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: contends that Than’s plan should be interpreted as a pot plan because granting Than a discharge under the percentage plan would be unfair. In practice, plans paying less than 100% to the unsecured claimants generally are not proposed for less than 36 months to avoid objection. Appellant contends that its predecessors in interest did not object at plan confirmation because the plan complied with the Code at that time. Nevertheless, the plan expressly provided that the payments might be completed in less than the stated 38 months. The opportunity to object to the percentage plan existed at the time of plan confirmation. Therefore, the Panel does not see this appeal as a "test case” for the legality of percentage plans versus pot plans. But see Witkowski, 16 F.3d at 746 and n. 11 (<HOLDING>). 13 . Some authorities suggest the situation Options: A. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to amend the complaint by the deadline imposed by the court B. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling whether to proceed with a declaratory judgment action C. holding the court did not abuse its discretion in modifying custody even though the court did not find father had shown a material change other than the 15 year old childs D. holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling based only on affidavits E. holding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by modifying the plan based on its legal conclusion that the code anticipates pot plans and disavowing percentage plans as inconsistent with 1325b

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by modifying the plan based on its legal conclusion that the code anticipates pot plans and disavowing percentage plans as inconsistent with 1325b
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 Guarantor, Agent and Lenders (by their acceptance of this Guaranty) irrevocably and unconditionally submits, for itself and its property, to the nonexclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York located within the First Department of the New York State Unified Court System and of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York, and any appellate court from any thereof, in any action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Guaranty or any other Loan Document, or for recognition or enforcement of any judgment, and each of said parties irrevocably and unconditionally agrees that all claims in respect of any such action or proceeding may be heard and determined in such New York State Court or, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, in such Federal Court. Each of said parties agrees that a final judgment in any such action or proceeding shall be conclusive and may be enforced in other jurisdictions by suit on the judgment or in any other manner provided by law. Nothing in this Guaranty or in any other Loan Document shall affect any right that the Agent or any Lender may otherwise have to bring any action or proceeding relating to this Guaranty or any other Loan Document against Guarantor or any other Loan Party or its properties in the courts of any jurisdiction. Guarantor hereby agrees and consents that in addition to any methods of service of process provided for under applicable law, all service of process in any such suit, action or proceeding in any New York State or Federal Court located within the Southern District of the State of New York may be made by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, directed to Guarantor at the address indicated in Section 7 above and service so made shall be deemed completed five (5) days after the same shall have been so mailed.

assistant: Consent To Jurisdiction
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 extent Sutton may be said to conflict with these decisions, Sutton would have no precedential effect. See Utah Envtl. Cong. v. Troyer, 479 F.3d 1269, 1292 (10th Cir.2007) (stating the rule that where Tenth Circuit panel decisions conflict, the earliest decision controls). We need not definitively resolve the tension between Sutton and our prior precedents addressing the state-created danger theory, however, because Plaintiffs in this case do not raise Sutton’s alternative theory of relief as part of their danger creation claim. In fact, Plaintiffs do not cite Sutton in either of their appellate briefs and when questioned at oral argument about its alternative theory of relief, knew little, if anything, about it. See Carpenter v. Boeing Co., 456 F.3d 1183, 1198 n. 2 (10th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). 8 . As a postscript to DeAnzona, we note the Options: A. recognizing the general rule that a court of appeals will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal B. holding facta was not vague and ambiguous and that defendants conduct was willful C. recognizing that we will only consider those arguments presented in the petition for appeal and granted by this court D. recognizing we will not consider theories on appeal alluded to in a vague or ambiguous manner E. holding that court will not consider issue raised for first time on appeal

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing we will not consider theories on appeal alluded to in a vague or ambiguous manner
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: So long as Executive is receiving any payments from the Company, Executive agrees to provide reasonable assistance to the Company (including assistance with litigation matters), upon the Company’s request, concerning the Executive’s previous employment responsibilities and functions with the Company. Company will reimburse Executive for his reasonable out-of-pocket expenses Executive incurs in connection with such cooperative efforts. Additionally, at all times after the Executive’s employment with the Company has terminated, Company (defined for these purpose only as any Company press release and the Board, the CEO and the CEO’s direct reports, and no other employees) and Executive agree to refrain from making any disparaging or derogatory remarks, statements and/or publications regarding the other, its employees or its services.

