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: The record reveals that the jury was sufficiently concerned that the foreperson “already ha[d] [his] mind made up” regarding defendant’s guilt or innocence to request instructions from the trial court and to elect another foreperson. In response to the jury’s request for guidance, the trial court summoned only the foreperson and provided him with instructions on and off the record that it did not provide to the rest of the jury. The trial court instructed only the foreperson that jurors needed to resolve the issue in the jury room. The trial court’s failure to similarly instruct the remaining jurors may have given them the impression that the trial court had resolved the matter, foreclosing further debate on this issue during deliberations. Further, following the t d 362, 363-64 (1990) (<HOLDING>). The record in the present case does not Options: A. holding that the burden of proving that the employee did not make reasonable efforts is on the defendant B. holding the state failed to meet its burden of showing the erroneous jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where it did not address the issue on appeal C. holding that the state cannot demonstrate harmless error where the substance of the trial courts conversation with an excused juror was not revealed by the transcript or reconstructed at trial D. holding that the state could not meet its burden of proving harmless error where the record did not reveal the substance of the trial courts unrecorded conversations with prospective jurors E. holding that the state failed to meet its burden when the record failed to show that the jurors would or would not be available after a weeks continuance

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the state could not meet its burden of proving harmless error where the record did not reveal the substance of the trial courts unrecorded conversations with prospective jurors
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 Forbearance Agreement, Consent and Amendment constitutes a “First Lien Credit Agreement Loan Document” for purposes of (and as defined in) the Intercreditor Agreement and a “Credit Document” for purposes of the Existing Facility Agreement and the other Credit Documents. No provision of this Forbearance Agreement, Consent and Amendment may be amended, modified, waived or supplemented, except as provided in Section 13.12 of the Existing Facility Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Americans could not reasonably be expected to arrange presentment before a United States magistrate. Cf. United States v. Chadwick, 415 F.2d 167, 170 (10th Cir.1969) (“Courts have, however, generally recognized an exception to the applicability of Rule 5(a) to arrested persons in state custody for the simple reason that such persons cannot be conveniently arraigned while in state custody.”). The alternate means by which the Defendants could challenge the Government’s failure to present them to a magistrate before their arrival in the United States is the “working arrangement” rule, which provides that federal officials may not collude with state officers to circumvent federal presentment requirements. See Anderson v. United States, 318 U.S. 350, 356, 63 S.Ct. 599, 87 L.Ed. 829 (1943) (<HOLDING>). This doctrine has infrequently been applied Options: A. holding that officers were entitled to rely on the judicial officers finding of probable cause in issuing the search warrant unless they knowingly made false statements to obtain the warrant and that a challenge to the adequacy of the officers investigation does not rise to level of clearly established constitutional violation B. holding that statements may be excluded even in a case where federal officers themselves were not formally guilty of illegal conduct if the evidence is secured improperly through collaboration with state officers C. holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where defendant officers could have reasonably believed that they were given sufficient third party consent to search D. holding that the appellant could not complain that an affidavit and mediated settlement agreement were not in evidence even though those documents were not formally offered and admitted E. holding that compliance with an officers orders is a material fact when deciding whether the officers use of force was reasonable

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that statements may be excluded even in a case where federal officers themselves were not formally guilty of illegal conduct if the evidence is secured improperly through collaboration with state officers
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: exhaustion requirements of the PLRA “where a prisoner plaintiff plausibly seeks to counter defendants’ contention that the prisoner has failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the PLRA.” Specifically, we instructed district courts to conduct a three-part inquiry to ascertain (1) whether administrative remedies were in fact “available” to the prisoner; (2) whether the defendants waived or are estopped from raising an affirmative defense of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies on account of their own actions inhibiting the prisoner from filing a grievance; and (3) whether there exist any alleged “special circumstances” that would excuse the prisoner’s failure to exhaust. Hemphill, 380 F.3d at 686; see, e.g., Giano v. Goord, 380 F.3d 670, 678 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Abney v. McGinnis, 380 F.3d 663 (2d Cir.2004) Options: A. holding that prisoner justifiably failed to file ordinary grievance when prisoner reasonably believed that department of corrections regulations foreclosed such recourse B. holding time begins when the prisoner knows the important facts not when the prisoner recognizes their legal significance C. holding that a prisoner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies when he did not utilize grievance procedures that permitted waiver of the time limit for good cause D. holding remedies not available to prisoner where officials failed to respond to his grievance during time period required by regulations E. holding that a prisoner did not engage in protected conduct when he threatened to file a frivolous grievance

