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: for the State. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430 94 (“We can see no substantial difference between the function of the agency attorney in presenting evidence in an agency hearing and the function of the prosecutor who brings evidence before a court.”). Moreover, the absolute immunity the defendants enjoy for offering the composite tape into evidence is not defeated by Cig-netti’s allegations that they did so maliciously or in bad-faith because they knew or should have known that the composite tape was fabricated. See e.g. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 409, 96 S.Ct. 984 (concluding that absolute prosecutorial immunity precluded a § 1983 claim alleging that a prosecutor had knowingly used perjured testimony and deliberately suppressed exculpatory material at trial); Burns, 500 U.S. at 478, 111 S.Ct. 1934 (<HOLDING>); see also Kulwicki v. Dawson, 969 F.2d 1454, Options: A. holding that an officer applying for a warrant without probable cause may be entitled to qualified immunity but is not entitled to absolute immunity B. holding that while a witness and prosecutor were protected by absolute immunity for their participation in judicial proceedings they were not entitled to absolute immunity on a 1983 claim that they conspired to present false testimony C. holding prosecutor had absolute immunity for claim for eliciting misleading testimony in a probable cause hearing D. holding that prosecutor retained absolute immunity despite allegations of witness intimidation in attempt to suppress testimony E. holding that a prosecutor accused of knowingly presenting false testimony at trial is protected by absolute immunity

assistant: The best answer is C. holding prosecutor had absolute immunity for claim for eliciting misleading testimony in a probable cause hearing
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: v. Haney, No. NMCCA 9900878 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App.2004). 5 . At trial, defense counsel did not make a motion to suppress Appellant’s confession to SSgt Deal. The coerced confession theory was presented only to the panel during presentation of the case on the merits. 6 . MSgt Crecilius did not testify, but on cross-examination, SSgt Deal corroborated MSgt Crecilius's presence at an initial meeting prior to his meeting with Appellant. 7 . Appellant stated: "I didn’t want to end up in confinement so I thought, well, if I go back and tell them what they want to hear, I will not end up in confinement.” 8 . United States v. Robinson, 485 U.S. 25, 33, 108 S.Ct. 864, 99 L.Ed.2d 23 (1988). 9 . Id. at 33-34, 108 S.Ct. 864. 10 . 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978). 11 . A.F.2001) (<HOLDING>); Ruiz, 54 M.J. at 143 (holding that, where an Options: A. holding that trial counsels failure to object to the prosecutors repeated pervasive and clearly improper references during closing arguments to similar transactions committed by the defendant constituted deficient performance and amounted to prejudice that required a new trial B. holding that repeated references to uncontroverted evidence of an accuseds guilt throughout closing argument was reversible error where the comments were general and not tailored to the defense credibility argument C. holding that there was no material prejudice arising from trial counsels repeated references to an accuseds invoking his right to counsel D. holding that there is no right to counsel beyond the initial direct appeal and thus no right to counsel on discretionary review E. holding that defense counsels failure to object to testimony did not warrant a new trial because there was no prejudice from admission of the testimony

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that there was no material prejudice arising from trial counsels repeated references to an accuseds invoking his right to counsel
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: On the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, at the Closing (defined below), Seller shall sell to Purchaser, and Purchaser shall purchase from Seller, the Property in consideration of the Purchase Price (defined below).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties to this Agreement acknowledge that they have each carefully read and reviewed this Agreement with their respective counsel, and therefore agree that the rule of construction that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafter shall not be applicable.

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: For the purpose of this Agreement, notices and all other communications provided for in this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be given in person or by United States registered mail, return receipt requested (with evidence of receipt by the party to whom the notice is given), postage prepaid, addressed, if to the Executive, to the address listed on the signature page of this Agreement and, if to the Company, to Chief Executive Officer, GulfMark Offshore, Inc., 10111 Richmond Avenue, Suite 340, Houston, Texas 77042, or to such other address as either party may have furnished to the other in writing in accordance herewith. For purposes of this agreement notice to a party shall be effective only upon actual receipt of the notice by the party with written evidence of receipt by the party to whom the notice is given.

