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: 374 U.S. at 408, 83 S.Ct. 1790. Given this high bar, courts have held that “[aesthetics,” traffic, and “community character” are normally not compelling in terests. See Westchester Day Sch. v. Vill. of Mamaroneck, 417 F.Supp.2d 477, 554 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (“[T]he visual impact of the [p]roject does not implicate a compelling government interest.”), aff'd, 504 F.3d 338 (2007); Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Town Bd. of Town of Windham, 352 F.Supp.2d 297, 304 (N.D.N.Y.2005) (“[WJhile aesthetics and traffic safety are regularly found to. be substantial enough government interests to support a contend neutral regulation, those interests are rarely compelling enough to support a content-based regulation.”); XXL of Ohio, Inc. v. City of Broadview Heights, 341 F.Supp.2d 765, 789-90 (ND.Ohio 2004) (<HOLDING>); Cottonwood Christian Ctr. v. Cypress Options: A. holding contribution limits even those that operate as a ban not subject to strict scrutiny B. holding that aesthetics and neighborhood preservation are not sufficiently compelling interests to withstand strict scrutiny analysis C. holding that section 922k passes muster under intermediate scrutiny and would also pass muster under a strict scrutiny analysis D. holding that nearly identical kansas statute did not violate equal protection clause when subjected to strict scrutiny E. holding first amendment guarantees access to criminal trials and limitations on access are subject to strict scrutiny

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that aesthetics and neighborhood preservation are not sufficiently compelling interests to withstand strict scrutiny analysis
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 the formation of the contract. Thus, they do not address any action taken by Defendants during performance which had the effect of preventing Plaintiffs from receiving the benefits of their lease, and therefore do not support a claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Arguably, the third claim alleging a breach resulting from omissions could be interpreted to allege a non-disclosure occurring after formation of the contract. However, even so construed, the claim is still not legally sufficient. To demonstrate a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, parties must generally show that they have been deprived of a contract right by an affirmative act, not merely a failure to act. See, e.g., M/A-COM Sec. Corp. v. Galesi, 904 F.2d 134, 136 (2d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added); Leberman v. John Blair & Options: A. holding that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is limited to performance under a contract B. holding that under the implied covenant of good faith neither party to a contract shall do anything which has the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract C. holding that a promisor impliedly pledges that it shall not do anything which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the promise D. holding that where a city enters contract in excess of its statutory power the mere fact that the municipality has received the benefits of the contract which has been performed by the other party does not make the municipality liable either on the theory of ratification estoppel or implied contract in order to do justice to the other party by paying the reasonable value of the property or services E. recognizing an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by all parties in the performance of a contract for the sale of real estate

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that under the implied covenant of good faith neither party to a contract shall do anything which has the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract
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: Executive agrees that he will not talk about or otherwise communicate to any third parties in a malicious, disparaging, or defamatory manner regarding the Company, the OP or any of their affiliates, owners or their past or present employees, directors, officers or other representatives and will not make or authorize to be made any written or oral statement that may disparage or damage the reputation of the Company, the OP or any of their affiliates, owners or their past or present employees, directors, officers or other representatives or their past or present employees, officers or other representatives.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Executive shall be entitled to participate in all employee benefit plans or programs established by the GENBAND Entities or management from time to time that are generally provided to other similarly-situated senior executives of the Company or the other GENBAND Parties to the extent that he is eligible to participate. The Executive’s participation in any such plan or program shall be subject to the provisions, rules and regulations applicable to such plan or program. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Executive shall be provided with coverage for medical, disability, and term life insurance to the extent it is available at a reasonable cost from reputable providers. The Executive shall also be entitled to an annual reimbursement of up to $4,800 for financial planning services in accordance with the GENBAND Parties’ applicable policies and procedures. Until such time as the Executive obtains permanent housing in the Dallas, Texas metropolitan area and his family relocates to the area, the Company shall (i) provide an allowance for living quarters in Plano, Texas as necessary for the Executive, for an amount not to exceed $ l,000.00 per month, and (ii) pay all reasonable commuting expenses to and from the Executive’s principal residence in Austin, Texas and Plano, Texas. The Executive’s temporary living quarters shall consist of a house, condominium, or similar residence. In the event that any of the perquisites provided by the Company to the Executive subject the Executive to any tax liability, the Company agrees to pay the Executive an amount of cash equal to such tax liability and an additional amount of cash equal to the tax liability that the Executive will be subject to as a result of the total cash payment described in this sentence.