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that prisoner justifiably failed to file ordinary grievance when prisoner reasonably believed that department of corrections regulations foreclosed such recourse
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: over her. On the other hand, consent to jurisdiction sometimes occurs unwillingly or even inadvertently. As the Court wrote in Insurance Corp. of Ireland, “[a] variety of legal arrangements have been taken to represent e e as they may appear. We have held that a party who files a compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a) does not thereby waive any jurisdictional defenses he has previously or concurrently asserted, Dragor Shipping Corp. v. Union Tank Car Co., 378 F.2d 241, 244 (9th Cir.1967), nor has a party who files a permissive counterclaim under Rule 13(b) when objection to “personal jurisdiction ... [is] asserted in the same pleading.” Gates Learjet Corp. v. Jensen, 743 F.2d 1325, 1330 n. 1 (9th Cir.1984); cf. Teyseer Cement Co. v. Halla Mar. Corp., 794 F.2d 472 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). In general, we have held that a party has Options: A. holding that in a quasi in rem action a district court does not have jurisdiction over the res when that property is not physically within the same state as the court B. holding there was no consent to in personam jurisdiction where the defendants counterclaim followed a restricted appearance in a quasi in rem admiralty proceeding C. holding that an action quasi in rem requires a seizure of property within the jurisdiction of the court or its equivalent D. holding that a party cannot waive in rem jurisdiction under florida law and a court proceeding pursuant to in rem jurisdiction must actually possess in rem jurisdiction over the property that is the subject of the matter E. holding that where prior state court had in rem jurisdiction district court could maintain in personam jurisdiction and simply deny requests for conflicting in rem relief because district court is fully capable of preventing inappropriate conversion of the suit to a proceeding truly in rem

assistant: The best answer is B. holding there was no consent to in personam jurisdiction where the defendants counterclaim followed a restricted appearance in a quasi in rem admiralty proceeding
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: for ‘non-generic burglary’ does not.” United States v. Rainer, 616 F.3d 1212, 1213 (11th Cir.2010). A “generic” burglary is “any crime, regardless of its exact definition or label, having the basic elements of unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime.” Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). A “non-generic” burglary is one that “do[es] not include all of the elements essential to generic burglaries,” including burglaries of boats, automobiles, and other non-buildings. Rainer, 616 F.3d at 1214. The government has a legitimate interest in “prevent[ing] repeat offenders from continuing to victimize society.” See United States v. Johns, 984 F.2d 1162, 1164 (11th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court in Taylor determined that Options: A. holding substantive due process not violated when licensing decisions are based on scheme rationally related to a governmental interest B. holding that the particular method is not rationally related to legitimate government interest if it is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable C. holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection as rule was uniformly applied not arbitrary and rationally related to legitimate government interest D. recognizing due process concerns inherent in sentencing based on false criminal history E. holding that sentencing criminals in part based on criminal history is rationally related to a legitimate government interest

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that sentencing criminals in part based on criminal history is rationally related to a legitimate government 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: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Party will duly execute and deliver, or cause to be duly executed and delivered, such further instruments and do and cause to be done such further acts and things, including the filing of such assignments, agreements, documents, and instruments, as may be necessary or as the other Party may reasonably request in connection with this Agreement or to carry out more effectively the provisions and purposes hereof, or to better assure and confirm unto such other Party its rights and remedies under this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except with respect to the material terms and conditions of the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents, the Company confirms that neither it nor any other Person acting on its behalf has provided any of the Purchasers or their agents or counsel with any information that it believes constitutes or might constitute material, non-public information which is not otherwise disclosed in the Prospectus Supplement. The Company understands and confirms that the Purchasers will rely on the foregoing representation in effecting transactions in securities of the Company. All of the disclosure furnished by or on behalf of the Company to the Purchasers regarding the Company and its Subsidiaries, their respective businesses and the transactions contemplated hereby, including the Disclosure Schedules to this Agreement, is true and correct and does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The press releases disseminated by the Company during the twelve months preceding the date of this Agreement taken as a whole do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made and when made, not misleading. The Company acknowledges and agrees that no Purchaser makes or has made any representations or warranties with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby other than those specifically set forth in Section 3.2 hereof.