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: well-established common law agency rules, an agent is not acting within the scope of his employment when he is “going on a frolic of his own.” Joel v. Morrison, 6 C. & P. 501, 172 Eng.Rep. 1338 (1834)(first recorded use of this phrase); see also Spencer v. Assurance Co. of America, 39 F.3d 1146, 1149 (11th Cir.1994)(interpreting Florida law). In this scenario, the agent steps outside of his employment to do some act for himself which is not connected to his employer’s business. See William L. Prosser, § 70 Law of Torts at 461 (4th ed.1982). If the agent has no intention to perform any service for his employer, but instead seeks only to further some personal end, then the act is not within the scope of his employment. See, e.g., Bennett v. United States, 102 F.3d 486, 489 (11th Cir.1996)(<HOLDING>); Spencer, 39 F.3d at 1150 (holding that in Options: A. holding that the inquiry into whether an employee was acting within the scope of his employment depends on the respondeat superior law of the state in which the tort occurred B. recognizing respondeat superior liability C. holding that the doctrine of respondeat superior in maryland allows an employer to be held vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of its employee when that employee was acting within the scope of the employment relationship citations omitted D. holding that the criminal acts committed by the defendants employees were outside of the scope of their employment and in no way advanced the interests of the defendant so that the defendant could not be held liable under a theory of respondeat superior citations omitted E. holding that victim of accidental shooting in army barracks could not hold the united states liable under georgia respondeat superior principles because employee had undertaken an act purely personal in nature and thus outside the scope of his employment

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that victim of accidental shooting in army barracks could not hold the united states liable under georgia respondeat superior principles because employee had undertaken an act purely personal in nature and thus outside the scope of his employment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices, requests, demands and other communications under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly given (i) if delivered by hand and receipted for by the party addressed, on the date of such receipt, (ii) if mailed by domestic certified or registered mail with postage prepaid, on the third business day after the date postmarked, or (iii) if delivered by e-mail message, on the date such message was sent. Addresses for notice to either party are as shown on the signature page of this Agreement or as subsequently modified by written notice.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: app provider is not responsible for addressing any claims you have or any claims of any third party relating to the app or your possession and use of the app , including but not limited to : ( i ) product liability claims ; ( ii ) any claim that the app fails to conform to any applicable legal or regulatory requirement ; and ( iii ) claims arising under consumer protection or similar legislation .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: from politically accountable officials to the courts the decision as to which among reasonable alternative law enforcement techniques should be employed to deal with a serious public danger---- [F]or purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis, the choice among such reasonable alternatives remains with the governmental officials who have a unique understanding of, and responsibility for, limited public resources, including a finite number of police officers. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 453-54, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990). Nevertheless, the Commonwealth must present some evidence establishing that the method employed will be an effective tool for addressing the public concern involved. See Galberth v. United States, 590 A.2d 990, 999 (D.C.App.1991) (<HOLDING>); Nieto v. State, 857 S.W.2d 149, 152-53 Options: A. holding that evidence of prior drug sales was sufficiently similar to the crimes charged to be probative of the fact that the defendant was not merely an innocent driver who was involved in the drug transaction by accident B. holding that a plaintiff would have to show that he was not promoted because of his race not that he was a member of a protected group and was not promoted C. holding that the challenged roadblock was unconstitutional in part because there was no empirical evidence that the roadblock technique itself effectively promoted the governments interest in deterring drug crimes D. holding that it was permissible for the jury to find that the defendants understood that the murder was not an end in itself but rather was part of the organizations larger drug distribution operation E. holding that evidence of violent crimes and other illegal activities of defendants gang was not unduly prejudicial because defendant was not directly implicated and the evidence was probative of elements of the crimes that the defendant was charged with

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the challenged roadblock was unconstitutional in part because there was no empirical evidence that the roadblock technique itself effectively promoted the governments interest in deterring drug crimes
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 Administrative Agent shall have received for its own account, and for the account of each other Lender, as the case may be, all costs, fees and expenses (including the costs and expenses of legal counsel to the Administrative Agent) due and payable pursuant to the Fee Letter, Section 3.3 and, if then invoiced at least one (1) Business Day prior to the Restatement Date, Section 11.3 .

