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: challenge to the amount of refund awarded by DOE to a third-party claimant even though they failed to intervene while DOE was deciding the third-party claimant’s award”). Persistent, the defendant analogizes the instant APA claim with that denied in Brooks v. Snow, 313 F.Supp.2d 654 (S.D.Tex.2004). There, the plaintiffs sought a declaration from the court that Treasury Regulation 26 C.F.R. § 301.722-1 (listing the grounds authorizing the IRS to settle a tax case) was inconsistent with congressional intent, because the regulation omitted delays caused by the IRS in determining tax liability. Id. at 658-59. The court dismissed their complaint, explaining that they had not “allege[d] they ever submitted any offers-in-compromise and, therefore, they have not upp. 239, 255 (Ct.Cl. 1947) (<HOLDING>). Second, and most crucially, this plaintiff Options: A. holding that a refund may include additional taxes paid after the filing of a refund claim so long as the total does not exceed the portion of tax paid prior to the administrative claim B. holding under section 7422a that the district court lacked jurisdiction over a taxpayers refund claim because the taxpayer failed to file a refund claim before the statute of limitations had run C. holding that because the amount of the debtors obligation to the government exceeded the amount of their income tax refund the refund did not become property of the estate and could not be exempted D. holding that a taxpayer only has a refund right after the irs has credited the refund to other underpaid taxes therefore the refund was not part of the bankruptcy estate E. holding that a subsequent refund request on reassessed taxes was unnecessary as the government already had notice of the plaintiffs claim

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a subsequent refund request on reassessed taxes was unnecessary as the government already had notice of the plaintiffs 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In accordance with Company policy, the Company shall reimburse Employee for all reasonable business expenses properly and reasonably incurred and paid by Employee in the performance of his duties under this Agreement upon Employee’s presentment of detailed receipts in the form required by the Company’s policy.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that could be used to increase payment to the creditors. Even if, as the Harstads claim, they gave notice of such claims by indicating in their disclosure statement that the availability of such claims was being investigated, the creditors are entitled to know if the debtors intend to pursue the preferenpes in post-confirmation actions. Compliance with § 1123(b)(3) gives notice of that intent. Only then are creditors in a position to seek a share of any such recoveries, contingent though they may be, and to have the mechanics of the preference-sharing spelled out in the plan. Creditors are in no position to do so if they are not on notice that the debtor retains the power to pursue recovery. See Amarex, Inc. v. Marathon Oil Co. (In re Amarex), 74 B.R. 378, 381 (Bankr.W.D.Okla. 1987) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 88 B.R. 362 (W.D.Okla.1988). We are Options: A. holding the retention requirement of 1123b3 was satisfied where disclosure statement and plan said preference claims with actions begun before confirmation were passed to postconfirmation successor in interest B. holding confirmation vested property in the debtor and therefore properly of the estate was not liable for postconfirmation taxes incurred by debtor C. recognizing the validity of exclusive jurisdiction retention provisions in a plan D. holding that provision in chapter 13 plan discharging postpetition interest on a student loan is binding on creditor under theory of res judicata where objection was not raised prior to plan confirmation and confirmation order was not appealed E. holding that if the debtor fails to mention the cause of action in either his schedules disclosure statement or plan then he will be precluded from asserting it postconfirmation

assistant: The best answer is A. holding the retention requirement of 1123b3 was satisfied where disclosure statement and plan said preference claims with actions begun before confirmation were passed to postconfirmation successor in interest
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: The Recipient acknowledges and agrees that the intellectual property and in particular, the copyright in the Confidential Information disclosed by the Discloser, including any documents, files and other items containing any Confidential Information belongs to the Discloser. This Agreement is neither to prejudice nor limit the rights of the Discloser in respect of any intellectual property rights in the Confidential Information. This Agreement is not to be construed to: Grant the Recipient any licence or rights other than as expressly set out in this Agreement in respect of the Confidential Information; nor

