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: & Accepted Masons, 56 Tex.Civ.App. 306, 121 S.W. 178, 179 (Dallas 1909, no writ). Our court’s first use of section eight to safeguard speech came in Ex parte Tucker, 110 Tex. 335, 220 S.W. 75, 76 (1920), where habeas relief was accorded to one held in contempt for violating an injunction by making “slanderous epithets to the female telephone operators” during a labor dispute. In thereafter refusing to enjoin publication of an alleged libelous article, the court in Strange v. Biggers, 252 S.W. 826 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1923, no writ), declared that freedom of speech will necessarily end when supervision by a court of equity of the expressions and sentiments of the individual is allowed to begin. See also Pirmantgen v. Feminelli, 745 S.W.2d 576, 579 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1988, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Consistent with this jurisprudence and the Options: A. holding that injunction of scandalous newspaper was unconstitutional B. holding that the injunction did not constitute a claim C. holding unconstitutional injunction barring dissemination of allegedly libelous letter D. holding injunction limited to material found either libelous or disparaging after a full jury trial was pot unconstitutional and could stand E. holding unconstitutional a statute barring the use of opprobrious words or abusive language tending to cause a breach of the peace

assistant: The best answer is C. holding unconstitutional injunction barring dissemination of allegedly libelous letter
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any waiver by either Party of a breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not operate as or be construed to be a waiver of any other breach of such provision or of any breach of any other provision of this Agreement. The failure of a Party to insist upon strict adherence to any term of this Agreement on one or more occasions shall not be considered a waiver or deprive that Party of the right thereafter to insist upon strict adherence to that term or any other term of this Agreement. Any waiver of a breach of any provision hereof must be in writing.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If your employment ceases prior to the Payment Date by reason of your death, but you otherwise met all eligibility criteria specified in Article II, your estate may receive a prorated portion of the Bonus Award, if any, that would have been paid had you lived to the Payment Date. In such a case, proration will be based on the percentage of time in the Performance Year during which you were employed and eligible to participate in the Plan. The prorated Bonus Award, if any, will be paid on the Payment Date.

assistant: Death
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: 27 . State v. Davenport, 510 P.2d 78, 82 n. 8 (Alaska 1973), quoting United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108, 85 S.Ct. 741, 746, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965). 28 . Williams v. State, 737 P.2d 360, 362 (Alaska App.1987). 29 . Davenport, 510 P.2d at 80. 30 . Id. at 82 & n. 8. 31 . - See Landon v. State, 941 P.2d 186, 190 (Alaska App.1997); Stam v. State, 925 P.2d 668, 670 (Alaska App.1996) (when assessing the trustworthiness of hearsay information contained in a search warrant application, courts presume that police officers and citizen informants are credible sources of information}. 32 . Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). See State v. Jones, 706 P.2d 317, 322-25 (Alaska 1985) Options: A. holding that evidence obtained by improper search or seizure is inadmissible B. holding that a defendant has no constitutional right to challenge the search or seizure of property belonging to a third party even if the search was without probable cause C. holding that the admission of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure is subject to a harmlesserror analysis D. holding as a matter of law that adaptations of subject matter or expressions in the public domain cannot support a finding of copyright infringement E. holding that as a matter of state law the aguilarspinelli test continues to govern the evaluation of hearsay information offered to support a search or seizure

