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: were no overcharging. If USAA overcharged, the premiums paid for UM/ UIM coverage on additional vehicles were excessive. Whether premium rates are excessive is a question that directly implicates the reasonableness of rates. 1 82 We agree that plaintiffs' refund damage theory would require the trier of fact to determine the rate USAA could reasonably have charged for UM/UIM coverage on additional vehicles obtained post-DeHerrera. This is so because a total refund is not the measure of plaintiffs' actual injury for fraudulent inducement. As the trial court found, with record support, additional vehicle coverage provided class two coverage, which would have value to some USAA policy holders. 1 83 Such an assessment would invade the province of the DOI under section 10-4-408( 964-65 (<HOLDING>). 1 85 Accordingly, we conclude that the trial Options: A. holding that the respondents statelaw claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine B. holding that under the filed rate doctrine a question regarding reasonable rates should be addressed to the department of insurance and that the rate plaintiff was charged is conclusively presumed reasonable under the filed rate doctrine C. holding that fraudulent inducement renders a contract void or voidable D. holding that the filed rate doctrine precludes insureds fraudulent inducement claim E. holding that the filed rate doctrine barred private right of action for consumer fraud

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the filed rate doctrine precludes insureds fraudulent inducement claim
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: why a minimum sentence should not be imposed.” (Emphasis in original.) On January 25, 1983, based on that finding, the court sentenced defendant to a five-year gun minimum sentence pursuant to the version of ORS 161.610 in effect at that time. In that version, the sentencing court was authorized to make the requisite factual finding that a defendant had used or threatened to use a firearm in the commission of a crime when the trier of fact had not necessarily made such a finding and when the defendant had not admitted such use or threatened use. A few months before the court imposed the 1983 gun minimum sentence, the Oregon Supreme Court had held that the portion of ORS 161.610 under which defendant was sentenced was unconstitutional. State v. Wedge, 293 Or 598, 652 P2d 773 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Despite the ruling in Wedge, no one involved Options: A. holding that even where evidence regarding the use of a firearm is unrebutted to impose mandatory minimum sentence a jury must make that finding B. holding that code 182531 criminalizing use or display of a firearm in the commission of a felony included use of an instrument that gives the appearance of being a firearm C. holding that to apply the firearm enhancement the firearm need only reflect the context of the defendants possession and the defendants ability to use the firearm to promote the controlled substance offense D. holding that a factual finding of use or threatened use of a firearm by the sentencing court violates a defendants right to a trial by jury under the oregon constitution E. holding that to enhance a sentence because of the defendants use of a firearm the jury must find the defendant guilty of a crime involving a firearm or otherwise specifically find that a firearm was used

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a factual finding of use or threatened use of a firearm by the sentencing court violates a defendants right to a trial by jury under the oregon constitution
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 foregoing is the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements between the parties concerning the subject matter, including the Original Agreement and the 2016 Agreement. This Agreement may not be amended, supplemented, cancelled or discharged except by written instrument executed by the parties hereto.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Committee may, without notice, amend, suspend or terminate the Program; provided, however, that no such action may adversely affect any then outstanding Award unless (i) expressly provided by the Committee and (ii) with the consent of you, unless such action is necessary or advisable to comply with any applicable law, regulation, rule or administrative reasons.

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: Univ. Hosps., Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 111 S.Ct. 1138, 113 L.Ed.2d 68 (1991). In Casey, the Court held that because § 1998 did not at the time contain an explicit provision authorizing the award of expert witness fees, such fees were not available under the statute. Shortly after this decision, Congress amended § 1988 explicitly to authorize the award of expert witness fees to prevailing parties, at the district court’s discretion. Congress has not passed a similar amendment to IDEA’S fee-shifting statute, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B), which otherwise uses language similar to that in the former version of § 1988. Several courts have held that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Casey and Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 107 S.Ct. 2494, 96 L.Ed.2d 385 (1987) (<HOLDING>) dictate a similar holding under IDEA’S Options: A. recognizing that under georgia law attorneys fees are allowed where authorized by statute or contract B. holding the contract was not authorized by law C. holding that courts may not tax expert witness fees against the losing party beyond the 30 per day authorized in 28 usc 1821b unless otherwise authorized by statute D. holding that paschall is inconsistent with the holding of crawford fitting to the effect that expert witness fees are to be determined solely in accordance with 28 usc 1821b E. recognizing the immunity of counties unless an action is authorized by the legislature