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: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of Utah without giving effect to conflict of law principles thereof. The parties agree that any action brought by either party under or in relation to this Agreement, including without limitation to interpret or enforce any provision of this Agreement, shall be brought in, and each party agrees to and does hereby submit to the jurisdiction and venue of, any state or federal court located in Utah.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If the Committee determines in its sole and exclusive discretion that the Grantee’s Employment with the Company, its Subsidiaries and Affiliates has terminated prior to the Vesting Date for reasons other than death, Disability, Retirement, or without Cause, or prior to the occurrence of a Change in Control in Section 4(d) above or resignation for Good Reason in Section 4(e) above, the Grantee will forfeit any unvested RSUs, together with any dividend equivalents credited pursuant to Section 7(b) below, and any right to receive Shares under this Agreement with respect to such unvested RSUs and the Grantee will have no further interests under this Agreement.

assistant: Forfeitures
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: did not apply. However, we have never interpreted “under this chapter” to only encompass tort claims for which the Tort Claims Act waives immunity. To the contrary, in Newman v. Obersteller, 960 S.W.2d 621, 622-23 (Tex.1997), we held that former section 101.106’s limiting phrase “under this chapter” operated to bar an intentional tort claim against an employee after a final judgment on a claim involving the same subject matter had been rendered against the governmental unit, even though the Act by its terms expressly excluded intentional torts from the scope of the Act’s immunity waiver. Although these cases construed the prior version of section 101.106, there is nothing in the amended version that would indicate a narrower application of the phrase “under th l Paso 2009, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). What Reedy and the First Court of Appeals do Options: A. holding section 101106f cannot be used by employees to obtain dismissal of common law intentional tort claims because those claims could not have been brought under the texas tort claims act B. holding that garcia applies to section 101106 but holding that a declaratory judgment action is not brought under the texas tort claims act C. holding that this language applies to tort claims brought under the federal tort claims act against a contractor who has a selfdetermination contract D. holding that section 101106 applied to intentional torts even though these are excluded from the tort claims acts coverage E. holding that an action challenging the validity of a will may not be brought under ohios declaratory judgment act

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that garcia applies to section 101106 but holding that a declaratory judgment action is not brought under the texas tort claims 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: The Company and the Purchaser shall have the right to approve before issuance any press releases or any other public statements with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby; provided, however, that the Company shall be entitled, without the prior approval of the Purchaser, to make any press release or other public disclosure with respect to such transactions as the Company reasonably believes, after consulting with its counsel, to be required by applicable law and regulations (although the Purchaser shall be consulted by the Company in connection with any such press release or other public disclosure prior to its release and shall be provided with a copy thereof).

assistant: Publicity
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: until the eleventh hour to specifically and meaningfully invoke a ruling on the speedy trial issue, we find this factor weighs only slightly in his favor. Prejudice {25} “The right to a speedy trial protects the following three interests of a criminal defendant: (i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired.” Coffin, 1999-NMSC-038, ¶ 68, 128 N.M. 192, 991 P.2d 477 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To support a finding of prejudice, “the evidence [must show] a nexus between the undue delay in the case and the prejudice claimed.” Salandre, 111 N.M. at 431, 806 P.2d at 571; see State v. Grissom, 106 N.M. 555, 563, 746 P.2d 661, 669 (Ct.App.1987) (<HOLDING>). {26} Defendant claims to have been prejudiced Options: A. holding that death of potential alibi witness did not cause actual prejudice because defendant failed to relate the substance of the testimony of the missing witness in sufficient detail and to show witness testimony not available from other sources B. holding that prejudice existed when an attorney was both the trial counsel and a necessary witness C. holding that the loss of a statute of limitations defense constitutes clear legal prejudice D. holding that where the relevance and resulting prejudice from destruction of documents cannot be clearly ascertained because the documents no longer exist the culpable party can hardly assert any presumption of irrelevance as to the destroyed documents E. holding loss of documents and death of witness did not impair defense where both events occurred when there was no presumption of prejudice