assistant: Cooperation
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: by the record, are left to the sound discretion of the district court. Given the evidence presented to the district court, we do not find an abuse of discretion in determining that Jacob, Burns was in a market composed of firms prosecuting ERISA collection actions. We also reject Moriarty’s final objection, that the district court erred by reducing the attorney’s fees because James “prevailed” on the “claims” of when James became Home’s owner. While the fee order’s language is imprecise, the district court did not abuse its discretion. At the time of this order, Moriarty had been awarded judgment on Claim II for approximately $2,400. This award means that Moriarty was still the prevailing party on Claim II, see Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 112, 113 S.Ct. 566, 121 L.Ed.2d 494 (1992) (<HOLDING>) and was entitled to reasonable fees under 29 Options: A. holding failure to raise issue of improper measure of damages in trial court waived review of complaints that proper measure of damages was not submitted to jury and that plaintiff failed to present evidence on the proper measure B. holding that successful party is one who is the ultimate prevailing party in the litigation C. holding that a sentence four remand under 42 usc 405g is a final appealable decision and that a party who wins a remand under sentence four is a prevailing party for purposes of the eaja D. holding that a plaintiff who wins any measure of damages is a prevailing party for the purposes of feeshifting statutes E. holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a plaintiff who wins any measure of damages is a prevailing party for the purposes of feeshifting statutes
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a single yard sign advocating the opposing position — for example, “Oppose School Vouchers,” or “Abolish the National Guard.” The Supreme Court has “frequently condemned such discrimination among different users of the same medium for expression,” which is another form of content-based speech regulation. Mosley, 408 U.S. at 96, 92 S.Ct. 2286; see also First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 784-85, 98 S.Ct. 1407, 55 L.Ed.2d 707 (1978) (“In the realm of protected speech, the legislature is constitutionally disqualified from dictating the subjects about which persons may speak and the speakers who may address a public issue.” (emphasis added)). Cf. Ackerley Communications of Mass., Inc. v. City of Somerville, 878 F.2d 513, 518 (1st Cir.1989) (striking down 0 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). In short, because some types of signs are Options: A. holding that an ordinance exempting certain signs from a general sign ban was an unconstitutional contentbased restriction on speech B. holding that strict scrutiny applies to a prior restraint enforcing a contentbased restriction on speech in a traditional public forum C. holding that it may not D. holding that prohibiting external illumination of political signs while allowing it for other signs was an unconstitutional contentbased restriction since the message on the sign determines whether or not it may be externally illuminated E. holding that an arbitration agreement enforceable against party who signed the agreement even where the other party did not sign it because generally it is enough that the party against whom the contract is sought to be enforced signs it

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that prohibiting external illumination of political signs while allowing it for other signs was an unconstitutional contentbased restriction since the message on the sign determines whether or not it may be externally illuminated
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: BDIC is not a party to any suit, action, arbitration, or legal administrative, or other proceeding, or pending governmental investigation. To the best knowledge of the Seller, there is no basis for any such action or proceeding and no such action or proceeding is threatened against BDIC. BDIC is not a party to or in default with respect to any order, writ, injunction, or decree of any federal, state, local, or foreign court, department, agency, or instrumentality.