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that courts may not tax expert witness fees against the losing party beyond the 30 per day authorized in 28 usc 1821b unless otherwise authorized by statute
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: cause of action accrues. N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 203(a). “A cause of action for breach of contract ordinarily accrues and the limitations period begins to run upon breach.” Guilbert v. Gardner, 480 F.3d 140, 149 (2d Cir.2007) (citing Ely-Cruikshank Co. v. Bank of Montreal, 81 N.Y.2d 399, 599 N.Y.S.2d 501, 615 N.E.2d 985 (1993)). Here, as alleged, the original breach of contract occurred when Natixis failed to deliver the 5,000 Warrants to Clarex. See Oscar Grass & Son, Inc. v. Hollander, 337 F.3d 186, 197 (2d Cir.2003) (“Based on clear New York law, the proper valuation for the Warrants was the date of the breach — the date [defendant] failed to deliver the Warrants.”); Waxman v. Envipco Pickup & Processing Servs., Inc., No. 02 Civ. 10132(GEL), 2006 WL 1788964, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2006) (<HOLDING>). The settlement date for the relevant Options: A. holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act B. holding that the date of sale for an installment contract was the date of contract formation not the date of the last payment due C. holding that interest does not begin to accrue until the date of judgment not the date of verdict D. holding that date of breach was date of closing where defendants do not assert any other valid reason why delivery of the receipts was delayed past the date of the closing E. holding that the date of transfer should be measured by the date that the transfer was good as against a subsequent bona fide purchaser or judgement holder which in accordance with applicable state law was the date of recordation as opposed to the date the deed was signed

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that date of breach was date of closing where defendants do not assert any other valid reason why delivery of the receipts was delayed past the date of the closing
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: somehow displaces our original jurisdiction under the constitution, given that no such jurisdiction has been invoked. Winward's other constitutional arguments ask us to strike down the PCRA's time bar under a range of other constitutional provisions, including article 1, section 9 (excessive bail and cruel punishments); article I, section 11 (open courts); article V, section 1 (distribution of powers); article VIII, section 4 (supreme court rulemaking power); and article VIII, section 5 (right of appeal). Even assuming that such arguments are properly before us, they nonetheless fail. A time bar for post-conviction relief simply does not implicate any of these provisions. A statute that prescribes time limits for invocation of a judicial remedy cannot possibly amount to cruel punishm ) (<HOLDING>). 13 . See also Passanisi v. Dir., Nev. Options: A. holding that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to review the weight of evidence B. holding that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to review the weight of evidence C. holding that managing conservator while in texas to seek return of child by writ of habeas corpus may not be served with civil process and is subject to jurisdiction of court in which habeas corpus is pending and only for purpose of prosecuting writ of habeas corpus D. holding that threeyear statute of limitations was not an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus E. holding that petitioner could not challenge his conviction on the grounds that the indictment failed to charge an essential element of the crime through a writ of habeas corpus

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that threeyear statute of limitations was not an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus
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: Abrams, 292 F.3d at 433. In regard to scienter, Plaintiffs have not alleged facts that would support a strong inference of knowledge or severe recklessness as to the fraudulent nature of statements regarding the second well and adequacy of funding. As explained above, Plaintiffs have not pled any of the statements were false or misleading 'when made. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have not pled Defendants intentionally misrepresented AGR’s time and cost estimates, that they presented them to shareholders knowing they were misleading, or that the estimates presented an “obvious danger of misleading buyers of Defendants’] securities as to the value of the company’s assets” which should have been known to Defendants. Spitzberg v. Houston Am. Energy Corp., 758 F.3d 676, 684 (5th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>). In parallel litigation, a New York State Options: A. holding statements plausibly suggesting oil was found in dry hole and unexplored concession may have been obviously misleading B. holding analysts statements insufficient to satisfy particularity requirements because plaintiffs failed to identify with specificity the statements made by a particular defendant or describe how those statements were false or misleading C. holding that pleading standard for recklessness was met where the corporate officer included false statements in sec filings despite the obviously evasive and suspicious statements made to him by the corporate officials upon whom he was relying and despite outside counsels recommendation that these statements not be included D. holding that a duty to disclose arises whenever secret information renders prior public statements materially misleading E. holding that there was no inference of scienter based on defendants knowledge of facts or failure to monitor information because plaintiffs did not specifically identified any reports or statements that existed or would have come to light in a reasonable investigation that would have demonstrated the falsity of the allegedly misleading statements