assistant: The best answer is E. holding loss of documents and death of witness did not impair defense where both events occurred when there was no presumption of prejudice
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 term of this Agreement (the “ Term ”) and Consultant’s engagement shall commence on the Effective Date and continue until the earlier of (i) the last day of the month in which the final vesting date of any three- (3-) year cliff vesting performance units (or similar awards) held by Consultant is scheduled to occur or (ii) the date that this Agreement is terminated by Consultant upon written notice of termination to the Company.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you should keep traditional wireless ( mobile ) or fixed line telephone services available for your calls to emergency services and use skype 's limited emergency calling only as an absolute last resort .

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: The representations and warranties of the Company and Aspire contained in Sections 2, 3 and 5 hereof, the indemnification provisions set forth in Section 6 hereof and the agreements and covenants set forth in Sections 4 and 8 hereof, shall survive the execution of this Agreement and the transactions contemplated herein or any termination of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Every notice or other communication relating to this Agreement shall be in writing, and shall be mailed to or delivered to the party for whom it is intended at such address as may from time to time be designated by it in a notice mailed or delivered to the other party as herein provided, provided that, unless and until some other address be so designated, all notices or communications by the Grantee to the Company shall be mailed or delivered to the Company at its principal executive office, and all notices or communications by the Company to the Grantee may be given to the Grantee personally or may be mailed to the Grantee at the Grantee’s address as recorded in the records of the Company.

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: accident occurred); Sansonetti v. City of St. Joseph, 976 S.W.2d 572, 579 (Mo.Ct.App.1998) (no negligent entrustment claim because seller had permanently relinquished car to buyer two weeks prior to the accident); Kirk v. Miller, 7 Kan.App.2d 504, 644 P.2d 486, 490 (1982) (no negligent entrustment claim against seller who no longer owned vehicle when no evidence indicated that seller knew buyer was an incompetent driver and had no liability insurance), review denied (Kan. June 28, 1982); Sikora v. Wade, 135 N.J.Super. 62, 342 A.2d 580, 582 (1975) (attaching liability to a vendor who sold a car without investigating the purchaser’s background would "unduly hamper commerce and would pose an undue burden on ordinary business relationships”); Rush v. Smitherman, 294 S.W.2d 873, 876 (1956) (<HOLDING>); but see Small v. St. Francis Hosp., 220 Options: A. holding that unlicensed driver who was driving vehicle with permission of owners permittee could reasonably believe that permittee had authority to permit him to drive vehicle and thus driv er was entitled to liability coverage notwithstanding auto policy exclusion for any person using a vehicle without a reasonable belief that person is entitled to do so driver could have reasonable belief that he was entitled to use vehicle even though he was unlicensed where he was doing so at specific request of permittee and actual owner never instructed driver not to drive vehicle nor instructed permittee not to allow others to drive vehicle B. holding that liability for negligently entrusting a vehicle to an unlicensed driver is part of the law of bailments but not part of the law of sales or gifts C. holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle D. holding that the driver of an emergency vehicle is not entitled to receive qualified public official immunity because the normal operation of a vehicle including those on an emergency mission is not ordinarily a discretionary act for which immunity will shield the driver from liability for negligence E. holding that a challenge to part b determinations in an order involving both part a and part b must begin in district court