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: Upon termination of the Agreement, Independent Contractor shall redeliver all tangible Confidential Information furnished by the Company. Except to the extent Independent Contractor is advised in writing by counsel that such action is prohibited by law, Independent Contractor will also destroy all written material, memoranda, notes, and other writings or recordings whatsoever prepared by it based upon, containing, or otherwise reflecting any Confidential Information.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the respective successors and assigns of each of the parties; provided , however , that Borrowers may not assign this Agreement or any rights or duties hereunder without Lender’s prior written consent and any prohibited assignment shall be absolutely void ab initio . No consent to assignment by Lender shall, unless otherwise provided in such consent, release Borrowers from its Obligations. Lender may assign this Agreement and the other Loan Documents and its rights and duties hereunder and thereunder or assign any Advances or Commitment (in whole or in part) to an affiliate without notice to or consent of Borrowers.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement. This Agreement may be executed by signatures delivered by facsimile or electronic mail, each of which shall be fully binding on the signing party.

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: of review in Kentucky courts in Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Serv. Ctr., Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 483 (Ky.1991)). 3 . Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) Rule 56.03. 4 . Patterson v. Blair, 172 S.W.3d 361, 364 (Ky.2005) (undertaking historical review of rationale for respondeat superior liability, considering economic structure and analysis); Osborne v. Payne, 31 S.W.3d 911, 915 (Ky.2000). 5 . Patterson, 172 S.W.3d at 366. 6 . Id. at 369 (reviewing and synthesizing Wood v. Southeastern Greyhound Lines, 302 Ky. 110, 194 S.W.2d 81, 82 (1946); Frederick v. Collins, 378 S.W.2d 617, 619 (Ky.1964); and Osborne, 31 S.W.3d at 915). 7 . Wood, 194 S.W.2d at 83. 8 . Id. at 83-84. 9 . Frederick, 106, 682 N.W.2d 328, 338 (2004) (formulating a test to determine franchisor vicarious 2d 359 (1935) (<HOLDING>). These cases correctly concluded that an Options: A. holding a racetrack vicariously hable when its security guard assaulted the plaintiff with a club B. holding employer may be hable for sexual harassment of employee by independent contractor C. holding that employer is not vicariously hable for employees negligence while driving to work where such driving conferred no special benefit upon employer other than to make employees services available D. holding a store vicariously hable when its assistant manager falsely imprisoned the plaintiff E. holding school district strictly hable for sexual harassment by its employees

assistant: The best answer is D. holding a store vicariously hable when its assistant manager falsely imprisoned the plaintiff
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 obligations of the Company to Executive and Executive to the Company shall terminate upon the termination of this Agreement, except as expressly provided herein. The provisions of Sections 8, 9, 10 and 1J shall survive termination of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Borrower and Subsidiary has (a) filed all federal, state, provincial and local tax returns and other reports that it is required by law to file, [ and has ] except for any tax returns and reports relating to taxes (i) the amount of which, individually or in the aggregate, is not material or (ii) the amount, applicability or validity of which is currently being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and with respect to which such Borrower or such Subsidiary, as the case may be, has established adequate reserves in accordance with GAAP, and (b) paid, or made provision for the payment of, all Taxes upon it, its income and its Properties that are due and payable, except to the extent being Properly Contested. The provision for Taxes on the books of each Borrower and Subsidiary is adequate for all years not closed by applicable statutes, and for its current Fiscal Year.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Brief, 1. Klayman’s response is twofold. He admits to making the income alleged by the Government but points out his annual income over that period fluctuated greatly from as low as $61,000 to $328,000. Plaintiffs Response to Gov’t’s Facts ¶ 26. Secondly, he points out that for the years 2001 through 2003 the majority of the reported income constituted “phantom,” or passive, non-cash income passed through from Herkly, his Subchapter S corporation. See Response to Gov’t’s Facts ¶ 24; Klayman Dep. 47-49 attached to Plaintiffs Response; see also Government Ex. 118-120, Form 1040 for 2001-2003, Schedule E. Neither of these reasons, however, explains why no payment at all was made toward his tax debt for the previous years. See In re Scarpiello, 240 B.R. 203, 209 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1999) (<HOLDING>); In re Lacheen, 2005 WL 1155257 *4 Options: A. holding that state legislature should determine whether to cure discriminatory tax by enforcing tax as to all or forgiving tax in its entirety B. holding this court generally lacks jurisdiction over the sec 6651a2 addition to tax for failure to pay tax C. holding that failure to make any tax payment despite having resources sufficient to pay all or a substantial portion of tax liability constitutes evasion D. holding that state and city tax evasion considered relevant conduct under conviction for federal tax evasion E. holding that franchisees tax evasion scheme provided cause for termination