assistant: The best answer is A. holding statements plausibly suggesting oil was found in dry hole and unexplored concession may have been obviously misleading
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 each of its Subsidiaries shall take such actions reasonably requested by the Administrative Agent or any Lender in order to assist the Administrative Agent and the Lenders in maintaining compliance with the Patriot Act.

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: This Guaranty (including the documents and instruments referred to herein) constitutes the entire agreement and understanding and supersedes all other prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral, between the Guarantor and the Lender with respect 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: All pronouns and any variations thereof shall be deemed to refer to the masculine, feminine, neuter, singular or plural as the identity of the Person or Persons referred to may require. Without limiting the effect of specific references in any provision of this Agreement, the term “Guarantor” shall be deemed to include the successors and assigns of such Person, who shall be bound by the provisions of this Agreement, provided however that no obligation of Guarantor may be assigned except with the prior written consent of Agent. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of Agent and Banks and their respective successors and assigns forever.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No Person will have, as a result of the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents, any valid right, interest or claim against or upon the Company, any Subsidiary or the Investors for any commission, fee or other compensation pursuant to any agreement, arrangement or understanding entered into by or on behalf of the Company, other than as described in Schedule 4.16 .

assistant: Brokers
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, including execution by facsimile signature, in one or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original , and all of which together will be deemed to be one and the same instrument.

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: an action in any court ... for the recovery of a commission, fee, or compensation for any act done or service rendered ... which is prohibited under this chapter ... unless the person was duly licensed as a principal broker at the time of the doing of the act or rendering the service. Utah Code Ann. § 61-2-18(1) (2006). URE-BA further prohibits an unlicensed person from acting in the capacity of a "principal real estate broker," id. § 61-2-1, which includes any person "who sells or lists for sale, buys, exchanges, or auctions real estate ... with the expectation of receiving valuable consideration." Id. § 61-2-2(12)(a) (2006). The term "principal real estate broker" includes finders. See generally Diversified Gen. Corp. v. White Barn Golf Course, 584 P.2d 848, 849-51 (Utah 1978) (<HOLDING>). T 12 It is clear from the plain language of Options: A. holding prospectively that a vendees interest in a real estate contract constitutes real estate within the meaning of the judgment lien statute B. holding that a tax appeal on real property is a lien on the real estate and not a personal obligation of the landowner C. holding that the purchaser could bring a 93a claim against the real estate broker because the broker misinformed the plaintiff as to the acreage of the parcel and failed to disclose that the property was encumbered D. holding that a person who finds a purchaser for a property falls precisely within the statutory definition of a real estate broker E. holding that a contract for sale of real estate was not void where the broker failed to obtain the required licenses