assistant: Disclosures
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 City from intervening as a matter of right. B. The District Court Improperly Engaged In Issue Reduction. The district court acknowledged that the complaint contained allegations regarding both abuse of process and federal preemption, but inappropriately claimed that the case “is not about the applicability of environmental laws.” The district court is mistaken; the question of federal preemption necessarily concerns the applicability of environmental laws. CEMEX’s prayer for relief clearly states that it wishes to conduct its gravel mining operation without impediment from state environmental laws. The district court’s focus on abuse of process and away from the application of environmental laws is not only mistaken, but also impermissible. City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d at 399 (<HOLDING>) Regardless of the impermissible issue Options: A. holding that while it is not appropriate to consider the merits in determining certification the admissibility of all evidence which has relevance to the merits is not barred if it is relevant to the purpose of refuting or supporting the existence of a class B. holding that the district court is not free to consider the potential for issue reduction when determining whether a putative intervener has a protectable interest in the merits of the action C. holding that when the district court dismissed rather than transferred a case not within its jurisdiction and a party appealed that dismissal the circuit court could consider only the propriety of the dismissal on appeal and determining that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction on appeal to consider the merits of the action D. holding that either the district court or the court of appeals must issue a certificate of appealability on both the merits and the procedural bar before we can consider the merits of a claim that the district court held to be procedurally barred E. holding that the district court is free to consider the full record in the case when selecting the appropriate sanction

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the district court is not free to consider the potential for issue reduction when determining whether a putative intervener has a protectable interest in the merits of the action
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 consent is required for some action under this Agreement, or except as otherwise provided herein an approval of the Lenders or the Required Lenders is required or permitted under this Agreement, each Lender agrees to give the Agent, within ten (10) days of receipt of the request for action from the Agent together with all reasonably requested information related thereto (or such lesser period of time required by the terms of the Loan Documents), notice in writing of approval or disapproval (collectively, “ Directions ”) in respect of any action requested or proposed in writing pursuant to the terms hereof. To the extent that any Lender does not approve any recommendation of the Agent, such Lender shall in such notice to the Agent describe the actions that would be acceptable to such Lender. If consent is required for the requested action, any Lender’s failure to respond to a request for Directions within the required time period shall be deemed to constitute a Direction to take such requested action. In the event that any recommendation is not approved by the requisite number of Lenders and a subsequent approval on the same subject matter is requested by the Agent, then for the purposes of this paragraph each Lender shall be required to respond to a request for Directions within five (5) Business Days of receipt of such request. The Agent and each Lender shall be entitled to assume that any officer of the other Lenders delivering any notice, consent, certificate or other writing is authorized to give such notice, consent, certificate or other writing unless the Agent and such other Lenders have otherwise been notified in writing.