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that failure to make any tax payment despite having resources sufficient to pay all or a substantial portion of tax liability constitutes evasion
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In consideration of the agreements of Agent and Required Lenders contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, each Borrower, voluntarily, knowingly, unconditionally and irrevocably, with specific and express intent, for and on behalf of itself and all of its respective parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, members, managers, predecessors, successors, and assigns, and each of their respective current and former directors, officers, shareholders, agents, and employees, and each of their respective predecessors, successors, heirs, and assigns (individually and collectively, the “ Releasing Parties ”) does hereby fully and completely release, acquit and forever discharge each of Agent, Lenders, and each their respective parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, members, managers, shareholders, directors, officers and employees, and each of their respective predecessors, successors, heirs, and assigns (individually and collectively, the “ Released Parties ”), of and from any and all actions, causes of action, suits, debts, disputes, damages, claims, obligations, liabilities, costs, expenses and demands of any kind whatsoever, at law or in equity, whether matured or unmatured, liquidated or unliquidated, vested or contingent, choate or inchoate, known or unknown that the Releasing Parties (or any of them) has against the Released Parties or any of them (whether directly or indirectly), based in whole or in part on facts, whether or not now known, existing on or before the Effective Date, that relate to, arise out of or otherwise are in connection with: (i) any or all of the Financing Documents or transactions contemplated thereby or any actions or omissions in connection therewith or (ii) any aspect of the dealings or relationships between or among any or all of the Borrowers, on the one hand, and any or all of the Released Parties, on the other hand, relating to any or all of the documents, transactions, actions or omissions referenced in clause (i) hereof. Each Borrower acknowledges that the foregoing release is a material inducement to Agent’s and Required Lender’s decision to enter into this Agreement and agree to the modifications contemplated hereunder, and has been relied upon by Agent and Required Lenders in connection therewith.

assistant: Releases
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 Loan Parties or any of their Subsidiaries nor, to the knowledge of any Loan Party, any director, officer, agent, employee or other person acting on behalf of such Loan Party or any of its Subsidiaries have taken any action, directly or indirectly, that would result in a violation by such persons of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, and the rules and regulations thereunder or any other applicable anti-corruption law; and the Loan Parties and their Subsidiaries have instituted and maintain policies and procedures designed to ensure continued compliance therewith.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The closing of the transactions contemplated hereby (the “ Closing ”) shall take place on April 1, 2016 (the “ Closing Date ”), and the Closing is deemed to be effective as of 12:01 a.m., San Antonio, Texas time, on the Closing Date (the “ Effective Time ”).

assistant: Closings
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: Subject to the proviso to Section 3.01(a), each Second Priority Representative, on behalf of itself and each Second Priority Debt Party under its Second Priority Debt Facility, agrees that, unless and until the Discharge of Senior Obligations has occurred, it will not commence, or join with any Person (other than the Senior Secured Parties and the Senior Representatives upon the request of the Designated Senior Representative) in commencing, any enforcement, collection, execution, levy or foreclosure action or proceeding with respect to any Lien held by it in the Shared Collateral under any of the Second Priority Debt Documents or otherwise in respect of the Second Priority Debt Obligations.