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a person who finds a purchaser for a property falls precisely within the statutory definition of a real estate broker
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: Red Sox” while the Bon Jovi song is about a town and “without the video, there would be no connection to baseball.” In an effort to show lyrical similarity, plaintiff relies on “reports” from Jonathan Yasuda (“the Yasuda Report”), a law student with an undergraduate degree in music, and Mark Ferraguto (“the Ferraguto Report”), a musicology Ph.D. candidate. Both reports identify purported similari ties between the structure and rhyme scheme of the Steele Song and the Bon Jovi Song. Even assuming those individuals are qualified to render opinions on the subject, their conclusions do not create a genuine issue of material fact concerning substantial similarity. A common rhyme scheme or structure does not qualify as original expression protectable under federal copyright law. See id. at 23 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, considered as a whole, Options: A. holding that pennsylvanias full judicial review of a denied building permit is adequate process B. holding that a particular harmonic progression is a stereotypical building block of musical composition which lacks originality C. holding that agreement to buy property as is in which buyer included voluntary freely negotiated affirmation that he was depending on his own assessment of the building precluded claim for damages when building was found to contain asbestos D. holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review claims that have not been raised before the bia E. holding that state law claims cannot pend from a federal one over which the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a particular harmonic progression is a stereotypical building block of musical composition which lacks originality
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: damages, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, as well as insulation from civil penalty liability. Despite the lost fees and costs, the Trus an resting on a faulty application of the prevailing legal principles, was a result of the parties’ calculated gamble on an undecided question. Third, no evidence exists of the Trustees’ commission of an unlawful act, which is a necessary predicate to a finding of undue advantage or duress. See Cary, 91 S.E. at 168. Virginia Lee may have entered into the settlement agreement reluctantly, but that alone does not constitute duress. See id. Furthermore, a supervening change in law will not alone suffice as a ground for invalidating a settlement agreement. See, e.g., Anita Foundations, Inc. v. ILGWU Nat’l Retirement Fund, 902 F.2d 185, 189 (2d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Sentry Indem. Co. v. Peoples, 800 F.2d 1547, Options: A. holding that direct payment of attorney fees for representation before the court is to be made on the basis of the claim or application for benefits underlying the issues successfully appealed to this court B. holding that it was not essential to an action by a supplier on a payment bond under the miller act that a demand be made on the general contractor for payment although there was evidence in the case from which it could be found that the materialman looked to the general contractor for payment since the statute does not require a demand for payment but merely requires written notice of the claim C. holding that a settlement payment made when the law was uncertain cannot be successfully attacked on the basis of any subsequent resolution of the uncertainty D. holding acceptance of settlement estopped plaintiff from subsequent suit E. holding that in light of the statutory framework created by the code 522f lien avoidance cannot be made subject to any subsequent event

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a settlement payment made when the law was uncertain cannot be successfully attacked on the basis of any subsequent resolution of the uncertainty
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: None of the sale of the Consideration Shares, the execution and delivery by Golden Minerals of this Agreement and the consummation of any other of the transactions herein contemplated nor the fulfillment of the terms hereof will conflict with or result in a material breach or violation of: (i) the organizational documents of Golden Minerals or William, (ii) the terms of any material indenture, contract, lease, mortgage, deed of trust, note agreement, loan agreement or other agreement, obligation, condition, covenant or instrument to which Golden Minerals or William is a party or bound or to which its property is subject, (iii) any statute, law, rule, or regulation, or (iv) any material judgment, writ, injunction, ruling, order or decree of any court, regulatory body, administrative agency, governmental body, arbitrator or other authority having jurisdiction over Golden Minerals or William or any of their material properties.

assistant: No Conflicts
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: hearing and the trial court again reiterated that the motion for leave was denied. We disagree with Summersett’s premise that the trial court allowed the motion to dismiss to be filed so that it could be overruled by operation of law. First, the foregoing colloquy indicates that the trial court retracted his original statement that he would “rule that it is dismissed by operation of law,” thus the record does not show an express ruling that the motion to dismiss was denied by operation of law and it certainly does not invoke the right to appeal embodied in section 27.008 as suggested by Summersett. Second, even if we were to conclude otherwise, we are not bound by a trial court’s conclusion on an issue of law. See BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex.2002) (<HOLDING>). A trial court’s denial of a mo tion for leave Options: A. holding that where both the appellate and trial courts are reviewing the paper record there is no reason for the appellate courts to defer to the trial courts finding B. holding that appellate courts may review trial courts legal conclusions to determine their correctness C. holding that trial courts determination of facts has a presumption of correctness but trial courts legal conclusions are subject to de novo review D. holding that on review of a motion to suppress the appellate court is to give deference to a trial courts factual findings but legal conclusions are reviewed de novo E. holding appellate courts must consider the trial courts jury charge as a whole