assistant: Benefits
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 trial court erred in finding service of process was effective. We disagree. Service upon a corporation may be made “by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.” Rule 4(d)(3), SCRCP. Rule 4 serves at least two purposes: it confers personal jurisdiction on the court and assures the defendant of reasonable notice of the action. Roche v. Young Bros., Inc. of Florence, 318 S.C. 207, 209, 456 S.E.2d 897, 899 (1995). Exacting compliance with the rules is not required to effect service of process. Id. Not every employee of a corporation is an agent of the corporation for the purposes of service of process. See Roberson, 365 S.C. at 11, 615 S.E.2d at 115 (<HOLDING>). Whether an employee may accept service on Options: A. holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service B. holding service on corporation proper where process server went to corporate defendants headquarters identified himself to an employee of corporate defendant and stated that he was there to serve legal papers and the employee then directed him to another employee who accepted service even though neither employee was authorized to accept service and neither represented that she was in fact so authorized because both were obviously corporate defendant employees and the employee redelivered the summons and complaint to an employee authorized to accept service on the same date C. holding that a corporation could be served by delivering a copy of the subpoena to an officer or managing or general agent of the corporation and that the agent could be an individual a partnership or another corporation D. holding that a clerical employee was not an agent authorized to accept service of process for the corporation E. holding that while a purported agent must possess actual authority to accept service of process such authority may be implied rather than express

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a clerical employee was not an agent authorized to accept service of process for the corporation
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 will use the proceeds of the Loans solely for (a) payment of closing costs in connection with this Agreement, (b) repayment of Indebtedness, and (c) general corporate and working capital purposes, including, without limitation, the making of Distributions as permitted by the Loan Documents.

assistant: Use Of Proceeds
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: For purposes of this Section 2.18 and for the avoidance of doubt, the term “Lender” includes any LC Issuing Bank and the term “Applicable Law” includes FATCA.

assistant: Defined 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Co. v. Mendez, 213 Cal.App.3d 41, 50, 261 Cal.Rptr. 273 (Ct.App.1989). The allegations against Aquarius failed to indicate any such happening caused the claimed damage. That Appellants did not subjectively intend to be negligent is irrelevant, since Appellants’ conduct in testing the well and reporting the results was deliberate. See Delgado v. Interins. Exchange of Auto. Club of S. Cal., 47 Cal.4th 302, 311, 97 Cal.Rptr .3d 298, 211 P.3d 1083 (2009); Fire Ins. Exchange v. Superior Ct., 181 Cal.App.4th 388, 393, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 534 (Ct.App.2010) (“The insured’s subjective intent is irrelevant.”). The inaccurate report was not a fortuitous event, but a direct and natural consequence of the well test. See Ray v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 77 Cal.App.4th 1039, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 473 (Ct.App.1999) (<HOLDING>); see also Merced, 213 Cal.App.3d at 50, 261 Options: A. holding congress did not intend categorically to foreclose the benefit of chapter 13 reorganization to a debtor who previously has filed for chapter 7 relief B. holding that congress did not intend to abrogate eleventh amendment immunity in enacting 42 usc 1983 C. holding that congress did not intend to give individuals a right to enforce specific provisions of nclb D. holding no accident where roofer negligently recommended unsuitable materials because the recommendation was intentional even if roofer did not intend to convey bad advice nor intend the resulting consequences E. holding that congress did not intend to disturb the states eleventh amendment protection in passing 1983

assistant: The best answer is D. holding no accident where roofer negligently recommended unsuitable materials because the recommendation was intentional even if roofer did not intend to convey bad advice nor intend the resulting consequences
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 Purchaser is a corporation duly incorporated, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Nevada, with the power and authority to conduct its business as it is now being conducted and to own and lease its properties and assets.