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: Any and all notices or other communications or deliveries required or permitted to be provided hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed given and effective on the earliest of: (a) the date of transmission, if such notice or communication is delivered via facsimile or email attachment at the facsimile number or email address as set forth on the signature pages attached hereto at or prior to 5:30 p.m. (New York City time) on a Trading Day, (b) the next Trading Day after the date of transmission, if such notice or communication is delivered via facsimile or email attachment at the facsimile number or email address as set forth on the signature pages attached hereto on a day that is not a Trading Day or later than 5:30 p.m. (New York City time) on any Trading Day, (c) the second (2 nd ) Trading Day following the date of mailing, if sent by U.S. nationally recognized overnight courier service or (d) upon actual receipt by the party to whom such notice is required to be given. The address for such notices and communications shall be as set forth on the signature pages attached hereto. To the extent that any notice provided pursuant to any Transaction Document constitutes, or contains, material, non-public information regarding the Company or any Subsidiaries, the Company shall simultaneously file such notice with the Commission pursuant to a Current Report on Form 8-K.

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: Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183-84 (9th Cir. 2002) 15 . Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314, 125 S.Ct. 2363, 162 L.Ed.2d 257 (2005). 16 . Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 475, 118 S.Ct. 921, 139 L.Ed.2d 912 (1998). 17 . Retail Property Trust v. United Broth. of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 768 F.3d 938, 947 (9th Cir. 2014). 18 . Caterpillar Inc., 482 U.S. at 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425. 19 . Wayne, 294 F.3d at 1183-84. 20 . The three are: (1) § 301 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 185; (2) § 502(a) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a); and (3) §§ 85 and 86 of t id not preempt passenger's state-law claim alleging that airplane stairs were defectively designed because FAA does not pervasively regulate airstairs); Ventress, 747 F.3d at 722-23 (<HOLDING>). My narrow reading of Montalvo and Martin is Options: A. holding that plaintiffs claim that medical providers did not comply with baker act was not subject to medical malpractice statutes ajlthough a medical diagnosis is necessary in order to involuntarily commit a patient the process of complying with the statute does not require medical skill or judgment B. holding that an aljs own medical analysis which is contrary to medical evidence is invalid C. recognizing that prison officials should defer to medical professionals on medical matters D. holding that state medical director of prison medical services corporation was not final policymaker E. holding that faas pervasive pilot medical standards preempted wrongfuldischarge claims that required determination of a pilots medical fitness to fly

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that faas pervasive pilot medical standards preempted wrongfuldischarge claims that required determination of a pilots medical fitness to fly
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower will, and will cause each of its Material Subsidiaries to, do or cause to be done all things necessary to preserve, renew and keep in full force and effect (a) its legal existence (in the case of the Borrower, to remain organized under the laws of the United States, any state thereof or the District of Columbia) except, solely in the case of a Material Subsidiary, where the failure to do so would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect and (b) the rights, licenses, permits, privileges and franchises material to the conduct of the business of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries, taken as a whole except to the extent that failure to do so, individually or in the aggregate, would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect; provided that the foregoing shall not prohibit any transaction permitted under Section 6.02 .

assistant: Existence
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: that indirectly delight and "passive" uses that do so directly. 156 The majority next opines that the Club's proposed aesthetic, recreational, and piscatorial uses cannot be "beneficial" because they have no "objective limits, beyond which it becomes unreasonable, inappropriate, inefficient, or wasteful." Maj. op. 1122-23. Yet these types of uses can be- and are statutorily required to be-limited to amounts "reasonable and appropriate under reasonably efficient practices to accomplish without waste the purpose for which the appropriation is lawfully made." § 37-92-103(4). Water courts are well equipped to determine what amount of water is reasonable for recreational uses. See Colo. Water Conservation Bd. v. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy Dist., 109 P.3d 585, 602-08 (Colo.2005) (<HOLDING>). As with RICDs, expert testimony can establish Options: A. holding that article x 2 of the california constitution dictates the basic principles defining water rights that no one can have a protectible interest in the unreasonable use of water and that holders of water rights must use water reasonably and beneficially B. holding that the recreational inchannel diversion ricd statute requires water courts to determine the amount of water necessary for a reasonable recreation experience C. holding that mandamus was appropriate to require the director to deliver the full decreed water rights of a water right holder D. holding substantial completion had occurred because water district took possession of all the lines filled them with water and began using them to serve the customers of the water district E. holding that village could not condition provision of water services on annexation where prospective customer was within a rural water associations service area and the water association was federally indebted