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that appellate courts may review trial courts legal conclusions to determine their correctness
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 373 U.S. 57 83 S.Ct. 1052 10 L.Ed.2d 191 STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff,v.Kermit GORDON. No. 12 Original. Argued April 15, 1963. Decided April 29, 1963. Bert T. Kobayashi, Honolulu, Hawaii, and Dennis G. Lyons, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. Wayne G. Barnett, Washington, D.C., for defendant. PER CURIAM. 1 Section 5(e) of the Hawaii Statehood Act, 73 Stat. 4, 48 U.S.C. (Supp. II, 1960), pp. 1257—1261, provides that within five years from the date Hawaii is admitted to the Union federal agencies having control over land or properties retained by the United States under § 5(c) and (d) of the Act shall report to the President as to the 'continued need for such land or property, and if the President determines that the land or property is no longer needed by the United States it shall be conveyed to the State of Hawaii.' The President designated the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to perform his functions thereunder. The Director thereafter, pursuant to an opinion of the Attorney General, 42 Op.Atty.Gen. (No. 4), concluded, and so advised federal agencies, that the lands referred to in § 5(e) do not include lands obtained by the United States through purchase, condemnation or gift but are limited to lands which at one time belonged to Hawaii and were ceded to the United States or acquired in exchange therefor. 2 Hawaii filed this original action against the Director, under Art. III, § 2, of the Constitution of the United States, seeking to obtain an order requiring him to withdraw this advice to the federal agencies, determine whether a certain 203 acres of land in Hawaii acquired by the United States through condemnation was land or properties 'needed by the United States' and, if not needed, to convey this land to Hawaii. We have concluded that this is a suit against the United States and, absent its consent, cannot be maintained by the State. The general rule is that relief sought nominally against an officer is in fact against the sovereign if the decree would operate against the latter. E.g., Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 83 S.Ct. 999 (1963); Malone v. Bowdoin, 369 U.S. 643, 82 S.Ct. 980, 8 L.Ed.2d 168 (1962); Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 69 S.Ct. 1457, 93 L.Ed. 1628 (1949). Here the order requested would require the Director's official affirmative action, affect the public administration of government agencies and cause as well the disposition of property admittedly belonging to the United States. The complaint is therefore dismissed. Oregon v. Hitchcock, 202 U.S. 60, 26 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed. 935 (1906). 3 Dismissed. 4 Mr. Justice WHITE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

assistant: 10
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 OF THE PARTIES HERETO (ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES) HEREBY KNOWINGLY, INTENTIONALLY AND VOLUNTARILY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES ANY AND ALL RIGHTS TO TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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 Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of die United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. 2 . Inferior officers may be appointed by the President alone, the heads of departments, or the judiciary, as Congress may determine, but it is undisputed that no inferior officer was involved in the civil enforcement action here. 3 . Nor can Congress confer the Executive's unique Article III standing to private individuals. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (<HOLDING>); see also Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. U.S. ex Options: A. holding that private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by congress courts may not create a cause of action absent statutory intent B. holding that congress cannot confer the executives standing to enforce public rights on private individuals through citizensuit provisions C. holding that congress cannot consistent with the constitutional principles of the separation of powers confer standing on a qui tam plaintiff who has suffered no cognizable injury to allow that plaintiff to prosecute an fca action on the governments behalf D. holding that congress did not intend to give individuals a right to enforce specific provisions of nclb E. holding congress must unambiguously confer federal rights on the plaintiff

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that congress cannot confer the executives standing to enforce public rights on private individuals through citizensuit provisions
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: by agreeing to these terms of service , you also agree to arbitrate any and all claims against linden lab pursuant to the federal arbitration act and subject to the terms below ( the `` agreement to arbitrate '' ) .

assistant: Arbitration
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 the December 2005 hearing and that the court “ha[d], to date, not ruled.” Trenz therefore requested a ruling “[i]n anticipation of trial.” The trial court then entered an order overruling Trenz’s special appearance. 3. Trenz did not comply with the due-order-of-hearing requirement Generally, if a defendant obtains a hearing on a motion that seeks affirmative relief unrelated to his special appearance before he obtains a hearing and ruling on his special appearance, he has entered a general appearance and thus waived any challenge to personal jurisdiction; but if a defendant obtains a hearing on a motion that only seeks relief appurtenant to his special appearance, it may not result in waiver. Compare Klingenschmitt v. Weinstein, 342 S.W.3d 131, 134 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2011, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Landry v. Daigrepont, 35 S.W.3d 265, 267-68 Options: A. holding that defendant does not waive special appearance by engaging in discovery regarding merits of plaintiffs claims B. holding that partys label of appearance as general or special does not control and that a request for continuance is a form of relief that a party may seek only by submitting to the courts jurisdiction C. holding that defendant did not waive special appearance D. holding that party waived special appearance E. holding that defendant did not waive his special appearance by filing a motion for new trial subject to the special appearance