assistant: Organizations
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: Second Circuit Court of Appeals and held that a state criminal restitution order is non-dischargeable under Section 523(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court stated that Section 523(a)(7) “create[d] a broad exception for all penal sanctions, whether they be denominated fines, penalties, or forfeitures,” and protected traditional criminal fines sufficiently to allow restitution orders to be included within the exception. Id. at 51, 107 S.Ct. at 362, 93 L.Ed.2d at 230. In the Court’s view, federal bankruptcy proceedings should not be used to cir 1993) (concluding that order of restitution imposed as part of a criminal sentence was non-dischargeable in bankruptcy); Cabla v. State, 6 S.W.3d 543, 551 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1092, 120 S.Ct. 1730, 146 L.Ed.2d 650 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Garnett seeks to distinguish her case from Options: A. holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar a bankruptcy court from issuing a money judgment against a state under the bankruptcy code B. holding that apprendi does not apply to state capital sentencing schemes where judges are required to find certain aggravating circumstances before imposing a death sentence C. holding that the bankruptcy code does not interfere with criminal sentencing schemes D. holding only that although a party cannot interfere with its own contract a supervisor who is not an officer of a plaintiffs employer is not a party to the plaintiffs employment contract and therefore can interfere with it E. holding that apprendi does not apply to capital sentencing schemes

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the bankruptcy code does not interfere with criminal sentencing schemes
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: Trust Co., 263 U. rights have been violated in the course of his present confinement, Gordon is required to exhaust state remedies before seeking redress in federal courts. See Montez, 208 F.3d 862, 866 (10th Cir.2000) (“A habeas petitioner is generally required to exhaust state remedies whether his action is brought under § 2241 or § 2254.”) Gordon makes general claims that he has been threatened by state officials, retaliated against for pursuing legal redress of his grievances, and denied due process and equal protection in the proceedings regarding his children. Gordon does not, however, demonstrate that he has exhausted state remedies for these claims. Nor does he make any attempt to excuse his failure to exhaust. See, e.g., Wilson v. Jones, 430 F.3d 1113, 1118 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Gordon urges us to consider that the district Options: A. holding that exhaustion requirement applies to excessive force claims B. holding that excessive force claims are not subject to exhaustion requirement C. recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different D. holding that exhaustion of issues is jurisdictional E. holding exhaustion requirement inapplicable when requiring exhaustion would be futile

assistant: The best answer is E. holding exhaustion requirement inapplicable when requiring exhaustion would be futile
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: Notwithstanding the other provisions hereof, this Agreement is intended to comply with the requirements of section 409A of the Code, to the extent applicable, and this Agreement shall be interpreted to avoid any penalty sanctions under section 409A of the Code. Accordingly, all provisions herein, or incorporated by reference, shall be construed and interpreted to comply with section 409A. If any payment or benefit cannot be provided or made at the time specified herein without incurring sanctions under section 409A of the Code, then such benefit or payment shall be provided in full at the earliest time thereafter when such sanctions will not be imposed. For purposes of section 409A of the Code, each payment made under this Agreement shall be treated as a separate payment. In no event may the Employee, directly or indirectly, designate the calendar year of payment.