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that liability for negligently entrusting a vehicle to an unlicensed driver is part of the law of bailments but not part of the law of sales or gifts
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 amendment or waiver of any provision of this Agreement or the Notes, nor consent to any departure by the Company therefrom, shall in any event be effective unless the same shall be in writing and signed by the Majority Lenders, and then such waiver or consent shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose for which given; provided , however , that no amendment, waiver or consent shall, unless in writing and signed by each of the Lenders affected thereby, do any of the following: (a) increase the Commitments of such Lender, (b) reduce the principal of, or rate of interest on, the Advances or any fees or other amounts payable hereunder, (c) postpone any date fixed for any payment of principal of, or interest on, the Advances or any fees or other amounts payable hereunder or extend the date of termination of such Lender’s Commitment, (d) require the duration of an Interest Period to be more than six months if such period is not available to all Lenders, (e) change the percentage of the Commitments or of the aggregate unpaid principal amount of the Advances, or the number of Lenders, that shall be required for the Lenders or any of them to take any action hereunder; or (f) amend this Section 9.01; and provided further that no amendment, waiver or consent shall, unless in writing and signed by the Administrative Agent in addition to the Lenders required above to take such action, affect the rights or duties of the Administrative Agent under this Agreement or any Note; and provided further , that nothing contained in this Section 9.01 will require the Company or the Administrative Agent to seek the consent of any Lender in order to make any technical amendments to cure ambiguities or defects or make related modifications to any provision of a Loan Document.

assistant: Amendments
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: 504 N.W.2d 838, 841 (N.D. 1993). [¶ 6] Objections to jury instructions in criminal proceedings are governed by N.D.R.Crim.P. 30. A party must object to an instruction, or the failure to give an instruction, on the record. N.D.R.Crim.P. 30; State v. Jennewein, 2015 ND 192, ¶ 9, 867 N.W.2d 665; State v. Johnson, 2009 ND 76, ¶ 10, 764 N.W.2d 696; State v. Olander, 1998 ND 50, ¶ 9, 575 N.W.2d 658. Mayland not only failed to object to the jury instructions excluding a jury determination on whether Mayland had previous convictions under N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01, he requested and stipulated to the exclusion. In light of the stipulation, it would have been reversible error to provide an instruction requiring a jury determination on prior convictions. State v. Saul, 434 N.W.2d 572, 575 (N.D. 1989) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, Mayland failed to preserve the Options: A. holding that defendant could stipulate to prior dwi convictions B. holding that when a defendant admits prior convictions at a habitual offender hearing he waives any complaints about the validity of the prior convictions C. holding that when a defendant stipulates to prior convictions in prosecutions for aggravated offenses under ndcc 390801 submission of prior convictions to a jury constitutes reversible error D. holding that application of career offender enhancement falls within exception for prior convictions where facts are undisputed making it unnecessary for district court to engage in further fact finding about prior convictions E. holding that stipulation of the appellants undisputed prior convictions was harmless error and reasoning that blakely v washington which does not require a jury determination of prior convictions provides implicit support for the conclusion that a harmless error analysis is appropriate

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that when a defendant stipulates to prior convictions in prosecutions for aggravated offenses under ndcc 390801 submission of prior convictions to a jury constitutes reversible error
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: cert. denied, 519 U.S. 951, 117 S.Ct. 364, 136 L.Ed.2d 255 (1996). That is, “to be admissible to show identity, an extraneous offense must be so similar to the charged offense as to mark the offenses as the defendant’s handiwork.” Johnson v. State, 68 S.W.3d 644, 650-51 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (emphasis added). We have located no case law authority for the proposition that a defendant’s association with another to commit prior and subsequent offenses makes his identity as the perpetrator of the present offense along with the other person more probable. The Vogt Street offense raises only a suspicion as to identity in the Fast Freddy’s offense that culminates from the association of Barnes and Russell. Accord Wincott v. State, 59 S.W.3d 691, 700-01 (Tex.App.-Austin 2001, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). “[G]uilt by association [is] one of the most Options: A. recognizing distinction made in maynard that one accomplices outofcourt statement may corroborate the incourt testimony of another accomplice but outofcourt testimony of a testifying accomplice cannot be used to corroborate his own testimony B. holding possession alone cannot sufficiently corroborate the testimony of an accomplice when the stolen property was not sufficiently identified at trial C. holding jury cannot return any verdict except acquittal when evidence is insufficient to corroborate accomplice witness D. holding that while each separate item standing alone did not provide reasonable suspicion a combination of factors clearly satisfied the reasonable suspicion requirement E. holding suspicion that some combination of individuals participated in five robberies was insufficient to corroborate accomplice testimony