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that as a matter of state law the aguilarspinelli test continues to govern the evaluation of hearsay information offered to support a search or seizure
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 Employment Term and through March 15, 2020, you agree that you will make no disparaging or defamatory comments in any respect regarding the Company, its products or services , or its directors and officers. Similarly, the directors and officers of Company will not make disparaging or defamatory comments in any respect about you. For purposes of this Letter Agreement, a disparaging or defamatory comment is any communication which, if publicized, would cause or tend to cause the recipient of the communication to question the business condition, integrity, competence, good character or product quality of the person or entity to whom the communication relates.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the case of any stock split, stock dividend or like change in the nature of shares of Stock covered by this Agreement, the Restricted Stock Units shall be adjusted or terminated in any manner as contemplated by Section 14(a) of the Plan.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Generally, when an ALJ fails adequately to develop the record, we remand for further proceedings. See Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d at 79-81. Remand is unnecessary in this case, however, because Lamorey submitted treatment notes from Dr. Kessler for the insured period to the Appeals Council. Thus, by the time the Commissioner’s decision became final upon denial of review by the Appeals Council, the record was adequately developed. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(b) (providing that where new and material evidence is submitted to the Appeals Council, the entire record is evaluated); see also Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 505 (2d Cir.1998). Having conducted a de novo review of the administrative record, including the additional treatment notes of Dr. Kessler, see Perez v. Chater, 11 F.3d at 45 (<HOLDING>), we conclude, as the district court did, that Options: A. holding that judicial review of decisions of military correction boards is review of the administrative record conducted under the administrative procedure act B. holding that appeals council must consider evidence submitted with a request for review if it is a new b material and c related to the period on or before the date of the aljs decision C. holding that evidence not submitted to the district court cannot be part of the record on appeal D. holding that appeals council did not explicitly or implicitly reopen case and stating that appeals council must be afforded opportunity to look far enough into record to determine whether res judicata applies E. holding that additional records submitted to the appeals council are part of the administrative record for judicial review

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that additional records submitted to the appeals council are part of the administrative record for judicial review
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: it fails because the procedures employed with respect to the photo array were not unduly suggestive. Tyni-cia Teague had seen Muller several times in the past and identified him as the truck’s driver from a six-photo array during an interview with police at a restaurant on May 13, 2012. As Defendants’ expert in the field of cognitive psychology, memory, and eyewitness identification testified at trial, the photo array contained "five additional photographs that were similar in appearance to Mr. Muller. And that’s the proper procedure for conducting an identification.” App. 2272. These procedures were not unduly suggestive, and the District Court did not err in admitting Tynicia Teague’s identification of Muller. See, e.g., United States v. Burnett, 773 F.3d 122, 133-34 (3d Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>). 9 . Muller also argues that he should be Options: A. holding that the photo lineup was not unduly suggestive where the defendants photo was the only one that included his name B. holding that a photo array in which all of the men in the array were of similar age there was no striking difference in the amount of head hair each had and the skin color of the members of the array was not strikingly different was not impermissibly suggestive C. holding in a very similar underagesex case that a school photo of the victim taken three months after the alleged crime plainly was relevant to the defendants mistakenage defense and did not prejudice the defendant because he was free to challenge the weight of the photo evidence by arguing that it did not show the victim as she had appeared on the night in question D. holding that the admission of a family photo was harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence in support of the conviction E. holding that section 33021b was overbroad because it prohibited a wide array of constitutionally protected speech and was not drawn narrowly enough to achieve only the legitimate objective of protecting children from sexual abuse