assistant: Interpretations
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, Executive shall be entitled to participate in the Company’s employee benefit plans, as amended from time to time, as in effect from time to time (collectively “ Employee Benefits ”), on the same basis as those benefits are generally made available to other senior executives of the Company.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: considered the content, form and context of the Plaintiffs’ speech and held the Plaintiffs’ speech is constitutionally protected because it was in response to Superinten dent Brezina’s request for an update on the implementation of the improvement plan. The Plaintiffs were charged with this duty as members of the ICC and the SBDM committees. To hold that the Plaintiffs’ speech is not protected is to require teachers to sit on their hands, abandoning their legislatively created duties as committee members, allowing the school environment to deteriorate to an even more deplorable level in order to keep their jobs. Additionally, we note that while our statement in Noyola v. Texas Dep’t of Human Resources, 846 F.2d 1021, 1026 (5th Cir.1988) still reflects the law of this circ r.1992) (<HOLDING>). JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge, dissents from Options: A. holding the failure of defendants to claim any disruption in workplace resulting from speech is fatal to his claim of qualified immunity B. holding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that speech was public concern C. holding that a denial of a claim of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision D. holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity E. holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit

assistant: The best answer is A. holding the failure of defendants to claim any disruption in workplace resulting from speech is fatal to his claim of qualified immunity
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the fact-based elements of the claim, i.e., the causation and overriding-justification elements. Judgment affirmed and cause remanded. Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur. O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., dissent. 1 . For ease of discussion, the phrase “the employee files a workers’ compensation claim or institutes, pursues, or testifies in any workers’ compensation proceeding,” which is the language used in R.C. 4123.90, is shortened to “the employee files, institutes, or pursues a workers’ compensation claim.” 2 . Because this ease comes to us on appeal from a judgment on the pleadings in Tomco’s favor, the ■facts are recited from Sutton’s complaint. State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 565, 570, 664 N.E.2d 931 (<HOLDING>). O’Donnell, J., dissenting. {¶ 39} The Options: A. holding that when ruling on a rule 12b2 motion the court must accept all of the plaintiffs allegations as true and construct disputed facts in favor of the plaintiff B. holding that the nonmoving party may not defeat a summary judgment motion by standing on the bare allegations in the pleadings C. holding that when deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings the court must construe the material allegations in the complaint in favor of the nonmoving party as true D. recognizing that the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true on a threshold motion to dismiss E. holding that a court considering evidence outside of the administrative record because of its relevance to a conflict of interest must still construe that evidence in favor of the nonmoving party for the purposes of summary judgment

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that when deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings the court must construe the material allegations in the complaint in favor of the nonmoving party as true
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: for $10,000. See V.R.C.P. 56(e) (“When a motion for summary is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading, but ... must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”). ¶ 30. While we may not make negative inferences from a person’s decision to plead the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, “the Fifth Amendment privilege cannot be invoked as a shield to oppose depositions while discarding it for the limited purpose of making statements to support a summary judgment motion.” Edmond v. Consumer Prot. Div., 934 F.2d 1304, 1308 (4th Cir. 1991); cf. United States v. Sixty Thousand Dollars in U.S. Currency, 763 F. Supp. 909, 914 (E.D. Mich. 1991) (<HOLDING>). Confronted with evidence indicating that he Options: A. holding that because claimant had asserted fifth amendment during discovery he may not submit affidavits in opposition to governments motion for summary judgment B. holding that district court had ample authority to strike claimants affidavit offered in opposition to governments motion for summary judgment in forfeiture action after claimant invoked fifth amendment and refused to answer governments deposition questions C. holding that party may not rely on its own testimony or affidavits to support its version of disputed fact issue in connection with summary judgment motion where party has asserted fifth amendment right not to answer questions concerning that veiy issue D. holding that claims raised for the first time in an opposition to a motion for summary judgment are not properly before a court E. holding that arguments not raised in opposition to a motion for summary judgment are waived