assistant: Approvals
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: Orion Logistics to submit to a supplemental examination. ¶ 81. For the reasons stated above, I dissent. ¶ 82. I am authorized to state that Justices ANN WALSH BRADLEY and N. PATRICK CROOKS join this opinion. 1 Wis. Stat. § 816.03(l)(a) ("When an execution against property has . . . been returned unsatisfied ... the court. . . shall, upon motion of the judgment creditor, order such judgment debtor, whether an individual, firm, corporation or other association, to appear before the court or judge and answer concerning the judgment debtor's property ...."). 2 Courtyard Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Draper, 2001 WI App 115, ¶ 9, 244 Wis. 2d 153, 629 N.W.2d 38. 3 See ¶ 54, supra. 4 See ¶ 77, infra. 5 Cf. Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Market Ins. Co., 2012 WI 26, ¶ 37, 339 Wis. 2d 125, 810 N.W.2d 465 (<HOLDING>). regarding assets which ought to be subjected Options: A. holding that ijnjuries caused by the condition of a public entitys property clearly refers to ownership of a property interest which allows a public entity to control the property B. holding that although allegations were not specific as to what property was damaged they could be fairly read to include property covered by the insurance policy C. recognizing that the word may in wis stat 26211 allows but does not require property owners whose property is damaged by forest fires to bring a civil action to recover double damages D. holding that an action for consequential damages to property whether the action is brought in contract or in tort is an action for injury to property within the threeyear statute of limitations E. holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that the word may in wis stat 26211 allows but does not require property owners whose property is damaged by forest fires to bring a civil action to recover double damages
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: For purposes of the Award, the terms “ Cause ,” “ Change of Control ,” “ Disability ,” “ Good Reason ” and “ Retirement ” have the meanings ascribed to such terms on Exhibit A hereto.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: uncertain guide to the meaning of “official of the United States.” In fact we need not look to the legislative history to determine the meaning of the term. The provision of the FCA that immediately precedes § 3731 makes it the duty of the Attorney General to diligently investigate violations of the statute and identifies only private relators and the Attorney General — not other government agencies — as parties who may sue under the statute. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(a) & (b)(1). For this reason, we agree with those courts that have concluded that the term “official of the United States charged with responsibility to act,” as used in § 3731(b)(2), means pertinent Department of Justice officials. Accord, United States v. Incorporated Village of Island Park, 791 F.Supp. 354, 363 (E.D.N.Y.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Macomb Contracting Corp., Options: A. holding that where a public official takes discretionary action that the official knows will directly benefit a financial interest that the official has concealed in violation of a state criminal law that official has deprived the public of his honest services under 1346 B. holding that the official charged with responsibility to act must be an official within the doj with the authority to act in the circumstances C. holding without discussion that the official of the united states charged with responsibility could only have been the appropriate official of the civil division of the department of justice which alone has the authority to initiate litigation under the act D. holding that bribing a public official does not amount to a conspiracy with that official to extort the briber under the hobbs act E. holding that the color of law element may be satisfied by the fact that an official gains access to the victim in the course of official duty

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the official charged with responsibility to act must be an official within the doj with the authority to act in the circumstances
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, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement. Execution of a facsimile copy will have the same force and effect as execution of an original, and a facsimile signature will be deemed an original and valid signature.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: There is no litigation pending or, to Buyer’s knowledge, threatened, against Buyer or any direct or indirect owner of Buyer or any basis for such litigation before any court or administrative agency which might result in any material adverse change in the business or financial condition of the Buyer.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: using cheats , automation software ( bots ) , hacks , mods or any other unauthorised software designed to modify the nintendo account service or any part of it or using any unauthorised user device or any unauthorised modification of the user device ; attempting to derive source code of the nintendo account service ;

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 U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 338 U.S. 267 70 S.Ct. 25 94 L.Ed. 62 FAULKNERv.GIBBS. No. 19. Argued Oct. 12, 1949. Decided Nov. 7, 1949. Rehearing Denied Dec. 5, 1949. See 338 U.S. 896, 70 S.Ct. 236. Messrs. Robert W. Fulwider, Los Angeles, Cal., James P. Burns, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. Herbert A. Huebner, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 The controversy here concerned the validity of Patent No. 1,906,260, issued to respondent, May 2, 1933, and its alleged infringement by petitioner. The District Court found the patent to be valid and infringed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, 1948, 170 F.2d 34. Being moved by the petition for certiorari that there was a conflict with Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 1946, 329 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 6, 91 L.Ed. 3, we granted certiorari. 336 U.S. 935, 69 S.Ct. 746. 2 The record, briefs and arguments of counsel lead us to the view that Halliburton, supra, is inapposite. We there held the patent invalid because its language was too broad at the precise point of novelty. In the instant case, the patent has been sustained because of the fact of combination rather than the novelty of any particular element. 3 After the suit in this cause was initiated in the District Court, petitioner modified his device. The courts below held that this modification was insubstantial and did not place petitioner outside the scope of respondent's patent. 4 We will not disturb the concurrent findings upon the issues presented to us in the petition for certiorari. We are not persuaded that the findings are shown to be clearly erroneous. The judgment is affirmed. 5 Affirmed. 6 Mr. Justice BLACK is of the opinion that the language of the claims was too broad at the precise point where there was novelty, if there was novelty anywhere. 7 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