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 following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 405 U.S. 172 92 S.Ct. 848 31 L.Ed.2d 122 Raymond SMITH and Melvin McClaim, Petitioners,v.State of FLORIDA. No. 70-5055. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Dec. 8, 1971. February 24, 1972 Phillip A. Hubbart, Miami, Fla., for petitioners. Nelson E. Bailey, Tallahassee, Fla., for respondent, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court. Syllabus Petitioners' convictions for violation of the Florida vagrancy statute for 'wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object' are vacated and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S.Ct. 839, 31 L.Ed.2d 110. Pp. 172-173. 239 So.2d 250, vacated and remanded. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 Florida's vagrancy statute1 includes in the term 'vagrants,' who can be criminally charged and convicted, 'persons wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object.'2 The defendants were so charged and pleaded not guilty, waived trial by jury, and were tried by a judge, who denied a motion to dismiss. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, two judges dissenting. 239 So.2d 250. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted. 403 U.S. 917, 91 S.Ct. 2234, 29 L.Ed.2d 694. 2 We have this day decided Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S.Ct. 839, 31 L.Ed.2d 110. We therefore vacate and remand the judgment in the instant case for reconsideration in light of Papachristou. 3 So ordered. 4 Judgment vacated and case remanded. 5 Mr. Justice POWELL and Mr. Justice REHNQUIST took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. 1 Fla.Stat. § 856.02 (1965), F.S.A. See Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, decided this day, 405 U.S., at 157, 92 S.Ct., at 841 n. 2. 2 § 856.02.

assistant: 4
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: actions against a franchisor. Moreover ... these provisions are usually part of the standard contract which the franchisee is offered on a "take-it or leave-it” basis. In the absence of arms length negotiations and equal bargaining position, such terms are usually unconscionable. The author asserts that it is in the state’s interest and powers to void such contractual terms to protect its residents. Id. at 2, 92 S.Ct. 1907. 16 . Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 734 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 993, 108 S.Ct. 1302, 99 L.Ed.2d 512 (1988). 17 . Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29, 108 S.Ct. 2239, 101 L.Ed.2d 22 (1988) (citation omitted). 18 . Id. 19 . See, e.g., Stewart, 487 U.S. at 29-31, 108 S.Ct. 2239; Lou, 834 F.2d at 739. 20 . Stewart, 487 U.S. at 29, 108 S.Ct. 2239 (<HOLDING>). A forum selection clause, however, is not Options: A. holding that 1404a governed a forum non conveniens motion to transfer based upon a forum selection clause despite the current forums public policy that may refuse to enforce such provisions B. holding that a district court has discretion to grant a defendants forum non conveniens motion to transfer before disposing of any other threshold challenges C. holding that issue concerning forum non conveniens decision was not suitable for interlocutory appeal in part because a forum non conveniens decision is inherently factsensitive D. holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum E. holding that a district court may dismiss based on forum non conveniens without first addressing personal jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that 1404a governed a forum non conveniens motion to transfer based upon a forum selection clause despite the current forums public policy that may refuse to enforce such 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment has been duly executed and delivered by each Loan Party that is a party hereto. Each of this Amendment and the Credit Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of each Loan Party a party thereto, enforceable against such Loan Party in accordance with its terms.