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that because claimant had asserted fifth amendment during discovery he may not submit affidavits in opposition to governments motion for summary 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Borrower will, and will cause each of its Subsidiaries to, (i) maintain adequate books, accounts and records, in which full, true and correct entries shall be made of all financial transactions in relation to its business and properties, and prepare all financial statements required under this Agreement, in each case in accordance with and to the extent required by GAAP and in compliance with the requirements of any Governmental Authority having jurisdiction over it, and (ii) permit employees or agents of the Administrative Agent or any Lender to visit and inspect its properties and examine or audit its books, records, working papers and accounts and make copies and memoranda of them, and to discuss its affairs, finances and accounts with its officers and employees and, upon notice to the applicable Borrower, the independent public accountants of Crawford or such Borrower and their respective Subsidiaries (and by this provision each Borrower authorizes such accountants to discuss the finances and affairs of Crawford and such Borrower and their respective Subsidiaries; provided that an Authorized Officer of Crawford or such Borrower or Subsidiary shall have the right to participate in any such discussion and Crawford shall be given reasonable prior written notice (by electronic mail or otherwise) of any such discussion), all at such times and from time to time, upon reasonable notice and during business hours, as may be reasonably requested; provided , however , that so long as no Default or Event of Default exists, the Administrative Agent and the Lenders shall make no more than one such inspection during any fiscal year of Crawford.

assistant: Records
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 any provision or provisions of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, (i) the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Agreement (including all portions of any paragraph of this Agreement containing any such provision held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, that are not themselves invalid, illegal or unenforceable) shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby and shall remain enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law, and (ii) to the fullest extent possible, the provisions of this Agreement (including all portions of any paragraph of this Agreement containing any such provision held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable) shall be construed or deemed reformed so as to give the maximum effect to the intent of the parties hereto manifested by the provision held invalid, illegal or unenforceable and to give the maximum effect to the terms of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Loan Party has the corporate or other organizational power and authority, and the legal right, to make, deliver and perform the Loan Documents to which it is a party and, in the case of the Borrower, to obtain Extensions of Credit hereunder, and each such Loan Party has taken all necessary corporate or other organizational action to authorize the execution, delivery and performance of the Loan Documents to which it is a party and, in the case of the Borrower, to authorize the Extensions of Credit to it, if any, on the terms and conditions of this Agreement and any Notes. No consent or authorization of, filing with, notice to or other similar act by or in respect of, any Governmental Authority or any other Person is required to be obtained or made by or on behalf of any Loan Party in connection with the execution, delivery, performance, validity or enforceability of the Loan Documents to which it is a party or, in the case of the Borrower, with the Extensions of Credit to it, if any, hereunder, except for ( a ) consents, authorizations, notices and filings described in Schedule 5.4 , all of which have been obtained or made prior to the Restatement Effective Date, ( b ) filings to perfect the Liens created by the Security Documents, ( c ) filings pursuant to the Assignment of Claims Act of 1940, as amended (31 U.S.C. § 3727 et seq. ), in respect of Accounts of the Borrower and its Restricted Subsidiaries the Obligor in respect of which is the United States of America or any department, agency or instrumentality thereof, ( d ) establishment of assignment of Restricted Government Accounts by or pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction and ( e ) consents, authorizations, notices and filings which the failure to obtain or make would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. This Agreement has been duly executed and delivered by the Borrower, and each other Loan Document to which any Loan Party is a party will be duly executed and delivered on behalf of such Loan Party. This Agreement constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of the Borrower and each other Loan Document to which any Loan Party is a party when executed and delivered will constitute a legal, valid and binding obligation of such Loan Party, enforceable against such Loan Party in accordance with its terms, in each case except as enforceability may be limited by applicable domestic or foreign bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or similar laws affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights generally and by general equitable principles (whether enforcement is sought by proceedings in equity or at law).