assistant: 8
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: all of the challenged actions “occurred in the course of judicial proceedings, and neither (1) relied upon knowledge acquired outside such proceedings nor (2) displayed deep-seated and unequivocal antagonism that would render fair judgment impossible.” Id. (emphasis in original). Here, the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in denying Bevan’s motion for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) or (b) because Bevan provides no evidence to establish that the magistrate judge had any personal bias against him. For example, he provides no evidence that the magistrate judge knew that he was attempting to expose her allegedly criminal activities, or, even if she did know, how that affected her rulings. See Switzer v. Berry, 198 F.3d 1255, 1258 (10th Cir.2000) (persuasive authority) (<HOLDING>). Nothing in the magistrate’s reports would Options: A. holding that prejudgment constitutes cause for recusal B. holding that the term commerce in the faa is to be broadly construed C. holding that a statute should not be construed so as to invalidate other parts of the same statute D. holding that the recusal statute should not be construed so broadly as to become effectively presumptive or to require recusal based on unsubstantiated suggestions of personal bias or prejudice E. recognizing that statutes mandating recusal for actual bias have constitutional bases unlike those that require recusal for a mere appearance of bias or prejudice

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the recusal statute should not be construed so broadly as to become effectively presumptive or to require recusal based on unsubstantiated suggestions of personal bias or prejudice
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: I agree that during the Employment Period, and the Post-Termination Non-Disparagement Period, I will not make any disparaging or defamatory comments regarding any member of the Company Group or their respective current or former directors, officers, or employees in any respect or make any comments concerning any aspect of my relationship with any member of the Company Group or any conduct or events which precipitated any termination of my employment from any member of the Company Group. However, my obligations under this subparagraph (c) shall not apply to disclosures required by applicable law, regulation, or order of a court or governmental agency.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Corporation and the Executive mutually agree that any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof, or any other dispute between the parties arising from or related to Executive’s employment with the Corporation, shall be submitted to mediation before a mutually agreeable mediator. In the event mediation is unsuccessful in resolving the claim or controversy, such claim or controversy shall be resolved by arbitration. The Corporation and Executive agree that arbitration shall be held in New York, New York, before a mutually agreed upon single arbitrator licensed to practice law. The arbitrator shall have authority to award or grant legal, equitable, and declaratory relief. Such arbitration shall be final and binding on the parties and fees for any arbitration shall be paid by the losing party. If the parties are unable to agree on an arbitrator, the matter may be submitted to JAMS Dispute Resolution solely for appointment of an arbitrator. Any fees for mediation shall be split between the parties. The provisions of this Section 5.4 shall not apply to any action by the Corporation seeking relief under Article III of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a child’s accusations of sexual abuse is improper. State v. Dawkins, 297 S.C. 386, 393-94, 377 S.E.2d 298, 302 (1989) (finding therapist indicating he believed victim’s allegations were genuine was improper); see also State v. Dempsey, 340 S.C. 565, 571, 532 S.E.2d 306, 309 (Ct.App.2000) (finding therapist’s testimony children were being truthful in ninety-five percent of instances in which sexual abuse was alleged was improper vouching for child). In the instant case, Father made no contemporaneous objection when Dr. Reyes testified Child had no reason to make a false allegation and Child did not appear to have been coached. Consequently, any error regarding those specific comments as to truthfulness is not preserved. See State v. Hoffman, 312 S.C. 386, 393, 440 S.E.2d 869, 873 (1994) (<HOLDING>). However, Father did object to Dr. Reyes’ Options: A. holding a general ruling by the trial court is insufficient to preserve a specific issue for appellate review B. holding a contem poraneous objection is required at trial to preserve an issue for appellate review C. holding party must make timely and specific objection at trial to preserve issue for appellate review D. holding a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review E. holding that in order to preserve an issue for review a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial