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a photo array in which all of the men in the array were of similar age there was no striking difference in the amount of head hair each had and the skin color of the members of the array was not strikingly different was not impermissibly suggestive
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: it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule, the court may order such party to permit the discovery or inspection, grant a continuance, or prohibit the party from introducing evidence not disclosed, or it may enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances. Utah R.Crim. P. 16(g). Rule 16(g) thus provides several remedies to mitigate prejudice caused by unanticipated testimony, including a continuance. When the prosecution introduces unexpected testimony, a defendant “essentially waive[s] his right to later claim error” if the defendant fails to request a continuance or seek other appropriate relief under Rule 16(g). State v. Larson, 775 P.2d 415, 418 (Utah 1989). See also State v. Griffiths, 752 P.2d 879, 883 (Utah 1988) (<HOLDING>); State v. Christofferson, 793 P.2d 944, 948 Options: A. holding that the defendant waived any argument on the issue by failing to oppose a motion to dismiss B. holding that by failing to move for continuance defendant waived relief under rule 16g by not making timely efforts to mitigate or eliminate the prejudice caused by the prosecutors conduct C. holding that statutory grounds for recusal can be waived both by failing to object and by failing to assert error on appeal D. holding that the defendant waived an argument by failing to raise it in his appellants brief E. holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that by failing to move for continuance defendant waived relief under rule 16g by not making timely efforts to mitigate or eliminate the prejudice caused by the prosecutors conduct
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: 431 U.S. at 29. Merely because the governmental actor believes the money can be better spent or should now be conserved does not provide a sufficient interest to impair the obligation of contract. “If a State could reduce its financial obligations whenever it wanted to spend the money for what it regarded as an important public purpose, the Contract Clause would provide no protection at all.” Id. at 26. Accordingly, because no important public purpose justifies the impairment of plaintiff’s contract with defendants, we hold that the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution, contained in Article I, Section 10, prevents defendants from retroactively changing the terms and conditions of the benefits afforded plaintiff. See Faulkenbury, 345 N.C. at 690-94, 483 S.E.2d at 427-29 (<HOLDING>). Because the Contract Clause prohibits Options: A. holding that retirement benefits are accrued benefits under erisa B. holding that military retirement benefits are current pay and thus significantly different than other retirement benefits C. holding that the contract clause prevents a change in the calculation of the plaintiffs disability retirement benefits by legislative action D. holding that although disability benefits cannot be included as part of the marital estate a court may consider the waiver of retirement pension benefits in favor of disability benefits in determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances which would justify modification of an alimony award to a former spouse who was previously awarded a fixed percentage of the retirement pension benefits E. holding that offset for social security retirement benefits does not include federal disability benefits and stating that there was no legislative intent to embody the entire subchapter of the social security act dealing with both disability benefits and old age benefits

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the contract clause prevents a change in the calculation of the plaintiffs disability retirement benefits by legislative action
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: 2002) ("Because it is summary in nature, a Section 225 proceeding is limited to those issues that must necessarily be considered in order to resolve a disputed corporate election process.”); Arbitrium (Cayman Islands) Handels AG v. Johnston, 1997 WL 589030, at *3 (Del.Ch. Sept. 17, 1997) (explaining that a Section 225 proceeding has the limited scope of determining "the validity of a corporate election or to determine the right of a person to hold a corporate office in the event that such office is claimed by more than one person.” (citation omitted)). 82 . Agranoff v. Miller, 1999 WL 219650, at *17 (Del.Ch. Apr. 12, 1999) (internal citation omitted), aff'd as modified, 737 A.2d 530 (Table), 1999 WL 636634 (Del.1999). 83 . Id. (internal citation omitted); see also Box, 697 A.2d at 398 (<HOLDING>). 84 . Arbitrium, 1997 WL 589030, at *4. 85 . Options: A. holding that section 105 does not afford a private cause of action for 506bbased issues B. holding that in a subsequent criminal action for driving under the influence collateral estoppel did not apply to issues decided at a prior administrative hearing held pursuant to implied consent statute C. holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be brought in collateral proceedings not on direct appeal D. holding that declaratory judgments should not be used as a restraint against criminal action E. holding that a section 225 action should not be used for trying purely collateral issues

