighs in favor of approving the Proposed Settlement. C. Class Reaction to the Proposed Settlement Has Been Overwhelmingly Favorable and Weighs in Favor of Class Approval 156. The Court finds that the favorable reaction of the Class and the regulators weighs in favor of approving the Proposed Settlement. See Bell Atlantic Corp., 2 F.3d at 1313-14 n. 15 (<HOLDING>); Stoetzner v. U.S. Steel Corp., 897 F.2d 115, Options: A. holding that small proportion of objectors constituted tacit consent to settlement B. holding that the plaintiffs lawsuit which was filed despite a general release in the parties settlement agreement constituted a material breach of the settlement agreement C. holding that the trial courts denial of appellants motion to enforce settlement agreement constituted an important issue D. recognizing that low number of objectors and optouts strongly favors settlement and that the vast disparity between the number of potential class members who received notice of the settlement and the number of objectors creates a strong presumption that this factor weighs in favor of the settlement E. holding tacit consent to search of person was insufficient to prove consent to search bags where bags were not in defendants actual possession defendant merely pointed out bags at officers request and officer never specifically asked for consent to search bags

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that small proportion of objectors constituted tacit consent to settlement
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to pass upon such fundamental issues of governmental structure. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 241, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (noting a “general rule of constitutional avoidance” (citations omitted)). D. The APA Claim The plaintiffs also bring a claim under the APA. “Although the APA does not directly grant jurisdiction, the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, confer[s] jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action, regardless of whether the APA of its own force may serve as a jurisdictional predicate.” Jama v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 760 F.3d 490, 494 (6th Cir.2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Unlike the CWA claim, the court addresses the APA claim on the merits. Like the CWA claim, this claim must Supp.2d 57, 76 (D.D.C.2005) (<HOLDING>). The APA claim also fails as a matter of law Options: A. holding that because here the statutes in issue provide for judicial review via citizen suit provisions yet do not set forth a standard for that review judicial review is limited to apa review on the administrative record B. holding that judicial review under the apa is precluded when a remedy is available under a citizen suit provision of an environmental statute citations omitted C. holding that because review of plaintiffs claim is available under the clean water act it is not subject to review under the apa empha sis in original citations omitted D. holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear the suit under the citizen suit provision of the caa E. holding that under the apa exhaustion is a prerequisite to judicial review when expressly required by statute or when an agency rule requires appeal before review so long as the administrative action is made inoperative pending that review

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that judicial review under the apa is precluded when a remedy is available under a citizen suit provision of an environmental statute citations omitted
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: bargaining power and economic strength, the alternative sources of supply may or may not have been plentiful. However, based on the record, it is difficult to believe that Johnson was forced to buy this particular used car at this particular dealership using this particular financing. She purchased a used Chevrolet Tahoe from a Nissan dealership in the Milwaukee metropolitan area. Like any car purchaser, she could have walked out and taken her business elsewhere, both for the car and for the financing. She could have gone to a Chevrolet dealer, a car dealer affiliated with companies other than NMAC, or any independent used car lot. She could have obtained financing from a bank, a credit union, or a friend. She even could have saved in advance and purchased a car Mich. July 20, 2006) (<HOLDING>). Nothing in Jones or any of the other cases Options: A. holding class action waiver in cellular phone contract unconscionable under california law B. holding class action waiver to be enforceable under section 2 of the faa notwithstanding claim that waiver was unconscionable under state law C. holding arbitration clause added to contract for cellular telephone service unconscionable D. holding that arbitration provisions that preclude class actions are not unconscionable E. holding class action waiver in cellular telephone service agreement unconscionable

assistant: The best answer is E. holding class action waiver in cellular telephone service agreement unconscionable
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the language of § 523(a)(4) does not track precisely that of its predecessor, 11 U.S.C. § 35(a)(4) (§ 17(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898), repealed and reenacted as amended (by Pub.L. No. 95-598, 92 Stat. 2590 (1978)) at 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), decisions construing the previous section are equally applicable to § 523(a)(4). Boyle, 819 F.2d at 587. 7 . Boyle, 819 F.2d at 587-88. 8 . See Angelle v. Reed (In re Angelle), 610 F.2d 1335, 1339 (5th Cir.1980). 9 . Id. at 1338. 10 . Chapman v. Forsyth, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 202, 11 L.Ed. 236, 238 (1844). 11 . id. 12 . Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U.S. 328, 333, 55 S.Ct. 151, 154, 79 L.Ed. 393, 391-98 (1934). 13 . Id. 14 . Angelle, 610 F.2d at 1341. 15 . Id. 16 . See Southwest Airlines Co. v. Bullock, 784 S.W.2d 563, 568 (Tex.App.1990) (<HOLDING>). 17 . Angelle, 610 F.2d at 1341. 18 . Tex. Options: A. holding valid administrative rules promulgated by agency acting within its statutory authority have force and effect of legislation B. holding that administrative implementation of a particular statutory provision qualifies for chevron deference when it appears that congress delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules carrying the force of law and that the agency interpretation claiming deference was promulgated in the exercise of that authority C. holding that an unpublished bia decision that does not rely on precedent for its definition of a contested term does not receive chevron deference because it is not promulgated under the agencys authority to make rules carrying the force of law D. holding board cannot ignore the rules it adopts under the delegation of authority to prescribe rules for its governance and the governance of the university because such rules have the force and effect of statute E. holding that the power of any administrative agency to reconsider its final decision exists only where the statutory provisions creating the agency indicate a legislative intent to permit the agency to carry into effect such power