assistant: Binding Effects
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: and anti-competitive effects. For this reason, such restraints generally are not deemed per se illegal, but, rather, are tested under a rule of reason analysis. See Business Elecs. Corp. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 485 U.S. 717, 723, 108 S.Ct. 1515, 99 L.Ed.2d 808 (1988). Vertical price-fixing agreements, however, are a special subset of vertical restraints. As such, they qualify for different treatment. A vertical price-fixing agreement that establishes a minimum price normally is regarded as a naked restraint of trade and, thus, as illegal per se. See Business Elecs. Corp., 485 U.S. at 724, 108 S.Ct. 1515; Dr. Miles Med. Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373, 404-09, 31 S.Ct. 376, 55 L.Ed. 502 (1911); cf. State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 22, 118 S.Ct. 275, 139 L.Ed.2d 199 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Here, the district court concluded that the Options: A. holding that a maximum vertical price maintenance scheme is not per se illegal B. holding vertical price restraints are judged according to the rule of reason C. holding such agreements to be per se illegal D. holding that the per se rule does not apply to a vertical agreement between a buyer and supplier and noting that precedent limits the per se rule in the boycott context to cases involving horizontal agreements among direct competitors E. holding vertical price restraints subject to the rule of reason

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a maximum vertical price maintenance scheme is not per se illegal
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: this argument. District Court Opinion, 675 F.Supp.2d at 672-73. 11 . Though it is somewhat difficult to glean its argument, EIA also appears to challenge the procedural validity of the Three-Part Test due to HEW’s failure to comply with the "laying-before” requirement of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232(d)(1). That provision required final HEW regulations to be presented to Congress, whose disapproval could prevent the regulation from taking effect. 20 U.S.C. § 1232(d)(1). In any event, EIA concedes, albeit inartfully, that HEW carefully considered the requirements imposed by GEPA and found that they did not apply to its 1979 Policy Interpretation. Reply Br. 21. See also Letter from Patricia Roberts Harris, Secretary of Health, Education, L.Ed. 714 (1908) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Texas, 143 U.S. 621, 644-45, Options: A. holding that eleventh amendment does not bar suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacity B. holding that the eleventh amendment precludes an award of injunctive or declaratory relief that is not prospective in nature C. holding that there is an exception to eleventh amendment immunity for actions seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials for alleged violations of federal law D. holding that eleventh amendment does not bar federal suit against state official for prospective injunctive relief E. holding that the eleventh amendment does not prevent private individuals from bringing suit against state officials for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief for ongoing violations of federal law

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the eleventh amendment does not prevent private individuals from bringing suit against state officials for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief for ongoing violations of federal law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The interpretation, construction and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Delaware without regard to the principle of conflicts of laws. The invalidity or enforceability of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any of the other provisions of this Agreement, which other provisions shall remain in full force and effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Chicago Title Ins. Agency v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 560 So.2d 296, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Perimeter Invs. v. Amerifirst Dev. Co., 423 So.2d 586, 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also State, Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Sarnoff, 776 So.2d 976, 982 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (Benton, J., dissenting). Jurisdiction to review a non-final order denying an injunction does not confer plenary appellate jurisdiction authorizing review of the other matters the non-final order addresses. That the order under review is not a final order within the meaning of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(A) as contemplated by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(1) is clear. See, e.g., Monticello Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 743 So.2d 1215, 1215-16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>). The basic rule is that an order is final only Options: A. holding that an order authorizing a sale is a final judgment B. recognizing that a final judgment may provide for a particular standard upon which to modify a final judgment C. holding that an order not denominated a judgment is not final for purposes of appeal D. holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence E. holding that even an order that establishes entitlement to a judgment is not final unless it actually enters or renders a judgment or includes specific language of finality necessary for a judgment to be considered final for purposes of an appeal

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that even an order that establishes entitlement to a judgment is not final unless it actually enters or renders a judgment or includes specific language of finality necessary for a judgment to be considered final for purposes of an appeal
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: Where, as here, a defendant seeks unlimited access to discovery that is subject to a protective order, the federal rules provide the framework to adjudicate the disclosure and dissemination issue. See Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, Inc., 858 F.2d at 789 (where protective order exists, “the merits of the claim must be judged by the text of the rules and the applicable cases interpreting the rules”). “Rules authorizing discovery ... are a matter of legislative grace.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 32, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 81 L.Ed.2d 17 (1984); Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, Inc., 858 F.2d at 788 (Seattle Times “focused on the fact that discovery is ‘a matter of legislative grace’ ”); see also Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559, 97 S.Ct. 837, 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977) (<HOLDING>). The existence of the protective order thus Options: A. recognizing that a defendant in a criminal case may waive any right even a constitutional right by means of a plea agreement internal citation omitted B. recognizing tjhere is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case C. holding that there is no federal constitutional right to a bifurcated criminal trial D. recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights E. holding that there is no constitutional right to appeal a criminal conviction