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a section 225 action should not be used for trying purely collateral issues
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: CD is nonnegotiable, it is assignable by its terms and was in fact assigned to the Bank; and (2) the CD “ ‘is of a type which is in ordinary course of business transferred by delivery with any necessary endorsement or assignment,’ and as such qualifies as an instrument as defined by Va.Code Ann. § 8.9-105(1).” The bankruptcy court rested its decision in part upon Panel Publishers, Inc. v. Smith (In re Kelly Group, Inc.), 159 B.R. 472, 480-81 (Bankr.W.D.Va.1993), which held that promissory notes and certificates of deposit bearing the terms “nonnegotiable and nonassignable” are instruments under Va.Code § 8.9-105(l)(i). Kelly also rejected the argument that such documents should be characterized as “ of Southwest Florida (In re Kroh Brothers), 101 B.R. 114, 119-120 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1989) (<HOLDING>); Cadle Co. v. Citizens Nat. Bank, 200 W.Va. Options: A. holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of 1983 B. holding that certificates of deposit are instruments and noting that the majority of jurisdictions agree C. holding that certificates of deposit are instruments not general intangibles even if the certificate is labeled nontransferable D. recognizing that corporations are persons within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment E. holding that nonnegotiable certificates of deposit are instruments within the meaning of ucc article 9 even if transferability is severely restricted

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that nonnegotiable certificates of deposit are instruments within the meaning of ucc article 9 even if transferability is severely restricted
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 negate Ms. Madanes’ interest in the Artworks, to issuing false denials regarding his status as the Trustee of Baltimore and Westchase— are of the type that “logically would lead him to suspect” that he was part of a larger conspiracy. Id. at 44-45. That is, unlike the defendant in Viola who committed two isolated sales of stolen goods and had no reason to know he was part of a larger conspiracy, Ortoli’s alleged acts all had the common theme of enriching the Madanes Brothers at the expense of Ms. Madanes. Given the knowledge Ortoli possessed, especially in light of his status as the family attorney since 1984, the Court finds that the present allegations are sufficient to establish Ortoli’s conspiratorial liability. See, e.g., Morin v. Trupin, 835 F.Supp. 126, 133-36 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (<HOLDING>); cf. A.I. Credit Corp. v. Hartford Computer Options: A. holding that although plaintiffs failed to adequately allege 1962c claim against professional broker and its officer based on operating or managing enterprise they adequately alleged rico conspiracy to violate 1962a against same defendants B. holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over rico claims and that plaintiffs federal rico claim was barred by res judicata since he failed to bring his rico claim along with his state fraud claims in prior state court action C. holding that the person charged with violating 1962c must be distinct from the rico enterprise D. holding that although plaintiffs failed to state 1962c claim against outside attorneys for directing principals in rico enterprise to sign various legal documents allegations that these same outside attorneys knowingly agreed with promoter of tax shelter to violate rico and personally agreed to commit racketeering acts stated valid cause of action for conspiracy under 1962d E. holding that plaintiffs cannot claim that a conspiracy to violate rico existed if they do not adequately plead a substantive violation of rico

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that although plaintiffs failed to state 1962c claim against outside attorneys for directing principals in rico enterprise to sign various legal documents allegations that these same outside attorneys knowingly agreed with promoter of tax shelter to violate rico and personally agreed to commit racketeering acts stated valid cause of action for conspiracy under 1962d
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 twenty minutes later “after embles our own in that it provides operators a thirty-minute period to contact an attorney to decide whether to take the te ld with a rule of law which would rigidly and unreasonably bind an arrested person to his first words spoken, no matter how quickly and under what circumstances those words are withdrawn.”); In re Smith, 770 P.2d 817, 821 (Idaho Ct. App. 1989) (concluding that flexible rule “better serves the public interest in obtaining scientific information about the blood-alcohol levels of motorists accused of driving under the influence”); Standish, 683 P.2d at 1280 (“We believe that the administration of the test should be encouraged and the person arrested should be given every reasonable opportunity to submit to it.”); Lund, 224 N.W.2d at 557 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added); Baldwin, 849 P.2d at 405-06 Options: A. holding that there is no constitutional right to refuse chemical testing under the implied consent law B. recognizing that because accuracy of a chemical test under the implied consent law does not depend upon its being administered immediately after an arrest a delay for a reasonable period of time while an arrested person considers or reconsiders a decision to take a test will not frustrate objective of law C. holding that denial of an independent chemical test after defendant refused to submit to a policeadministered test did not violate due process D. holding that a person arrested for dui has the right to consult an attorney before taking a breath test when such consultation would not delay or interfere with the investigation or test taking E. holding the limit of two tests in section 5770202 applies to the types of chemical test performed and not the number of times the same chemical test is performed