assistant: The best answer is A. holding valid administrative rules promulgated by agency acting within its statutory authority have force and effect of legislation
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: right to additional BLM permits or approvals. See, e.g., Lewis v. Hickel, 427 F.2d 673, 676-77 (9th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 992, 91 S.Ct. 456, 27 L.Ed. 2d 440 (1971); Angelina Holly Corp. v. Clark, 587 F.Supp. 1152, 1156 (D.D.C.1984). They hold no more than an expectancy, the loss of which does not constitute a deprivation of property within the meaning of the due process clause of the Constitution. See Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155, 161, 101 S.Ct. 446, 451, 66 L.Ed.2d 358 (1980); National Consumer Information Center v. Gallegos, 549 F.2d 822, 828 (D.C.Cir.1977). Their absence from the lawsuit does not preclude the district court from issuing the preliminary injunction. Compare Ohio ex rel. Brown v. Callaway, 497 F.2d 1235, 1241 (6th Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>). C. Exhaustion Mountain States asserts that Options: A. holding it was error for the court to issue a permanent injunction at a hearing to show cause why a temporary restraining order should not be continued via a preliminary injunction B. holding that when the district court applies the wrong preliminary injunction standard this court may review the record to determine whether the injunction is justified C. holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction D. recognizing the inappropriateness of a preliminary injunction where credibility determinations must be made but granting a preliminary injunction because the legal and factual issues have been sufficiently illuminated E. holding that contract with construction company rendered inequitable a preliminary injunction restraining the contractors from performing the contractual obligations

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that contract with construction company rendered inequitable a preliminary injunction restraining the contractors from performing the contractual obligations
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: (action against union for breach of duty of fair representation); Barnett v. United Air Lines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358 (10th Cir.) (hybrid suit) (opinion on rehearing), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 594, 83 L.Ed.2d 703 (1984); Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239 (2d Cir.) (hybrid suit), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 512, 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984); Sisco, 732 F.2d at 1191-94 (hybrid suit, but statute of limitations ruling only on breach of duty of fair representation claim against the union); Hunt v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 729 F.2d 578 (8th Cir.1984) (hybrid suit, but statute of limitations ruling only on breach of duty of fair representation claim against the union); see also Triplett v. Local 308, Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, 763 F.2d 625 (4th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); Linder v. Berge, 739 F.2d 686 (1st Cir.1984) Options: A. holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively B. holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act C. holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively D. holding delcostello governs a hybrid suit brought under the railway labor act but refusing to apply it retroactively E. holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the oil pollution act

assistant: The best answer is D. holding delcostello governs a hybrid suit brought under the railway labor act but refusing to apply it retroactively
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 Lenders agree to indemnify each Agent in its capacity as such (to the extent not reimbursed by the Borrower and without limiting the obligation of the Borrower to do so), ratably according to their respective holding of the outstanding Loans in effect on the date on which indemnification is sought under this Section 8.7 , from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, actions, judgments, suits, costs, expenses or disbursements of any kind whatsoever (including the cost of successfully defending itself against a claim brought by a party hereto) that may at any time (whether before or after the payment of the Loans) be imposed on, incurred by or asserted against the Agent in any way relating to or arising out of, this Agreement, any of the other Loan Documents or any documents contemplated by or referred to herein or therein or the transactions contemplated hereby or thereby or any action taken or omitted by the Agent under or in connection with any of the foregoing; provided that no Lender shall be liable for the payment of any portion of such liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, actions, judgments, suits, costs, expenses or disbursements that are found by a final and nonappealable decision of a court of competent jurisdiction to have resulted from the Agent’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. The agreements in this Section 8.7 shall survive the payment of the Loans and all other amounts payable hereunder and the resignation or removal of the Agent.