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that party waived special appearance
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: counsel. To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner must prove: (1) that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defendant resulting in an unreliable or fundamentally unfair outcome. A court considering a claim of ineffective assistance must “indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The defendant bears the burden of overcoming the presumption that the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy. Id. (citing Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101, 76 S.Ct. 158, 100 L.Ed. 83 (1955)); see also Nagi v. United States, 90 F.3d 130, 135 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). The court must determine whether, in light of Options: A. holding that strategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance if alternative courses of action have been considered and rejected B. holding that counsels strategic decisions were hard to attack C. holding that state courts factual finding that counsel made a strategic decision not to investigate further a mental illness that if reasonable would make counsels investigation not deficient was reasonable under aedpa review D. holding that counsels failure to consult blood experts was not a strategic choice because counsel offered no reasoned explanation for the failure E. holding that counsels strategic decisions should be afforded wide latitude

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that counsels strategic decisions were hard to attack
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: except as prohibited by law , you waive any rights of attribution and/or any moral rights you may have in your user content , regardless of whether your user content is altered or changed in any manner .

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: ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice. Relator, Castro Enterprises, Inc., asks this Court to issue a writ of mandamus against the Honorable Javier Alvarez, sitting by assignment for the 34th District Court of El Paso County, Texas. The Relator has the burden of providing this Court with a record sufficient to establish its right to mandamus relief. See Tex. R.App.P. 52.7(a); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.1992)(<HOLDING>). The record filed by Relator is deficient for Options: A. holding it is the relators burden to provide this court with a sufficient record to establish his or her right to mandamus relief B. holding that the burden to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction resides with plaintiff C. holding the tca vests court with authority to grant mandamus relief D. holding order improperly denied relators right to visitation with his child E. holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is A. holding it is the relators burden to provide this court with a sufficient record to establish his or her right to mandamus relief
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company and its subsidiaries possess or are in the process of obtaining all licenses, certificates, permits and other authorizations issued by, and have made all declarations and filings with, the appropriate federal, state, local or foreign governmental or regulatory authorities that are necessary for the ownership or lease of their respective properties or the conduct of their respective businesses as described in the Company SEC Documents, except where the failure to possess or make the same would not, individually or in the aggregate, have a Material Adverse Effect; and except as described in the Company SEC Documents, neither the Company nor any of its subsidiaries has received notice of any revocation or modification of any such license, certificate, permit or authorization or has any reason to believe that any such license, certificate, permit or authorization will not be renewed. The Company and its subsidiaries are, and at all times since January 1, 2017, have been, in compliance with all statutes, rules and regulations applicable to the ownership, packaging, processing, use, distribution, import, or export of any product manufactured or distributed by the Company or its subsidiaries, except where such noncompliance would not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Compliance With 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: for content that is covered by intellectual property rights , like photos and videos ( ip content ) , you specifically give us the following permission , subject to your privacy and application settings : you grant us a non-exclusive , transferable , sub-licensable , royalty-free , worldwide license to use any ip content that you post on or in connection with facebook ( ip license ) .

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: Ninth Circuit held that HCFA’s letter authorizes the continued application of the Boren Amendment standards, see 188 F.3d at 1095, and implicitly concluded that private parties may enforce the HCFA letter in a § 1983 action. We respectfully disagree with the latter conclusion. We have held that a formal regulation cannot by itself give rise to a federal right enforceable under § 1983. See Smith v. Kirk, 821 F.2d 980, 984 (4th Cir.1987); see also King v. Town of Hempstead, 161 F.3d 112, 115 (2d Cir.1998) (per curiam) (noting that the circuits are divided on the question of whether a regulation alone can create a federal right). A policy letter has even less legal stature than a regulation. See Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 120 S.Ct. 1655, 1662-63, 146 L.Ed.2d 621 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Thus, HCMF’s claim is not cognizable Options: A. holding regulations entitled to chevron deference B. holding that deference is warranted only when it appears that congress delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules carrying the force of law and that the agency interpretation claiming deference was promulgated in the exercise of that authority and discussing united states v mead corp 533 us 218 22627 121 sct 2164 150 led2d 292 2001 and chevron usa inc v natural res def council inc 467 us 837 84245 104 sct 2778 81 led2d 694 1984 C. holding that the slidingscale standard for granting preliminary injunctions survives winter v natural resources defense council inc 555 us 7 129 sct 365 172 led2d 249 2008 D. holding that agency opinion letters and policy statements unlike regulations are not entitled to deference under chevron usa inc v natural res def council inc 467 us 837 104 sct 2778 81 led2d 694 1984 E. holding that a longstanding agency interpretation was no longer entitled to chevron deference given that the agency had changed its position on the issue