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the recreational inchannel diversion ricd statute requires water courts to determine the amount of water necessary for a reasonable recreation experience
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower shall not, and shall not cause or permit any Restricted Subsidiary to, sell, lease or otherwise transfer any property or assets to, or purchase, lease or otherwise acquire any property or assets from, or otherwise engage in any other transactions with, any of its Affiliates, except (a) on terms and conditions not less favorable to the Borrower or such Restricted Subsidiary than could be obtained on an arm’s-length basis from unrelated third parties, (b) transactions between or among the Borrower and its Restricted Subsidiaries not involving any other Affiliate, (c) any Restricted Payment permitted by Section 6.8 , (d) Indebtedness permitted pursuant to Section 6.2 , (e) Investments permitted by Section 6.6 , (f) employment, consulting, severance and other service or benefit related arrangements between the Borrower, its Restricted Subsidiaries and their respective officers and employees in the ordinary course of business and transactions pursuant to stock option and other equity award plans and employee benefit plans and arrangements in the ordinary course of business, (g) the payment of ordinary course customary fees, expenses and indemnities to directors, officers, employees and consultants of the Borrower and its Restricted Subsidiaries, and (h) any transaction with an Affiliate that, as such, has been expressly approved by either a majority of the Borrower’s independent directors or a committee of the Borrower’s directors consisting solely of independent directors, in each case in accordance with such independent directors’ fiduciary duties in their capacity as such and upon advice from independent counsel.

assistant: Transactions With Affiliates
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: Biology, Inc., 425 F.Supp. 318 (D.Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1 Cir. 1976). For the opposing view, see, e. g., Nottelson v. A. O. Smith Corp., 397 F.Supp. 928 (E.D.Wis.1975); Troy v. Shell Oil Co., 378 F.Supp. 1042 (E.D.Mich.1974), appeal dismissed as moot, 519 F.2d 403 (6 Cir. 1975); Collins v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 376 F.Supp. 979 (E.D.Okl.1974). Other courts have blurred the distinction between jurisdiction and the availability of preliminary relief, and appear to hold that jurisdiction may be available only in cases where relief on the merits is appropriate, see Berg v. Richmond Unified School District, 528 F.2d 1208, 1211 (9 Cir. 1975), cert. granted, 429 U.S. 1071, 97 S.Ct. 806, 50 L.Ed.2d 788 (1977); Jerome v. Viviano Food Co., Inc., 489 F.2d 965, 966 (6 Cir. 1974) (<HOLDING>); Donald v. Ray, 377 F.Supp. 986, 987 Options: A. holding that district court has no jurisdiction to take further action where there was no remand order B. holding no irreparable harm and thus no jurisdiction where no existing employeeemployer relationship C. holding that the threat of irreparable harm must be immediate D. recognizing that only void judgments are subject to collateral attack and that a judgment is void only when court had no jurisdiction of the parties or property no jurisdiction of the subject matter no jurisdiction to enter the particular judgment or no capacity to act E. holding that no seizure occurred where officers boarded bus and began questioning passengers gave passengers no reason to believe that they required an answer and tjhere was no application of force no intimidating movement no overwhelming show of force no brandishing of weapons no blocking of exits no threat no command not even an authoritative tone of voice

assistant: The best answer is B. holding no irreparable harm and thus no jurisdiction where no existing employeeemployer relationship
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Confidential Information means any information in whatever form (whether in writing, electronic or digital form, verbally or by inspection of documents, computer systems or sites or pursuant to discussions or by any other means ) which is confidential in nature, designated orally or in writing by the Disclosers as confidential or which may reasonably be considered by a business person to be commercially sensitive provided by the Disclosers (directly or indirectly) by any means to the Recipient (or to any Authorised Person) including without limitation via its legal representatives before or after the date of this Agreement in connection with or in anticipation of the Purpose including: (e) the contemplation and implementation of the Purpose, and the existence and content of this Agreement;