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing tjhere is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case
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: Oxenreiter hereby accepts the Shares and the Warrant in full payment and satisfaction of the Unpaid Expense Amount and the Unpaid Salary Amount, and releases and discharges the Company, GMS and all of their respective employees, agents, successors, assigns, affiliates, directors and officers from and against any and all other obligations or liabilities relating to the Unpaid Expense Amount and the Unpaid Salary Amount. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, nothing contained herein is intended to, and this Agreement shall not operate to, release any claims Oxenreiter may have to enforce any rights conferred under this Agreement or the Warrant.

assistant: Releases
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: may not offer proof of a prior statement that is testimonial in nature unless (1) the accused has had, will have, or has forfeited the opportunity to “be confronted with” the witness who made the statement, and (2) the witness is unavailable to testify at trial. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) (“[T]he Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross examination.”). The constitutional requirement that a witness be “unavailable” before his prior testimony is admissible stands on separate footing that is independent of and in addition to the requirement of a prior opportunity for cross-examination. See Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 724-25, 88 S.Ct. 1318, 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968) (<HOLDING>), cited with approval in Crawford, 541 U.S. at Options: A. holding that admission of a witness prior identification statement where the witness could not remember the basis for the identification did not violate the confrontation clause or fedrevid 802 B. holding that the admission of prior testimony that had been subjected to crossexamination violated the confrontation clause because the state did not prove that the witness was unavailable C. holding that testimonial hearsay statements of a witness who does not appear at trial are inadmissible under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to crossexamine the witness D. holding that the confrontation clause bars admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless the witness was unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity for crossexamination E. holding prior statement subject to crossexamination when made does not violate confrontation clause

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the admission of prior testimony that had been subjected to crossexamination violated the confrontation clause because the state did not prove that the witness was unavailable
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the trust, if any, are not set forth, and the trust is not identified by title or date, shall grant and is hereby declared to have granted a fee simple estate with full power and authority in and to the grantee in such deed to sell, convey, and grant both the legal and beneficial interest in the real estate conveyed, unless a contrary intention sh o, 417 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), Hoffenberg never had the legal ability to grant an easement over his own property. In Hensel, the appellant acquired title to lots A, B, C and D. Appellant later sold lots B, C and D to appellee. Thereafter, the parties entered into a written contract which provided that lot B was to be repurchased by appellant. As originally drawn, that contract provided for an easement t pt. 87 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.1991) (<HOLDING>); Hayes v. Moreau, 104 N.H. 124, 180 A.2d 438 Options: A. holding one cannot grant an easement to oneself one can only reserve such interest in land granted to another B. holding that the owner of an equitable interest in property in the form of a land contract can grant a mortgage on that interest under ohio law C. holding no easement can be created over a section of land in favor of another adjoining parcel when one owner owns both properties D. holding that one who possesses deeded easement need not use the easement to maintain his title and easement cannot be extinguished from nonuser alone E. recognizing that one cannot have an easement in his own land