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that because accuracy of a chemical test under the implied consent law does not depend upon its being administered immediately after an arrest a delay for a reasonable period of time while an arrested person considers or reconsiders a decision to take a test will not frustrate objective of law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: These hire-on bonus amounts are subject to ordinary income tax. These hire-on bonus amounts cannot be deferred under the Retirement K Savings Plan or the non-qualified Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors and Executives.

assistant: Taxes
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: With respect to any date prior to the Investment Grade Covenants Date, the Borrower and the Subsidiaries are, and after giving effect to any extension of credit on such date will be, Solvent on a consolidated basis. As of the Specified Acquisition Date, after giving effect to the consummation of the Transactions on the Specified Acquisition Date, and after giving effect to the application of the proceeds of the Indebtedness incurred on the Specified Acquisition Date under such Transactions, the Borrower and the Subsidiaries are Solvent on a consolidated basis.

assistant: Solvency
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: release “dispell[ed] any doubt regarding either the amount purported to be released or by whom the release was executed.” Id. at 1167. As noted above, the “pay when and if paid” clause is part of a settlement agreement between Weststar and Walton under which the parties agreed to settle all existing disputes and lawsuits and continue them existing contractual relationship, except as modified by the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The “pay when and if paid” clause in the Settlement Agreement does not identify any rights that Walton may have under the Miller Act payment bond — or any other bond for that matter— as a predicate for releasing them. Indeed, it is not even framed as a release or waiver of claims. Thus, Walton’s agreement hnson & Sons Inc., 236 F.2d 864, 865 (3d Cir.1956) (<HOLDING>); United States ex rel. Sunbelt Pipe Corp. v. Options: A. holding that freight and transportalion charges are not recoverable under the terms of the miller act B. holding that the cost of capital equipment is not recoverable under the terms of the miller act C. holding that injuries suffered by laborers are not recoverable under the terms of the miller act D. holding under the predecessor statute to the miller act that the cost of food clothing and lodging for laborers is recoverable under the terms of the miller act E. holding that lost profits are not recoverable under the terms of the miller act

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that freight and transportalion charges are not recoverable under the terms of the miller act
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Unless specifically indicated otherwise, this Plan supersedes any and all prior communications, understandings, arrangements or agreements between the parties, including the Company, the Board, the Committee and any and all Participants, whether written, oral, express or implied relating thereto.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any renewal, extension, increase, modification, alteration or rearrangement of all or any part of the Guaranteed Obligations, the Note, the Loan Agreement, the other Loan Documents, or any other document, instrument, contract or understanding between Borrower and Lender, or any other parties, pertaining to the Guaranteed Obligations or any failure of Lender to notify Guarantor of any such action.

assistant: Modifications
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: Employee shall be entitled to receive reimbursement for all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by him in connection with the fulfillment of his duties hereunder; provided , however , that Employee has complied with all policies and procedures relating to the reimbursement of such expenses as shall, from time to time, be established by the Company. For the avoidance of doubt, the Company shall reimburse the Employee for membership dues to professional organizations, reasonable expenses associated with maintaining Employee’s law license, including Continuing Legal Education necessary for the maintenance of Employee’s law license, cellular and data coverage plan for Employee’s mobile telephone device, premiums paid by the Employee attributable to “tail” coverage for legal malpractice insurance and reasonable expenses incurred as a result of a request by the Company that the Employee relocate his primary residence, including costs incurred to hire movers and commission paid to a home realtor.

assistant: Expenses
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 distributions with respect to Dividend Equivalent Rights shall be made unless and until such Dividend Equivalent Rights shall have become vested. Dividend Equivalent Rights shall vest on the dates Shares under the Project 750 Performance Award are granted (each, a “ Vesting Date ”).