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Hampshire disbarment. However, he continues to pay his annual registration fee and is currently licensed to practice law in Minnesota. Having learned of Otis’s disbarment in New Hampshire, the Director now requests that we impose reciprocal discipline. Rule 12(d), RLPR, which governs reciprocal discipline, provides: [Following an order to show cause] this Court may thereafter impose the identical discipline unless it appears that discipline procedures in the other jurisdiction were unfair, or the imposition of the same discipline would be unjust or substantially different from discipline warranted in Minnesota. Otis does not contend that New Hampshire’s discipline procedures were unfair or that they did not afford him due process. See, e.g., In re Koss, 572 N.W.2d 276, 277 (Minn.1997) (<HOLDING>). Rather, Otis essentially argues that imposing Options: A. holding that in reciprocal discipline cases disciplinary procedures in the other state must meet minnesotas due process requirements B. recognizing due process right to notice and informal hearing in school disciplinary process C. holding that lack of notice of charges in disciplinary proceedings violates the due process clause D. holding that vague and ambiguous charges in another jurisdiction cannot form the basis for reciprocal discipline in a manner consistent with due process requirements even if the attorney consented to that discipline E. holding that due process requires that the findings and actions of a disciplinary prison board be supported by some evidence in the record

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that in reciprocal discipline cases disciplinary procedures in the other state must meet minnesotas due process requirements
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: driving was a summary offense which carried a maximum sentence of not more than ten days imprisonment. Hence, the former serves as a disqualifying conviction under Section 922(g) of the Gun Control Act, whereas the latter does not. The PSP challenges the validity of the trial court’s partial expungement order and places heavy emphasis on the fact that it was not notified of, nor was it a party to, Rush’s expungement proceedings before the trial court. At the same time, the PSP concedes that even if it had been given proper notice, it was without standing to object to Rush’s petition for partial expungement before the trial court. See Pennsylvania State Police v. Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, 150 Pa.Cmwlth. 338, 615 A.2d 946 (1992), affirmed, 533 Pa. 324, 623 A.2d 814 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, our Pennsylvania Supreme Court Options: A. holding that where defendant failed to object to facts in psi relating to prior conviction the failure to object constituted an admission B. holding that a claimant without an interest in a particular specific asset lacks standing to initiate ancillary proceeding C. holding that the psp lacks standing to object to an expungement request D. holding that an entity that serves the disabled lacks standing under the ada E. holding that owner of a chattel seized during an illegal search of a car owned by a third party has standing to object to the seizure but no standing to object to the search

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the psp lacks standing to object to an expungement request
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: First Amendment rights — punishment, in the form of termination of a contract beneficial to him, because of his speech. While Defendants assert that the contract provided no benefit to the county, from which one could infer that its termination could inflict no injury on the county, Mr. Umbehr has alleged a benefit to him from the contract. The contract obviated the need for him to individually negotiate a trash hauling contract with each city; it gave him the exclusive right to haul trash for cities that ratified the agreement; and it gave him, for at least sixty days, the right to haul trash for cities pursuant to the agreement, inasmuch as the county could only terminate the contract on sixty days’ notice. Cf. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Henderson, 940 F.2d 465, 476 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Further, he claims monetary injury from the Options: A. holding that private contract providing for immediate termination for cause or at will termination on ninety days notice gave rise to a legitimate claim of entitlement to ninety days of continued employment B. holding requirement in contract to provide notice for termination but not limiting reasons for termination constitutes atwill employment relationship C. holding that although a reason was provided in the termination letter the without cause termination provision was applicable D. holding that termination is an adverse employment action E. holding that 120 days notice was satisfied by 30 days work plus 90 days pay