assistant: The best answer is D. holding a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review
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: party moves for relief on the ground that the judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4). Hukill v. Okla. Native Am. Domes ief under Rule 60(b)(2) on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The district court explained that Mr. Leo’s “ ‘newly discovered’ evidence ... [a 2007 advertisement in the Kansas City Star] is completely irrelevant because he did not respond to the 2007 advertisement when he applied for a position at Garmin. Rather, he responded to a blind email from [a recruiter] relating to software engineering opportunities at Garmin.” R. Vol. 17 at 5. Because the “newly discovered” evidence was immaterial, the district court correctly determined that Mr. Leo was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(2). See Zurich N. Am. v. Matrix Serv., Inc., 426 F.3d 1281, 1290 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>) (brackets omitted). Last, Mr. Leo argued under Options: A. holding that to justify a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence 1 the evidence must have been discovered after trial 2 the failure to discover this evidence must not be attributable to a lack of due diligence on the part of the movant 3 the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching 4 the evidence must be material and 5 the evidence must be likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is granted B. holding that the defendants evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence C. holding seventh state petition for postconviction relief which was based on newly discovered evidence but rejected by the state courts because the evidence was not newly discovered was properly filed D. holding that to be entitled to relief under rule 60b2 the moving party must show among other things that the newly discovered evidence is material E. holding that posttrial discovery of asserted newly discovered evidence did not satisfy the requirement that the evidence must be such as with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and produced at trial

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that to be entitled to relief under rule 60b2 the moving party must show among other things that the newly discovered evidence is material
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 Stockholder agrees not to, and to cause each of its Affiliates not to, commence, join in, facilitate, assist or encourage, and agrees to take all actions necessary to opt out of any class in any class action with respect to, any Claim against Mavericks, Rockets or any of their respective directors or officers related to the Merger Agreement, the Merger or the Stock Issuance, including any Claim (a) challenging the validity of, or seeking to enjoin the operation of, any provision of this Agreement or the Merger Agreement or (b) alleging a breach of any fiduciary duty of any Person in connection with the evaluation, negotiation or entry into the Merger Agreement.

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: Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all notices and other communications provided for hereunder shall be in writing (including telegraphic, telex, fax, cable or electronic communication) and mailed, telegraphed, telexed, faxed, cabled or delivered (including by electronic delivery): if to Borrower, at the address specified below its signature below or in the other relevant Credit Documents; if to Lender at the Notice Office; or, as to Borrower or Lender, at such other address as shall be designated by such party in a written notice to the other parties hereto. All such notices and communications shall, when mailed, telegraphed, telexed, faxed, cabled or sent by electronic mail or overnight courier, be effective when deposited in the mails, delivered to the telegraph company, cable company or overnight courier, as the case may be, or sent by telex, fax or electronic mail (read receipt requested), except that notices and communications to Lender and Borrower shall not be effective until received by Lender or Borrower, as the case may be, during normal business hours.

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: the automatic stay has terminated. C. Existing Case Law. Looking at the existing case law on this issue, we find that there are differing views among bankruptcy courts. Some bankruptcy courts considering the issue have found that funds held by a Chapter 13 trustee after dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case prior to confirmation of a plan are subject to levy. See, e.g., In re Doherty, 229 B.R. at 461; In re Mishler, 223 B.R. 17 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1998); In re Schlapper, 195 B.R. 805 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1996). Other bankruptcy courts interpreting § 1326(a)(2) have concluded that when a trustee is holding undistributed funds paid by a debtor, the plain meaning of the statute dictates that the funds be returned to the debtor. See, e.g., In re Oliver, 222 B.R. 272, 273-74 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1998) (<HOLDING>); In re Walter, 199 B.R. 390, 391-92 Options: A. holding that notwithstanding a debtors inability to obtain a chapter 13 discharge a debtor is nonetheless eligible to file a chapter 13 case B. holding that 1326a2 mandates chapter 13 trustee to return any undistributed funds to debtor after paying attorneys fees C. holding that funds held by chapter 13 trustee become property of the chapter 7 estate upon conversion not subject to exemption D. holding that there is no statutory authority in chapter 13 which grants a chapter 13 debtor independent standing to sue under the trustees avoidance power E. holding that a chapter 13 debtor should be able to obtain a copy of his transcript in light of the broader discharge provision of chapter 13