assistant: The best answer is E. holding suspicion that some combination of individuals participated in five robberies was insufficient to corroborate accomplice testimony
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Other than as disclosed in the Audited Financial Statements for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2016 or as set forth on Schedule 5.06 , there shall not exist any action, suit, investigation or proceeding pending or, to the knowledge of the Borrower, threatened in any court or before an arbitrator or Governmental Authority that could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Signatures delivered by e-mail and/or .pdf transmission shall be sufficient and binding as if they were originals and such delivery shall constitute valid delivery of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: (Yale’s Prelim. Inj. Hr’g Br. at 25.) Due to the absence of Tennessee case law interpreting “coercion” in § 47-25-1304, Yale cites cases interpreting the federal Automobile Dealers’ Day in Court Act which also contains a prohibition against “coercion.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1221(e) (stating “good faith” is freedom from coercion). Yale primarily relies on Cecil Corley Motor Co. v. General Motors Corp., 380 F.Supp. 819, 844 (M.D.Tenn.1974), in which the court, interpreting the Automobile Act, held it was not unlawful coercion for a supplier to require a dealer to comply with the terms of its contract because “otherwise the manufacturer would be precluded from insisting upon reasonable and valid contractual provisions.” See also Woodard v. General Motors Corp., 298 F.2d 121, 128 (5th Cir.1962) (<HOLDING>). With regard to the anti-waiver provision Options: A. recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract B. holding that the prohibitions under the statute do not prevent a manufacturer from terminating a contract with a dealer where the dealer has over a long period of time violated a valid and material clause of the contract and has failed to comply with the continuing insistence of the manufacturer upon performance C. holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur D. holding that a termination clause allowing for termination of a distributorship contract at the end of any year could not be modified by the duty of good faith even though the manufacturer relied on the contract and invested 1 million in facilitating the needs of the contract E. holding that even though certain corporate formalities had not been complied with in the execution of the subject contract the corporation had knowledge of the existence of the contract and treated it as a valid and binding contract and thus ratified the contract by accepting the benefits thereunder

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the prohibitions under the statute do not prevent a manufacturer from terminating a contract with a dealer where the dealer has over a long period of time violated a valid and material clause of the contract and has failed to comply with the continuing insistence of the manufacturer upon performance
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 proceeds of any Credit Extension will be used by the Borrower for the purposes described in Section 5.09. No Loan Party nor any Subsidiary thereof is engaged principally or as one of its activities in the business of extending credit for the purpose of “purchasing” or “carrying” any “margin stock” (as each such term is defined or used, directly or indirectly, in Regulation U). No Loan Party nor any Subsidiary thereof (a) is engaged in the business of extending credit for the purpose of purchasing or carrying margin stock (within the meaning of Regulation U) or (b) will use any proceeds for the purpose of purchasing or carrying any margin stock or for any other purpose which would constitute this transaction a “purpose credit”.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: when a psychiatric expert was appointed before his plea, and he was not entitled to appointment of another expert to aid in the presentation of a PCRA petition. Id. at 5-6. The court then concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the PCRA petition. Appellant appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed the PCRA court’s dismissal of the petition in a memorandum opinion filed on February 13, 2002. The panel rejected appellant’s claim that his brain injury, and its alleged effect upon his ability to discern the facts upon which his petition was premised, qualified under the “after-discovered” evidence exception to the PCRA time-bar. The panel deemed this.question to be controlled by Superior Court’s previous decision in Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 780 A.2d 700, 703 (Pa.Super.2001) (<HOLDING>). This Court granted further review, in part to Options: A. recognizing exception B. recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception C. holding that the time limits in the equal access to justice act are jurisdictional D. holding that time limits in title vii are not jurisdictional but are instead like statutes of limitations E. holding that claim of mental illness does not fit any exception to the statutes time limits

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that claim of mental illness does not fit any exception to the statutes time limits
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: You agree that the Evaluation Material owned by the Company or its affiliates in the first instance is and will remain the property of the Company or its affiliates, as applicable, and that neither the Company nor any of its affiliates or Representatives has granted you any license, copyright, or similar right with respect to any of the Evaluation Material or any other information provided to you by or on behalf of the Company.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the other Transaction Documents to which the parties hereto are a party contain a final and complete integration of all prior expressions by the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and shall constitute the entire agreement and understanding between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede all prior agreements and understandings, written or oral, relating to the subject matter hereof.