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that private contract providing for immediate termination for cause or at will termination on ninety days notice gave rise to a legitimate claim of entitlement to ninety days of continued 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: under Goldberg is procedural in nature and differs from a substantive property interest). Recipients of government benefits generally do not have a substantive property right to have these benefits continue. Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U.S. 78, 80-1, 92 S.Ct. 254, 257, 30 L.Ed.2d 231 (1971) (stating that “expectation of public benefits [does not] confer a contractual right to receive expected amounts----the analogy between social welfare and ‘property,’ [Goldberg] 397 U.S., at 267 n. 8, 90 S.Ct. at 1017, cannot be stretched to impose a constitutional limitation on the power of Congress to make substantive changes in the law of entitlements to public benefits.”). See also Bowen v. Public Agencies Opposed to Social Sec. Entrapment, 477 U.S. 41, 106 S.Ct. 2390, 91 L.Ed.2d 35 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Instead, individual recipients have merely Options: A. holding that the fifth amendment did not apply to tribal government B. holding that entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution C. holding that taxes are not takings unless the government tries to achieve through special taxes what the takings clause of the fifth amendment forbids if done directly D. holding that rights in a government benefits program were not vested property for purposes of the takings clause of the fifth amendment E. holding the takings clause inapplicable to the states of its own force

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that rights in a government benefits program were not vested property for purposes of the takings clause of the fifth amendment
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 may otherwise be provided in the specific terms for the free trial offer , free trials are only available to users who have not previously subscribed to the service in connection with which the free trial is being offered .

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: with the exception of people or businesses that are expressly authorized to create accounts on behalf of their employers or clients , instagram prohibits the creation of and you agree that you will not create an account for anyone other than yourself .

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: reaffirm the reach of the filed rate doctrine’s formidable barrier to suit in cases involving California’s wholesale electricity market. See, e.g., Wah Chang v. Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., LLC, 507 F.3d 1222, 1225-27 (9th Cir. 2007); Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish Cty. v. Dynegy Power Mktg., Inc., 384 F.3d 756, 760-62 (9th Cir. 2004); Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Grays Harbor Cty. Wash. v. IDA-CORP Inc., 379 F.3d 641, 650-52 (9th Cir. 2004); California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 852-53 (9th Cir. 2004); Transmission Agency of N. Cal. v. Sierra Pac. Power Co., 295 F.3d 918, 929-33 (9th Cir. 2002). In our most recent foray in this area, we held that the doctrine barred a claim virtually identical to the one asserted by Plaintiffs. See Wah Chang, 507 F.3d at 1225-27 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that the filed Options: A. holding that the filed rate doctrine barred private right of action for consumer fraud B. holding that the filed rate doctrine barred a retail electricity consumers civil rico claim seeking damages for increased electricity costs allegedly caused by defendants fraudulent manipulation of wholesale electricity rates C. holding that the filed rate doctrine barred request for damages but did not preclude request for injunction and civil penalties D. holding that the filed rate doctrine precludes insureds fraudulent inducement claim E. 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

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the filed rate doctrine barred a retail electricity consumers civil rico claim seeking damages for increased electricity costs allegedly caused by defendants fraudulent manipulation of wholesale electricity rates
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: Petitioner argued that the court’s instruction was plainly erroneous because the instruction did not cover HRS § 707-720(c) relating to the commission of a felony. It does not appear that the ICA addressed Petitioner’s argument regarding an allegedly erroneous definition of kidnapping, nor did Respondent address this issue in its memorandum in opposition. Petitioner did not object to the court’s kidnapping instruction at trial. Additionally, Petitioner acknowledged in his Reply Brief that “[t]his specific argument was not raised as a point of error in the opening brief.” Thus, we are not obligated to address Petitioner’s argument regarding the court’s purportedly erroneous kidnapping instruction. See In re Hawaiian Flour Mills, Inc., 76 Hawai'i 1, 14 n. 5, 868 P.2d 419, 432 n. 5 (1994) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); Hawaii Rules of Appellate Options: A. holding that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are forfeited B. holding that issue raised for the first time in reply brief was waived C. holding arguments not raised on appeal waived D. holding that arguments raised for the first time in the reply briefs on appeal were deemed waived E. holding that an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief is waived

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that arguments raised for the first time in the reply briefs on appeal were deemed waived
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: At the Closing referred to in Section 3(a) below, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the Company shall sell to Purchaser, and Purchaser shall purchase from the Company, the Restricted Shares and Purchaser shall pay to the Company the amount set forth on Exhibit A (the “ Purchase Price ”).