assistant: Indemnifications
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: arises solely from their efforts to modify Struble’s mortgage loan and prevent foreclosure. “Generally, a person cannot qualify as a consumer if the underlying transaction is a pure loan because money is considered neither a good nor a service.” Id. at 160. Courts have held that “subsequent actions related to mortgage accounts — for example, extensions of further credit or modifications of the original loan — do not satisfy the ‘good or services’ element of the DTPA.” Broyles v. Chase Home Fin., 2011 WL 1428904, at *4 (N.D.Tex. Apr. 13, 2011). Because the plaintiffs sought to modify their mortgage loan and not to acquire, by purchase or lease, a “good” or “service,” they do not have a viable DTPA claim. See, e.g., Montalvo v. Bank of Am. Corp., 864 F.Supp.2d 567, 575-81 (W.D.Tex.2012) (<HOLDING>); Cavil v. Trendmaker Homes, Inc., 2010 WL Options: A. holding that a person involved in a motor vehicle accident with a customer of enterprise was not a consumer or competitor of enterprise or other business person affected by enterprises conduct B. holding commercial franchises are not covered by new jersey consumer fraud act because they are businesses and not consumer goods C. holding that a person seeking a mortgageloan modification was not a consumer under the dtpa D. holding that a consumer reporting agency which gives a consumer report to the attorney representing the agency is not subject to the fcra because the attorney is not a traditional third party E. holding that a writ of execution under new jersey law is not an action against the consumer

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a person seeking a mortgageloan modification was not a consumer under the dtpa
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 is effective as of the date first above written and shall continue in effect with respect to each Shared Contract (Parent Companies) until the earlier to occur of (a) the expiration or termination, as the case may be, of such Shared Contract (Parent Companies), and (b) the award to Spinco or any of its Subsidiaries of a substitute or successor contract vehicle to such Shared Contract (Parent Companies); provided , however , that the provisions of this Section 4 (Term) and Sections 5 (Use of Intellectual Property), 6 (Proprietary Information), 10 (Construction), 11 (Entire Agreement), 12 (Governing Law), 16 (Third Party Beneficiaries) and 18 (Dispute Resolution), as well as the terms and conditions described in this Agreement, the Cost Principles and the Standard Terms and Conditions that are applicable to Orders that by their terms survive the termination of the applicable Shared Contract (Parent Companies), shall survive any such expiration.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party will indemnify, defend and hold the other harmless from and against any and all costs, liabilities, losses, and expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys fees) (collectively, “ Losses ”) resulting from any claim, suit, action, or proceeding (each, an “ Action ”) brought by any third party against the other or its affiliates arising out of or related to (i) the infringement or misappropriation of any intellectual property right relating to the delivery or use of the Service(s) (but excluding any infringement contributorily caused by the other party); (ii) personal injury caused by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the other party; and (iii) any violation of or failure to comply with the Acceptable Use Policy. In addition, Customer will indemnify, defend and hold harmless Data Foundry, its affiliates and customers from and against any and all Losses resulting from or arising out of any Action brought against Data Foundry or its affiliates arising out of or related to any damage or destruction caused by Customer, its Representative(s) or designees to the Customer Area, the Internet Data Centers, Data Foundry Supplied Equipment or other equipment belonging to other customer’s of Data Foundry.

assistant: Indemnifications
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 did not take this possibility into account in reviewing the settlement’s fairness the first time around, we must vacate and remand the Approval Order as well, so that the court may appropriately factor this into its Rule 23(e) analysis. On remand, the district court should reconsider its approval of the settlement after recalculating a reasonable amount of fees for class counsel. Courts have long recognized that “settlement class actions present unique due process concerns for absent class members.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. One inherent risk is that class counsel may collude with the defendants, “tacitly reducing the overall settlement in return for a higher attorney’s fee.” Knisley, 312 F.3d at 1125; see Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717, 733, 106 S.Ct. 1531, 89 L.Ed.2d 747 (1986) (<HOLDING>); In re Gen. Motors, 55 F.3d at 805. To guard Options: A. holding that a district court may award attorneys fees while the merits are on appeal B. recognizing the possibility but denying relief C. recognizing that the possibility of a tradeoff between merits relief and attorneys fees is often implicit in class action settlement negotiations D. holding a settlement privilege exists as to thirdparty discovery of settlement negotiations E. holding that the party seeking contractual attorneys fees is entitled to a decision on the merits

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that the possibility of a tradeoff between merits relief and attorneys fees is often implicit in class action settlement negotiations
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No failure by any Party at any time to give notice of any breach by the other party of, or to require compliance with, any condition or provision of this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver of similar or dissimilar provisions or conditions at the same or at any prior or subsequent time.

assistant: No Waivers