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that 1326a2 mandates chapter 13 trustee to return any undistributed funds to debtor after paying attorneys fees
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 review de novo a district court’s dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 949 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Hucul’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Hucul’s action constituted a forbidden “de facto” appeal of prior state court orders. See Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 777-78, 781 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives federal district courts of jurisdiction to hear direct and “de facto” appeals from state courts, including a federal complaint that is “frame[d] ... as a constitutional challenge to the state court[’s] decision[]” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (<HOLDING>). Contrary to Hucul’s contention, the extrinsic Options: A. holding that rookerfeldman doctrine bars federal determination of claim where the district court must hold that the state court was wrong in order to find in favor of the plaintiff B. holding that a plaintiffs federal action seeking to vacate a state court judgment was a de facto appeal and thus barred under the rookerfeldman doctrine C. holding that to grant appellant relief would require an inferior federal court to determine that the state courts judgment was erroneous and would foreclose implementation of that judgment D. holding that the federal claims which arose from state court criminal contempt proceedings were inextricably intertwined with the state court action and thus the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to the rookerfeldman doctrine E. holding that rookerfeldman doctrine barred plaintiffs claim because alleged legal injuries arose from the state courts purportedly erroneous judgment and the relief sought would require the district court to determine that the state courts decision was wrong and thus void

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that rookerfeldman doctrine barred plaintiffs claim because alleged legal injuries arose from the state courts purportedly erroneous judgment and the relief sought would require the district court to determine that the state courts decision was wrong and thus void
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: Goswami v. Metropolitan Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 751 S.W.2d 487, 490 (Tex. 1988)). Further, as we have already determined that the trial court -properly struck Duchene’s late-filed response, Duchene cannot rely on that evidence in his attempt to create a question of fact at this time. Second, we note that all three of Duchene’s arguments, i.e., that Hernandez failed to mitigate his damages, that Du-chene made payment to Hernandez, and that there was a possible accord and satisfaction,- center on affirmative defenses that must be affirmatively pled by a defendant. See Tex, R. Crv. P. 94 (listing “accord and satisfaction” and “payment” as affirmative defenses that must be pled by a defendant); see also In Matter of Estate of Downing, 461 S.W.3d 231, 242 n.5 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2015, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). A defendant must expressly raise affirmative Options: A. holding affirmative defense of mitigation did not preclude class certification B. holding that mitigation of damages is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded C. holding that sudden emergency is an affirmative defense which must be specifically plead D. holding that to avoid an affirmative defense a plaintiff must plead specifically matters of affirmative avoidance pursuant to rule 5508 E. recognizing that mitigation of damages is an affirmative defense a party must plead and prove

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that mitigation of damages is an affirmative defense a party must plead and prove
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: on the valuation to place upon [the plaintiff’s] remote contributory negligence.”). Based upon our extensive review of this voluminous record, we have determined that the only prejudicial errors in the trial were Judge Wimberly’s improper supplemental instructions encouraging the jury to recalculate the amount of the verdict, and his failure to independently assess the amoun s not against the clear weight of the evidence, it shall enter judgment on the amount determined by the jury. If, however, the trial court does find that the amount of damages is against the clear weight of the evidence, the court should suggest an appropriate additur or remittitur, with the alternative of granting a partial new trial. See Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 914-15 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); see also Pomeroy v. III. Cent. R.R., No. Options: A. holding that in civil theft claim once jury sets the amount of actual damages it is a ministerial act for the trial court to triple those damages and enter final judgment in that amount B. holding that the trial court on remand erred when it adopted a new theory of damages contrary to the order of the court of appeals C. holding that when a trial court determines that the amount of damages awarded by a jury is excessive the court may either suggest remittitur or grant a new trial on the issue of damages D. holding that issue of attorneys fees should be retried if damages awarded are reduced on appeal and appellate court can not be reasonably certain that trial court was not influenced by erroneous damages award E. holding that the trial court can and should grant a new trial if the manifest weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that when a trial court determines that the amount of damages awarded by a jury is excessive the court may either suggest remittitur or grant a new trial on the issue of damages
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: There are no actions, suits, proceedings, claims or disputes pending or, to the knowledge of the Borrower, threatened, at law, in equity, in arbitration or before any Governmental Authority, by or against the Borrower or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries or against any of their properties or revenues that (a) purport to affect or pertain to this Agreement, any other Loan Document or the consummation of the Transactions and the Amendment Transactions or (b) except as specifically disclosed in Schedule 5.06 (the “ Disclosed Litigation ”), as to which there is a reasonable possibility of an adverse determination and that would reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: while we endeavor to keep the information up-to-date and correct , we make no representations or warranties of any kind , express or implied , about the completeness , accuracy , reliability , suitability or availability with respect to the products or the information contained on the products for any purpose .

assistant: None