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Evaluation was then forwarded to the FWS, which issued a re-concurrence stating “[w]e have reviewed your November 1 biological evaluation and concur with your determination that hazing operations conducted under the Management Plan may affect, but are not likely 'to adversely affect grizzly bears.” In conducting a second consultation and Biological Evaluation on the impact of the Management Plan on Yellowstone grizzly bears, and obtaining a second concurrence from the FWS, the federal defendants completed the reinitiation of consultation required by the ESA. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.16(b). Reinitiation of consultation is the precise relief sought by Alliance. Accordingly, Alliance’s Section 7 claim is moot. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1378-79 (9th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). IV. The ESA Claims A. The 60-Day Notice Options: A. holding the case to be moot where construction of the pro ject had been entirely completed B. holding that a challenge to a mining plan was moot where the action sought to be enjoined hadbeen completed C. holding substantive reasonableness sentencing challenge to be moot when defendant had completed prison sentence but addressing challenge to supervised release conditions D. holding that a first amendment challenge to an expired restraining order which had enjoined a rally was not moot E. holding that injunctive claim was rendered meaningless since the state action sought to be enjoined has irretrievably occurred

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a challenge to a mining plan was moot where the action sought to be enjoined hadbeen completed
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: 1999, pet. ref’d) (finding waiver when the defendant "stated that he was satisfied with his counsel and wanted to be represented by him and that he no longer wanted to represent himself”); Benjamin v. State, No. 06-98-00044-CR, 1999 WL 363534, at ⅜2 (Tex. App.-Texarkana June 8, 1999, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication) (finding waiver when the defendant "affirmatively withdrew the motion” for self-representation by stating, "I’m withdrawing it”). 83 . 367 S,W.3d at 865. 84 . 753 F.2d 1295, 1299 (4th Cir.), cert, denied, 471 U.S. 1107, 105 S.Ct. 2342, 85 L.Ed.2d 857 (1985). 85 . Id.) See also Bartlett, 44 F.3d at 100-02; Funderburg, 717 S.W.2d at 642; Anderson, 2007 WL 1470275, at *4; Wiggins, 782 S.E.2d at 35; Benjamin, 1999 WL 363534, at *2; Moore, 531 F.3d at 403-04 (<HOLDING>). 86 . Maynard v. Meachum, 545 F.2d 273, 278 Options: A. holding that a pro se defendant is not held to a different or more lenient standard merely because he elected to proceed pro se one who knowingly elects to represent himself assumes full responsibility for complying with the substantive and procedural requirements of the law B. holding that a defendant has a right to proceed pro se at trial C. holding no presumption of acquiescence because defendant was never allowed to proceed pro se D. holding defendants pro se motion to reduce sentence was not properly before the trial court when defendant was represented by counsel since defendant may not proceed both by counsel and pro se E. holding that no presumption of acquiescence attached when the defendant permitted his attorney to call the next witnesses because it would be wholly unreasonable to require the defendant in order to preserve his requests to proceed pro se to refuse the trial courts orders to continue with the trial

assistant: The best answer is C. holding no presumption of acquiescence because defendant was never allowed to proceed pro se
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: transport, treat and purify, distribute, sell and deliver water, ...” and it may “purchase, construct or lease all property, works and facilities ... necessary for such purposes.” Act of May 17, 1967, 60th Leg., R.S., ch. 601, § 3, 1967 Tex. Gen. Laws 1381. The Legislature expressly declared in the enabling legislation that creation of the CWA was “essential to the accomplishment of the purposes of Article XVI Section 59 of the Texas Constitution.” Id. § 8. Source of Funding: CWA is funded by its ratepayers (not the state) and is financially self-sufficient. This factor is of considerable importance, but is not disposi-tive. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. City of El Paso, 243 F.3d 936, 938 (5th Cir.2001); McDonald v. Board of Miss. Levee Comm’rs, 832 F.2d 901, 907-08 (5th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Celanese’s citation of Hess v. Port Auth. Options: A. recognizing that among other factors the location and level of the precedent as well as its age are important factors in a qualified immunity analysis B. holding that the degree of local autonomy is another important factor and weighing all factors in reaching its decision to deny immunity C. recognizing that the third factor permanence is the most important D. holding a local government sued under 1983 has no immunity even if its employee is entitled to qualified immunity and the court of appeals does not have jurisdiction over the local governments interlocutory appeal E. holding that the most important factor in the preservation hierarchy is whether the relevant issue was raised in the trial court and the least important factor is whether the appellant alerted the trial court to the specific argument raised on appeal