assistant: Vesting
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 analogize its situation to that of the distributor in Otter Tail. 53 . In its opposition, GUA has accused Southern of possessing a natural monopoly since it was the only interstate pipeline capable of servicing industrial end users in the market area. 54 . To establish liability under the essential facilities doctrine, one must demonstrate (1) control of an essential facility by a monopolist; (2) a competitor's inability practically or reasonably to duplicate the essential facility; (3) the denial of the use of the facility to a competitor; (4) the feasibility of providing the facility. 55 . Southern makes this contention in a footnote on page 33 of its brief and in the December 6, 1989 reviously set forth. 61 . See Public Systems Inc. v. Towry, 587 So.2d 969, 973-974 (Ala.1991) (<HOLDING>) 62 . Alagasco stated that it would be unfair Options: A. holding that the difference between interference with contract and prospective relations is that second tort requires showing of malice B. recognizing the tort of interference with prospective contractual relations as a subspecies of the broader tort of interference with prospective economic advantage C. holding that contacting a competitors customers docs not constitute interference with business relations D. holding that sovereign immunity applies to claims alleging tortious interference with business relations because the tort requires proof of malice E. recognizing the tort of wrongful interference with anothers business relations

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that contacting a competitors customers docs not constitute interference with business relations
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Except as allowed under Section 5, Required Disclosure, the Receiving Party shall not submit CEII obtained from the Disclosing Parties to any government agency for any reason without first obtaining written permission from the respective Disclosing Party, and then fully complying with the requirements of 18 C.F.R. §§ 388.112, 113 for requesting special treatment of the CEII. In the event that the Receiving Party is requested or required by depositions, interrogatories, requests for information or documents, subpoena, civil investigation, demand or similar process (i) to disclose any CEII or other Confidential Information received pursuant to this Agreement, (ii) to disclose any discussions pertaining thereto, or (iii) to take any other action described in the last paragraph of Section 3 above, the Receiving Party shall provide to the relevant Disclosing Parties prompt written notice of such request(s) and shall use reasonable efforts to resist disclosure until an appropriate protective order may be sought. If, in the absence of a protective order, Receiving Party is nonetheless, in the written opinion of its counsel, legally required to disclose CEII or other Confidential Information received pursuant to this Agreement, then, in such event Receiving Party may disclose such information after the Receiving Party gives the Disclosing Party written notice of the proposed disclosure and a reasonable opportunity to review the proposed disclosure.

assistant: No
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: human environment which was not already considered in the original EIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c); Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 374, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 1859, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989); Cronin, 919 F.2d at 449; Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 914 F.2d 1174, 1178 (9th Cir.1990); Hickory Neighborhood Defense League v. Skinner, 893 F.2d 58, 63 (4th Cir.1990) (quoting Sierra Club v. Froehlke, 816 F.2d 205, 210 (5th Cir.1987)); and Roberts t a supplemental EIS for a site-specific timber sale was not required where programmatic EIS considered effect of timber sales on northern spotted owl and site-specific project would not have an effect on owl habitat not already considered in the programmatic EIS); and Texas v. United States Forest Service, 654 F.Supp. at 297-98 (<HOLDING>). Under the facts of this case, a programmatic Options: A. holding that the rod and eis for a program were final agency action B. holding that eis must provide a useful analysis of the cumulative impacts of past present and future projects C. holding after consideration of a single significance factor that an eis was required D. holding supplemental eis not necessary for sitespecific infestation and reforestation program where impacts of site specific program were the same as those considered in the programmatic eis E. holding that the implementation of a training program as opposed to the adoption of the program is not a discretionary function under the state tort liability act