assistant: Authorizations
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 COURT: You just need to answer the question. JUROR [FIVE]: Yes. On appeal, Moton argues that Juror Five’s initial response to the trial court indicates that the verdict was not unanimous and, therefore, that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury to continue its deliberations. But while not entirely clear, the most logical interpretation of Juror Five’s response to the court’s first question shows that she may not h a single witness is generally sufficient to establish a fact. . . .”). 10 Freeman v. State, 328 Ga. App. 756, 762 (5) (760 SE2d 708) (2014) (punctuation omitted); accord Tew v. State, 320 Ga. App. 127, 127 (739 SE2d 423) (2013). 11 Freeman, 328 Ga. App. at 762 (5) (punctuation omitted); see Graydon v. State, 313 Ga. App. 580, 582 (722 SE2d 173) (2012) (<HOLDING>). 12 McCullough v. State, 317 Ga. App. 853, 853 Options: A. holding that the district court acted within its discretion when it denied plaintiffs request for counsel B. holding that there is no indication that the district court abused its discretion in denying the discoverysanction motion C. holding trial court acted within its discretion in excluding expert testimony D. holding that trial court erred in denying defendants request to allow standby counsel to conduct voir dire where there was no indication that the trial court considered the koehler factors or that granting the request would have disrupted or delayed the trial E. holding that trial court acted within its discretion in denying defendants request for firstoffender treatment when there was no indication that trial court refused to consider request or erroneously believed that such was not permitted

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that trial court acted within its discretion in denying defendants request for firstoffender treatment when there was no indication that trial court refused to consider request or erroneously believed that such was not permitted
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 hallmarks of an ERISA plan. The Court thus concludes that the Vested Producer Plan is a “plan” within the meaning of ERISA. Because the Vested Producer Plan falls within the statutory and regulatory meaning of an “employee pension benefit plan,” and because it is a “plan” within the meaning of ERISA, the Vested Producer Plan is governed by ERISA, and Plaintiff is entitled to any benefits for which he is eligible under the plan. Because Count III, seeking damages for breach of contract, was pleaded in the alternative to Count I, (see Compl. ¶¶ 69-79), Count III is dismissed, without prejudice to renew the claim should this or another court subsequently determine that the Vested Producer Plan is not covered by ERISA. See Arditi v. Lighthouse Int’l, 676 F.3d 294, 299 (2d Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>) (alteration omitted) (quoting Montefiore Med. Options: A. holding that claims for misrepresentation under texas insurance code were preempted because the plaintiffs sought to recover benefits under an erisa plan B. holding that the safety valve provision of 18 usc 3553f is not unconstitutional under apprendi 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 or blakely v washington 542 us 296 124 sct 2531 159 led2d 403 2004 C. holding that after blakely v washington 542 us 296 124 sct 2531 159 led2d 403 2004 statutory maximum is the maximum that this particular defendant can face in light of his criminal history and the facts found by a jury or admitted by the defendant D. holding that state law breach of contract claims were preempted by erisa because the defendants obligations under the plan were inextricably intertwined with the interpretation of plan coverage and benefits and do not create a sufficiently independent duty under aetna health inc v davila 542 us 200 124 sct 2488 159 led2d 312 2004 E. holding the same under blakely v washington 542 us 296 124 sct 2531 159 led2d 403 2004

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that state law breach of contract claims were preempted by erisa because the defendants obligations under the plan were inextricably intertwined with the interpretation of plan coverage and benefits and do not create a sufficiently independent duty under aetna health inc v davila 542 us 200 124 sct 2488 159 led2d 312 2004
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: Second, Sacker was threatened with suit when the transfer occurred. He had been subpoenaed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on March 17, 1997, and his attorney was notified of a subpoena on Sacker’s company on May 15, 1997, one day before the lien was executed on May 16, 1997. Furthermore, the lien was recorded on December 16, 1997, during the pendency of the enforcement litigation. Third, Sacker retained control over the property by failing to record it for seven months after it was executed. Fourth, the transfer was concealed and never disclosed before it was recorded. Fifth, as the district court correctly found, Sacker did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the lien. See In re Consolidated Capital Equities Corp., 148 B.R. 80, 87 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>); Freeman v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 253 F.3d Options: A. holding that what constitutes fair consideration under the 1970 version of 843903 is a question of fact B. holding question of what constitutes proper care and education of children is area of public concern C. holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact D. holding that what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is a question of law E. holding it is a question of fact