assistant: The best answer is A. holding one cannot grant an easement to oneself one can only reserve such interest in land granted to another
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: Remmer presumption following third-party communication with a juror, jurors encountered third parties who expressed their view of a party's culpability or appropriate sentence. E.g., Fullwood v. Lee, 290 F.3d 663, 676-84 (4th Cir.2002) (remanding for an evidentiary hearing in a § 2254(d)(1) case where the petitioner proffered evidence that a juror’s “strongly pro-death penalty” husband had repeatedly attempted to influence his wife to convict the petitioner and sentence him to death); United States v. Cheek, 94 F.3d 136, 140-44 (4th Cir. 1996) (reversing and remanding for a new trial based on the Remmer presumption based on juror-third party contact the Court characterized as the juror's correct perception that the third party was attempting to bribe him); Stockton, 852 F.2d at 745-46 (<HOLDING>); Stephens v. South Atlantic Canners, Inc., 848 Options: A. holding that trial court is not required to poll the jurors regarding possible acquittal on death penalty B. holding statute stating that judge could excuse jurors was violated when jury commissioners excused jurors C. holding that a criminal defendant can bring a third party challenge to the peremptory striking of jurors based on race whether or not he is of the same race as the jurors who are struck D. holding that a third partys statement to jurors that he hoped they fried the sonofabitch bore on the exact issue whether to impose the death penalty that the jurors were deliberating at that time E. holding that trial court abused its discretion in failing to make a proper inquiry of jurors andor failing to strike jurors for cause after jurors explicitly expressed bias

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a third partys statement to jurors that he hoped they fried the sonofabitch bore on the exact issue whether to impose the death penalty that the jurors were deliberating at that time
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Term of the Employment Agreement shall end on June 30, 2018 (the “ Retirement Date ”), and shall not be renewed. Between the Effective Date and the Retirement Date, the Company shall employ Employee, and Employee shall serve the Company, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Employment Agreement, as modified by this Agreement, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of the Employment Agreement (the “ Transition Period ”). Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Employee’s retirement on the Retirement Date shall be deemed an Approved Retirement for purposes of all equity awards under the CPI Card Group Inc. Omnibus Incentive Plan.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: not err in granting Old Republic’s motion for directed verdict as to RM Kids’s claim for prejudgment interest. Decided June 29, 2016 Smith, Gambrell & Russell, Edward D. Burch, Jr., Edward H. Wasmuth, Jr., John R. Autry; Hey man & Sizemore, William B. Brown, for appellant. In summary, and for the foregoing reasons, in Case No. A16A0257, we conclude that the date for the purpose of measuring any loss by RM Kids was the date it foreclosed on the subject property, and we reverse the trial court’s ruling that the date of the loss was the date that Peachtree Bank closed on the subject loan. And because that erroneous ruling entirely governed the manner in which the case was tried, we must remand the case for retrial. Based on our ruling, Old Republ Ins. Co., 423 NW2d 521, 525 (Wis. 1988) (<HOLDING>); Green v. Evesham Corp., 430 A2d 944, 946 Options: A. holding that the loss of trade secrets cannot be measured in money damages B. holding that an insured mortgagees loss under a title insurance policy cannot be measured until the note has not been repaid and the security for the mortgage is shown to be inadequate C. holding that a mortgageeinsureds loss cannot be determined unless the note is not repaid and the security for the mortgage proves inadequate D. holding that a mortgagee could enforce mortgage covenants requiring the mortgagors to keep the property free of encumbrances even after it foreclosed by advertisement and purchased the property for the full amount of the mortgage debt because the mortgage covenants concerned title to the mortgaged property rather than repayment of the debt E. holding that a mortgagees loss cannot he measured unless the underlying debt is not repaid and the security for the mortgage proves inadequate