assistant: The best answer is D. holding supplemental eis not necessary for sitespecific infestation and reforestation program where impacts of site specific program were the same as those considered in the programmatic eis
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: "best practices” model, PL's Opp’n at 42, he offers nothing to support this assertion, see geiterally id. at 40-41. 17 . The plaintiff's individual EEO complaint, which he filed in 1997, was dismissed and subsumed by the class action, at which point he became a named plaintiff in the case. Pl.'s Opp'n at 41-42. The parties eventually settled the Conanan litigation under a consent decree in 2001. Id. at 42. 18 . Although the defendant briefly suggests that the January 2004 e-mail does not qualify as protected activity, Def.'s Mot. at 25, the email contains allegations of discrimination against the African-American members of the Task Force in receiving foreign assignments, and thus likely does constitute protected activity. See Broderick v. Donaldson, 437 F.3d 1226, 1232 (D.C.Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>) (internal citations omitted); see also Sumner Options: A. holding that the plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination B. holding that a title vii cause of action is limited to those discrimination allegations in the complaint that have been under the scrutiny of a formal eeoc complaint C. holding that the conduct complained of must be an unlawful employment practice under title vii D. recognizing ageplusgender discrimination claim when complaint brought claims under adea and title vii E. holding that not every complaint garners its author protection under title vii the complaint must in some way allege unlawful discrimination not just frustrated ambition

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that not every complaint garners its author protection under title vii the complaint must in some way allege unlawful discrimination not just frustrated ambition
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice or other communication herein required or permitted to be given shall be in writing and may be personally served or sent by courier service and shall be deemed to have been given when delivered in person or by reputable international express service, as evidenced by the records of such service . For the purposes hereof, the addresses of the parties hereto shall be as set forth in the Merger Agreements and opposite each party's name on the signature pages hereto, or, as to each party, at such other address as may be designated by such party in a written notice to all of the other parties.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All written notices, demands and other communications given to or made by either Party to the other in connection with this Agreement shall be either personally served on an officer or other authorized representative of the Party to which it is given or mailed by registered first class mail, postage prepaid, to the headquarters of such Party to the attention of its chief financial officer, with a copy to its general counsel, or to such other address and to the attention of such persons as the Party in question may from time to time specify to the other by notice hereunder. All notices shall be deemed delivered and effective (a) if hand-delivered, upon delivery, or (b) if mailed, three (3) business days after mailing.

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: a voter application and ensure the delivery of the application to the appropriate registrar. Once the voter is registered, the plaintiffs urge registered voters to east their votes in scheduled elections. The speech rights of the plaintiffs in this case seeking to influence citizens to participate in the democratic process are as strong or stronger than the plaintiffs’ rights in Meyer and Buckley. The First Amendment rights of the canvassers in Meyer and Buckley and the canvassers in this case are indistinguishable: The right to conduct their campaign without unjustified burdens “limits the number of voices who will convey [plaintiffs’] message.” Meyer, 486 U.S. at 422, 108 S.Ct. 1886; see also Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 130 S.Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has a long line of cases Options: A. recognizing that code is speech B. holding that first amendment protections apply to compelled speech as well as restrictions on speech C. holding that federal election laws prohibiting corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as electioneering communication or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate is unconstitutional suppression of political speech D. holding that the plaintiffs right to political speech is fully in accord with the publics interest in free speech and association E. holding that speech about financial assistance and handling racial discrimination does not qualify as protected speech