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the degree of local autonomy is another important factor and weighing all factors in reaching its decision to deny immunity
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: skype reserves the right to take any unlawful , prohibited , abnormal or unusual activity into account in making its determination as to whether your activity does not constitute legitimate use .

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: was reasonable. Cf. Vt. Elec. Power Co., 131 Vt. at 434-35, 306 A.2d at 692 (approving process whereby Board gave parties in post-certification proceeding opportunity to comment and convince Board that hearing was necessary for further review as to location of transmission lines). ¶ 82. The real question is whether the Board abused its discretion in denying a hearing in this instance, given the com ments it received from the parties. The Towns do not challenge the Board’s finding that their expert was unqualified, which was the basis for the Board’s conclusion that they failed to raise a significant issue warranting a technical hearing. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s decision not to hold a hearing. Cf. In re D.B., 161 Vt. 217, 222, 635 A.2d 1207, 1210 (1993) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 83. Regarding the merits of the Board’s Options: A. holding that vrcp 78b2 which gives trial courts discretion whether to hold hearings on written motions provides trial courts with discretion to deny evidentiary hearings on posttrial motions B. holding that issues raised and dealt with in posttrial evidentiary hearings are preserved for appeal C. holding that issues are not waived for failing to file posttrial motions from a remand proceeding where no evidence was presented because no posttrial motions were required under those circumstances D. holding that issues raised and dealt with in posttrial evidentiary hearings may be preserved for appeal E. holding that although the defendant filed a number of motions because the original trial date never changed as a result of those motions no delay could be attributed to the motions

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that vrcp 78b2 which gives trial courts discretion whether to hold hearings on written motions provides trial courts with discretion to deny evidentiary hearings on posttrial motions
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: error in the trial court’s exercise of discretion. This assignment of error is without merit. II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THE JURY WAS SELECTED ¶ 7. Robinson assigns error to the trial court’s method of jury selection. Robinson’s only claim rests on a vague recitation of Rule 4.05(2) of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court without any additional argument or citation to authority in support thereof. Robinson maintains a full panel of accepted jurors was not tendered to him after the State exercised its first round in the jury selection. Robinson is incorrect and misinterprets the selection procedure outlined in URCCC 4.05(2). Under URCCC 4.05(2) a full panel of jurors, meaning twelve, are tendered by the State after electing to exer , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991) (<HOLDING>), neither of which are applicable to the Options: A. holding that generally an unsworn statement by counsel is not evidence in the context of a batson hearing B. holding that evidence of the same name and that the former conviction was in same city and same court as the present case and the fact that the defendant did not offer any testimony to rebut the prima facie evidence of identity was sufficient to establish identity C. holding that probation does not constitute a sentence D. holding that a defendants confirmation of a psrs findings does not waive a challenge on appeal where there is no conceivable strategic reason for not objecting to a sentence at a higher offense level E. holding that racial identity between the objecting defendant and the excluded jurors does not constitute a relevant precondition for a batson challenge

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that racial identity between the objecting defendant and the excluded jurors does not constitute a relevant precondition for a batson challenge
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: Capitalized terms used in this Agreement that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in Appendix 1 to the 2016-3 Exchange Note Supplement or, if not defined therein, in Appendix A to the Credit and Security Agreement.

assistant: Definitions