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that what constitutes fair consideration under the 1970 version of 843903 is a question of fact
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Contract wi ll begin on March 6, 2015 and shall replace the previ o u s employment contra c t between the Employee and the Employe r dated Mar c h 4, 2004. The Contract shall l ast for an unlimited period of time. The Contract may be termi n ated in writing by either party as per the end of a calendar month w i th a notice period of 6 months.

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: The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement has been duly authorized by each Investor. This Agreement, when executed and delivered by each Investor in accordance with the terms hereof, shall constitute a valid and binding obligation of each Investor, enforceable against such Investor in accordance with its terms, except as such enforceability may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, moratorium, reorganization or similar laws affecting creditors’ rights generally and by general equitable principles.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: at 6. Allegedly, this reliance caused Plaintiffs to be “denied the coverage benefits of the State Farm Policy,” caused Plaintiffs to incur “costs and expenses,” and “exposed [Marentes] to liability.” Id. ¶ 70. The Court first addresses whether Defendant has provided sufficient evidence of damages and then discusses whether those damages were caused by Marentes’ reliance on the allegedly false promises'. a. Evidence of Damages The only evidence in the record of Mar-entes’ damages is the default judgment that was entered against Marentes after a prove-up hearing on March 28, 2016. ECF No. 48-33. The default judgment constitutes a compensable harm despite the accompanying covenant not to execute. See Consol. Am. Ins. Co. v. Mike Soper Marine Servs., 951 F.2d 186, 190-91 (9th Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>). The record contains no evidence of the three Options: A. holding on summary judgment that an attorney who failed to timely file an answer leading to a default judgment was on notice that a malpractice claim might be filed against him B. holding that a judgment constituted harm despite a covenant not to execute because the insured was left with a judgment against him that could have collateral adverse effects in several respects including on his future credit C. holding that because a judgment was awarded the plaintiffs against the united states no judgment will be announced against the government employee D. holding that despite assurances from the insurance company that the insured could file the pol after femas deadline the insured could not collect because the insured was responsible for timely filing E. holding that collateral estoppel applies only where the antecedent judgment was a final judgment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a judgment constituted harm despite a covenant not to execute because the insured was left with a judgment against him that could have collateral adverse effects in several respects including on his future credit
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: number removed, obliterated, or altered and has, at any time, been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(k). The Court finds defendant’s arguments to be unavailing for the following reasons. First, as defendant admits, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has previously held that “§ 922 is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers.” United States v. Teleguz, 492 F.3d 80, 86-87 (1st Cir.2007); see also United States v. Diaz-Martinez, 71 F.3d 946, 953 (1st Cir.1995). The Teleguz decision, decided in the aftermath of three Supreme Court cases that defendant has referenced in his motion, upheld section 922(k) against similar constitutional challenges. Cf. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 120 Options: A. holding that gunfree school zones act of 1990 which proscribed possession of a firearm within 1000 feet of a school exceeded congressional authority under commerce clause because it reached conduct that did not substantially affect or have a meaningful connection with interstate commerce B. holding the limitations to congresss commerce clause authority recognized in lopez have no effect on the establishment of the interstate commerce element of the hobbs act C. holding that statute which prohibited gun possession near a school zone exceeded congresss authority under the commerce clause because the statute did not regulate activity that had a substantial effect on interstate commerce D. holding that housing discrimination has a substantial effect on interstate commerce E. holding that the gunfree school zone act exceeds congresss authority to regulate commerce