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that federal election laws prohibiting corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as electioneering communication or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate is unconstitutional suppression of political speech
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 consider the forfeiture issue at the time they are confronted with a Confrontation Clause objection. When making its forfeiture determination, a court should consider the evidence admitted up to that point in the proceeding and, if necessary, hold a hearing outside the presence of the jury to take additional evidence. If there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate forfeiture, the court should admit the evidence over the defendant’s objection and set forth on the record its factual findings that support a forfeiture to allow for a meaningful appellate review of the forfeiture issue. 6 . Several courts have applied the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine in cases where the defendant is charged with the same homicide that rendered the witness unavailable. See Giles, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d at 851 (<HOLDING>); People v. Moore, No. 01CA1760, — P.3d —, —, Options: A. holding that if the reason the victim cannot testify at trial is that the accused murdered her then the accused should be deemed to have forfeited the confrontation right even though the act with which the accused is charged is the same as the one by which he allegedly rendered the witness unavailable B. holding that an accused may not complain if the statute of limitations is extended so long as the period of time originally provided therein had not run at the time of such extension because an accused does not acquire any vested right in a statute of limitations until it has operated to bar the prosecution of the offense with which he has been charged C. holding that waiver by attorney was binding upon the accused when before the state introduced the evidence complained of on appeal counsel for the state in the presence of the accused and his counsel stated the agreement and the evidence of the witness was then read to the jury in the presence of the accused and his counsel without objection D. holding that police failure to inform the accused of his attorneys attempts to contact him and misstatements to the attorney as to whether the accused was at the police station did not violate the accuseds due process rights E. holding that where a states witness has not gained a concrete benefit for his testimony by way of a deal with the state and the accused is permitted broad scope in exposing the potential for bias in the witnesss testimony the trial court did not err in not allowing the accused to crossexamine the witness about possible recidivist penalties that he faced

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that if the reason the victim cannot testify at trial is that the accused murdered her then the accused should be deemed to have forfeited the confrontation right even though the act with which the accused is charged is the same as the one by which he allegedly rendered the witness unavailable
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: if you have a dispute with one or more users ( including game developers and/or merchants ) , you release the viber group from claims , demands , liabilities , costs , or expenses and damages ( actual and consequential of every kind and nature , known and unknown , arising out of or in any way connected with such disputes ) .

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: (a) Definition of Proprietary Information . Executive acknowledges that he may be furnished or may otherwise receive or have access to confidential information which relates to Playa Resorts’ or a Playa Affiliate’s past, present or future business activities, strategies, services or products, research and development; financial analysis and data; improvements, inventions, processes, techniques, designs or other technical data; profit margins and other financial information; fee arrangements; terms and contents of leases, asset management agreements and other contracts; tenant and vendor lists or other compilations for marketing or development; confidential personnel and payroll information; or other information regarding administrative, management, financial, marketing, leasing or sales activities of Playa Resorts or any Playa Affiliates or of a third party which provided proprietary information to either or both on a confidential basis. All such information, including any materials or documents containing such information, shall be considered by Playa Resorts, the Playa Affiliates and Executive as proprietary and confidential information of Playa Resorts and the Playa Affiliates (the “Proprietary Information” ).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: came to this same straightforward conclusion in Employers Ins Co of Wausau v Century Indemnity Co, 443 F3d 573, 577 (CA 7, 2006), where the court cogently explained: We find based on Howsam that the question of whether an arbitration agreement forbids consolidated arbitration is a procedural one, which the arbitrator should resolve. It does not involve whether Wausau and Century are bound by an arbitration clause or whether the arbitration clause covers the Aqua-Chem policies. Instead, the consolidation question concerns grievance procedures—i.e., whether Century can be required to participate in one arbitration covering both the Agreements, or in an arbitration with other reinsurers. Accord Harry Baker Smith Architects II, PLLC v Sea Breeze I, LLC, 83 So 3d 395, 399 (Miss App, 2011) (<HOLDING>); Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v Options: A. holding that while the determination of the scope of an arbitration agreement is for the court the enforcement of pleading requirements before the arbitrator is a procedural matter for the arbitrator B. holding that because the parties agreed to arbitrate the particular issue any doubt about who should decide the consolidation issue was resolved in favor of the arbitrator C. holding that questions of procedure are for the arbitrator not the courts D. holding that upon vacating an arbitration award the court has the discretion to remand to the same arbitrator or different arbitrator E. holding that because the parties agreed to arbitrate and both placed the issue before the arbitrator the issue of consolidation was for the arbitrator

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that because the parties agreed to arbitrate and both placed the issue before the arbitrator the issue of consolidation was for the arbitrator