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that agency opinion letters and policy statements unlike regulations are not entitled to deference under chevron usa inc v natural res def council inc 467 us 837 104 sct 2778 81 led2d 694 1984
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Employee shall receive an annual base salary of $550,000 payable to Employee in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll schedule. The Company shall withhold state and federal income taxes, social security taxes and shall make such other payroll deductions as may be required by law or mutually agreed upon in writing by Employee and the Company.

assistant: Base Salary
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 protection of [a lesser standard of review] but are subject to de novo review.” In re Kretzinger, 103 F.3d 943, 946 (10th Cir.1996) (quotation omitted); see also Brue v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 1227, 1232 (10th Cir.2006) (discussing vs., 470 F.3d 509, 513-14 (2d Cir.2006) (finding legal error when “[a]lthough the BIA cited the proper legal standard at the outset of its decision, it failed to apply this deferential standard of review when evaluating the IJ’s credibility finding”). B Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)©, the BIA cannot “engage in de novo review of findings of fact determined by an [IJ].” Instead, the BIA reviews those facts found by the IJ — including credibility determinations — only to determine whether they are clearly erroneous. Id.; see also RamirezPeyro, 477 F.3d at 641 (<HOLDING>). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when Options: A. recognizing that factual findings were clearly erroneous where the record before the court was simply devoid of any basis for the district courts conclusion B. holding that the lower court is the factfinding body and that its findings of fact will not be set aside on appellate review unless they are clearly erroneous C. holding that appellate court must defer to all implied factual findings supported by record D. recognizing that the bia must defer to the factual findings of the ij unless they are clearly erroneous E. holding that this court will only set aside district courts factual findings when they are clearly erroneous

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that the bia must defer to the factual findings of the ij unless they are clearly erroneous
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: After giving effect to the consummation of the Transaction and the other transactions contemplated hereby, there shall be no conflict with, or default under any material agreement to which the Borrower or any Subsidiary Guarantor is a party.

assistant: No Conflicts
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: [¶ 7] Neither argument prevails. Whether insurance coverage is available through coverage of the vehicle, the owner, or the driver is immaterial. If the result is insurance coverage for the damage done by the vehicle driven by the tortfeasor, the amount of that coverage must be used in the calculus of determining whether the vehicle is underinsured. See Levine v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2004 ME 33, ¶ 11, 843 A.2d 24, 28 (stating that underinsured vehicle coverage “is in the nature of gap coverage”). When multiple policies provide liability coverage for the accident involving the vehicle at issue, the limits of those policies are to be aggregated for comparison against the underin-sured- vehicle policy limits. See McGillivray v. Royal Ins. Co., 675 A.2d 524, 526 (Me.1996) (<HOLDING>); Mullen v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 589 A.2d Options: A. holding automobile exeeption did not apply to warrantless search of vehicle where vehicle was not readily mobile because the vehicle was legally parked in parking lot occupants of vehicle were seated on a bench in the playground near the parking lot police officers surrounded the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was handcuffed for safety purposes B. holding that policies must be aggregated to determine underinsured status C. holding that the insurance applicable to the tortfeasors vehicle must be compared to the underinsured vehicle policy limits to determine whether a vehicle is underinsured D. holding that under the plain and obvious meaning of the uim statute a prerequisite to the term underinsured motor vehicle is the existence of bodily injury liability insurance coverage which is less than the liability for damages imposed by law and where no such coverage existed tortfeasor was not underinsured under the statute but rather uninsured concluding that terms underinsured and uninsured are mutually exclusive as applied to the same motor vehicle and the combination of these two coverages by the insured was contrary to legislative intent E. holding that the amount of coverage determines whether a vehicle is underinsured

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the insurance applicable to the tortfeasors vehicle must be compared to the underinsured vehicle policy limits to determine whether a vehicle is underinsured