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a mortgagees loss cannot he measured unless the underlying debt is not repaid and the security for the mortgage proves inadequate
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 Subsidiary to, use the proceeds of the Advances for the purposes set forth under Section 4.9. The Borrower will not, nor will it permit any Subsidiary to, use any of the proceeds of the Advances or the Letters of Credit to purchase or carry any “margin stock” (as defined in Regulation U) in violation of Regulations T, U or X of the Federal Reserve Board, as the same is from time to time in effect, and all official rulings and interpretations thereunder or thereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If, at any time, a reviewing court of appropriate jurisdiction called upon to issue an injunction in accordance with Section 10(l) finds any of the provisions of this Section 10 to be invalid or unenforceable under any applicable law, by reason of being vague or unreasonable as to area, duration, or scope of activity, this Agreement shall be considered divisible and such court shall have authority to modify or blue pencil this Agreement to cover only such area, duration, and scope as shall be determined to be reasonable and enforceable by the court. Executive and the Company agree that this Agreement, as so amended, shall be valid and binding as though any invalid or unenforceable provision had not been included herein.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: we consider the reasons offered by the prosecutor to explain each strike. See Miller-El, 545 U.S. at 241,125 S.Ct. at 2325. 1. Veniremembers Wiggins and Fon-tenot Wiggins (veniremember 7) and Fontenot (veniremember 31) were both black women employed by the USPS. At the Batson hearing, the prosecutor testified that he struck Wiggins and Fontenot because of their employment with the USPS. The prosecutor also stated that veniremember 31 originally indicated that she would not consider assessing a life sentence. “[W]hen the State indicates that it challenged a prospective juror based on that person’s type of employment and that the State has had poor success with that type of worker, the reason is a race-neutral explanation for exercising the peremptory challenge.” Moore, 265 S.W.3d at 84 (<HOLDING>); see Tompkins v. State, 774 S.W.2d 195, 205 Options: A. holding of obviousness affirmed on the basis of the teachings of the prior art references in combination not on the basis of the contemporaneous invention B. holding that striking postal worker on basis of occupation was raceneutral C. holding that a credible basis was established based on the shareholders claims D. holding that allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex E. holding appeal moot on this basis

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that striking postal worker on basis of occupation was raceneutral
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 controversy involving the construction or application of any terms, covenants or conditions of this Agreement, or any claims arising out of any alleged breach of this Agreement, will be governed by the rules of the American Arbitration Association and submitted to and settled by final and binding arbitration in Santa Clara County, California, except that any alleged breach of Executive's confidential information obligations shall not be submitted to arbitration and instead the Company may seek all legal and equitable remedies, including without limitation, injunctive relief.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original and all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. Facsimile or PDF execution and delivery of this Agreement by either Party followed by exchange of original signatures will constitute a legal, valid and binding execution and delivery of this Agreement by such Party.

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: that the evidence of the prior convictions was insufficient, but sought to prove the allegations on remand. Id. The Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude a second opportunity to prove that the defendant had a prior conviction that would trigger a sentence enhancement. Id. at 734, 118 S.Ct. 2246. The Court distinguished between an acquittal and a sentence: We have held that where an appeals court overturns a conviction on the ground that the prosecution proffered insufficient evidence of guilt, that finding is comparable to an acquittal, and the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes a second trial. Where a similar failure of proof occurs in a sentencing proceeding, however, the analogy is inapt. The pronouncement of sentence simply does not “have the qu (<HOLDING>); see also Walker, 33 Fla. L. Weekly at D44, — Options: A. holding that imposition of a habitual offender sentence on remand after the trial courts pronouncement of a nonhabitual sentence in the original proceeding does not violate double jeopardy B. holding that double jeopardy clause does not prohibit imposition of death sentence in alabama despite life sentence in georgia in murdertrial arising from same homicide C. holding that a trial courts changing of the written sentence to conform with the oral pronouncement of sentence is ministerial D. holding that the imposition of a life sentence on a juvenile does not violate the holding of roper E. holding that under the 1991 version of the habitual offender statute defendant could not receive habitual offender sentence for life felony

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that imposition of a habitual offender sentence on remand after the trial courts pronouncement of a nonhabitual sentence in the original proceeding does not violate double jeopardy
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: Upon a Participant’s Termination for any reason during the Performance Period, the Other Stock-Based Awards will vest or be forfeited in accordance with the terms and conditions established by the Committee at grant or, if no rights of the Participant are substantially impaired, thereafter.

assistant: Terminations