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that statute which prohibited gun possession near a school zone exceeded congresss authority under the commerce clause because the statute did not regulate activity that had a substantial effect on interstate commerce
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Plan shall become effective upon its adoption by the Board. Options and Stock Awards may be granted immediately thereafter. The Plan shall continue in effect for a term of TEN (10) years from the date of the Plan’s adoption by the Board unless terminated earlier under Section 14.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company will reimburse Executive for reasonable travel (including first class air travel), entertainment or other expenses incurred by Executive in the furtherance of or in connection with the performance of Executive’s duties hereunder, in accordance with the Company’s expense reimbursement policy as in effect from time to time. Executive acknowledges and agrees that any reimbursements to Executive with respect to Executive’s travel from his personal residence to the Company’s offices in San Francisco or with respect to Executive’s lodging in San Francisco will constitute taxable compensation to Executive and will be subject to all applicable withholdings.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: only learned about it indirectly. Thus, Johnson points to just two incidents of discriminatory conduct over the course of his twenty-eight-month tenure at Riverside, and only one in which he was the victim. In the past, we have held that isolated incidents, unless “extremely serious,” are insufficient to state a claim for hostile work environment. Manatt, 339 F.3d at 798 (quoting Faragher, 524 U.S. at 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275); Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 642-43 (9th Cir.2002) (concluding that employee failed to state a hostile work environment claim under Title VII where he was yelled at in front of others and told that he had “a typical Hispanic macho attitude,” and that he should work in the field because “Hispanics do good in the field”); Kortan, 217 F.3d at 1110-11 (<HOLDING>). Thus, to establish the severe or pervasive Options: A. holding that comments not directed at plaintiff including a supervisor who called another worker the nword were relevant to the evaluation of hostile work environment claim B. holding that a plaintiffs psychological distress was not vicarious in a hostile work environment case where she experienced her workplace as hostile by reason of the alleged harassment of other women out of her presence C. holding that the fact that the offensive material was not directed specifically at the plaintiff does not as a matter of law preclude a jury from finding that the conduct subjected her to a hostile work environment based on her sex D. holding that supervisors routine vulgar references to plaintiff could not support a hostile work environment claim because plaintiff was unaware of the comments and to show that he or she perceived the environment as hostile a title vii plaintiff must at least have been aware of those comments E. holding that a plaintiff failed to state a hostile work environment claim where her supervisor referred to other females as castrating bitches madonnas or regina in her presence and called the plaintiff medea at least once

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a plaintiff failed to state a hostile work environment claim where her supervisor referred to other females as castrating bitches madonnas or regina in her presence and called the plaintiff medea at least once
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: set forth [for summary judgment] in [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 56 does not apply because of the limited role of a court in reviewing the administrative record.... Summary judgment is [ ] the mechanism for deciding whether as a matter of law the agency action is supported by the administrative record and is otherwise consistent with the APA standard of review.” Southeast Conference v. Vilsack, 684 F.Supp.2d 135, 142 (D.D.C.2010). To prevail on its D.C. EPA claim, the plaintiff must show that the agency’s determination that preparing an EIS for' the challenged project was not necessary was “[arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” D.C. Code § 2-510(a)(3)(A); see also Kegley v. District of Columbia, 440 A.2d 1013, 1019 (D.C. 1982) (<HOLDING>); accord Dep’t of Transp. v. Public Citizen, Options: A. holding that a reviewing court has an obligation to satisfy itself of the jurisdiction of the court below B. holding that the superior court in reviewing agency action uses the precise scope of review the court of appeals employs in reviewing contested cases C. holding that a reviewing court is not to substitute its decision for that of the board D. holding that reviewing court may consider trial evidence in reviewing denial of motion to suppress E. holding that when a court of appeals has jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal the scope of appellate review is not limited to the precise question certified by the district court because the district courts order not the certified question is brought before the court

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the superior court in reviewing agency action uses the precise scope of review the court of appeals employs in reviewing contested cases