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: This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same Amendment. Faxed or electronically reproduced signatures shall have the same binding effect as original signatures, and a faxed or an electronically forwarded in pdf or similar format Amendment containing the signatures (original, electronically reproduced or faxed) of the parties shall be binding.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Other than consummating the transactions contemplated hereunder, such Purchaser has not, nor has any Person acting on behalf of or pursuant to any understanding with such Purchaser, directly or indirectly executed any purchases or sales, including Short Sales, of the securities of the Company during the period commencing as of the time that such Purchaser first received a term sheet (written or oral) from the Company or any other Person representing the Company setting forth the material terms of the transactions contemplated hereunder and ending immediately prior to the execution hereof . The Purchaser covenants and agrees that neither it, nor any Affiliate acting on its behalf or pursuant to any understanding with it will execute any Short Sales of the Common Stock or (ii) hedging transaction, which establishes a net short position with respect to the Company’s Common Stock during the period commencing with the execution of this Agreement and ending on the earlier Maturity Date (as defined in the Notes) of the Notes or the full repayment or conversion of the Notes; provided that this provision shall not prohibit any sales made where a corresponding Notice of Conversion is tendered to the Company and the shares received upon such conversion or exercise are used to close out such sale; provided, further that this provision shall not operate to restrict a Purchaser’s trading under any prior securities purchase agreement containing contractual rights that explicitly protects such trading in respect of the previously issued securities .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Supplier shall hold and maintain in strict confidence all Confidential Information of Company. Without limiting the foregoing, Supplier shall use or disclose the Confidential Information of Company, except as otherwise permitted by this Agreement or as may be necessary or useful to exercise its rights or perform its obligations under this Agreement. Nothing contained in this Article shall prevent Supplier from disclosing any Confidential Information of the other Party to the extent required by court order; provided that if Supplier is so required by court order to make any such disclosure, other than pursuant to a confidentiality agreement, it will give reasonable advance notice to Company of such disclosure and will use its reasonable efforts to secure confidential treatment of such 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: From time to time, at the request of IMS Health and without further consideration, the Quintiles Shareholder shall take such further action as may reasonably be deemed by IMS Health to be necessary or desirable to consummate and make effective the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) THIS AGREEMENT, THE INCREMENTAL AND AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT AGREEMENT AND EACH OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: game.” NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759, 766 n.6, 89 S.Ct. 1426, 22 L.Ed.2d 709 (1969). Remand in this case is not required because it “would be an idle and useless formality.” Id. Petitioner’s argument for relief turns on the existence of endemic corruption such that Mexican officials could not or would not protect him, but the record indicates no such corruption on the part of the police who have interacted with Petitioner’s family (and affirmatively suggests that they acted in accordance with the law). The BIA’s error is harmless because “nothing in the record could support a finding” that Petitioner qualifies for deferral of removal under CAT. Khudaverdyan v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1101, 1107 n.3 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Li Hua Yuan v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 642 F.3d 420 (3d Cir. 2011) (<HOLDING>)). I respectfully Options: A. holding that bia error is harmless when it is highly probable that error did not affect cases outcome B. holding that an error is harmless where it is highly probably that the error did not affect the outcome of the case C. holding that sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed D. holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error E. holding that noneonstitutional errors in civil suits are harmless only if it is highly probable that the errors did not affect the outcome of the case

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that bia error is harmless when it is highly probable that error did not affect cases outcome
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: From and after the Effective Date, the Administrative Agent shall make all payments in respect of the Assigned Interest (including payments of reimbursement obligations, interest, fees and other amounts) to the Assignor for amounts which have accrued to but excluding the Effective Date and to the Assignee for amounts which have accrued from and after the Effective Date.

assistant: Payments