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 floor “for some time period prior to the fall” is Boyd’s burden, not WalMart’s. Because Boyd did not meet that burden, the district court properly granted Wal-Mart summary judgment. AFFIRMED. * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. ' 1 . Machinchick v. PB Power, Inc., 398 F.3d 345, 349 (5th Cir.2005). 2 . Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). 3 . Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)). 4 . La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.6(B)(2) (2007). 5 . See id. § 9:2800.6(0(1). 6 . 699 So.2d 1081, 1084-85 (La.1997); see also O'Brien v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 720 So.2d 1263, 1266-67 (La.Ct.App.1998) Options: A. holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction B. holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish constructive notice because the plaintiff did not present any evidence to establish that the oil was on the floor for any length of time C. holding that the plaintiff had offered insufficient evidence to establish deliberate indifference in a failuretotrain claim in part because the plaintiff did not present evidence that the training received was inadequate or evidence of any specific additional training that the employees should have received D. holding that judgment as a matter of law was proper when the plaintiff did not present any evidence that the defendant was motivated by the eeoc complaint knowledge is necessary to establish causation but it is not sufficient E. holding that the plaintiff did not establish a waiver where the defendants answer had put the plaintiff on notice of an arbitration defense

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish constructive notice because the plaintiff did not present any evidence to establish that the oil was on the floor for any length of 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: There is no Proceeding pending , or to the Knowledge of the Companies, threatened or anticipated relating to or affecting (a) any Company or the Business or any asset owned or used by it; or (b) the Transactions. To the Knowledge of the Companies, n o event has occurred or circumstance exists that would reasonably be expected to give rise to or serve as a basis for the commencement of any such Proceeding. There is no outstanding Order to which any Company or any asset owned or used by it is subject. Schedule 4.17 lists all Proceedings pending at any time within the past five years in which each Company has been named as a defendant (whether directly, by counterclaim or as a third-party defendant) and all Proceedings pending at any time within the past five years in which each Company has been a plaintiff. Schedule 4.17 lists all Orders in effect at any time within the past five years to which each Company has been subject or any asset owned or used by each Company is subject.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: error, appellant contends the trial court was not an impartial tribunal because of its membership in the Children’s Assessment Center judicial council. In points of error one through three, appellant challenges the trial court’s and the recusal courts’ denials of his motions to recuse and motion for new trial. In points of error four through six, appellant contends the trial court and the recu-sal courts erred by refusing to hear evidence on the motions and allowing the motion for new trial to be overruled by operation of law without a hearing. A.Waiver Initially, the State contends appellant has waived his recusal challenges because he did not comply with the 10-day notice provision of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a. See Arnold v. State, 853 S.W.2d 543, 544-45 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (<HOLDING>); Tex.R. Civ. P. 18a. Appellant filed his Options: A. holding that rule 4k2 does apply to admiralty cases B. holding that 60day time limit for notice of appeal in civil cases not 10day limit in criminal cases applies to 2255 proceedings C. holding that the rules governing criminal cases apply to 3582c2 proceedings D. holding that 10day notice provision for motion to recuse in rule 18a explicitly apply to criminal cases E. holding that action of judge assigned to hear a motion to recuse in signing an order denying the motion was not a proceeding required to be carried out from in the county seat

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that 10day notice provision for motion to recuse in rule 18a explicitly apply to criminal cases
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed (including by facsimile or other electronic transmission) in one or more separate counterparts, each such counterpart being deemed an original instrument, and all such counterparts will together constitute the same agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: test to determine substantial and sustained contacts pursuant to FRE 701). Further, Van Meter’s testimony’s probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect resulting in no violation of FRE 403. See United States v. Henderson, 68 F.3d 323, 327-28 (9th Cir.1995). Third, the district court did not err in denying appellant’s request to represent himself, finding that such requests were delaying tactics. See United States v. Flewitt, 874 F.2d 669, 675 (9th Cir.1989) (noting that if the “request [to proceed pro se] is part of a pattern of dilatory activity, the court has the discretion to deny the continuance and require the defendant to proceed to trial on the scheduled date either with the counsel designated or pro se”); see also Jackson v. Ylst, 921 F.2d 882, 888 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Fourth, we reject appellant’s request for a Options: A. holding the request to represent oneself to be untimely because it was made only after a motion for substitute counsel and new trial was denied B. holding that a university regulation entitled the substitute motion which denied admission or readmission iranian students to new mexico state university was unconstitutional because the true purpose in enacting the substitute motion was to make a political statement C. holding that batson challenge raised for the first time after trial was untimely in part because only remedy after trial is vacating the conviction D. holding that the claim accrued after the employer denied a request for arbitration as untimely under the collective bargaining agreement E. holding that denial of untimely request was not abuse of discretion

assistant: The best answer is A. holding the request to represent oneself to be untimely because it was made only after a motion for substitute counsel and new trial was denied
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: but functioning [product] that might fail in the future [does] not constitute ‘property damage.’ ” F & H Const, v. ITT Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest, 118 Cal.App.4th 364, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 896, 905 (2004). We conclude that coverage is not triggered by this first definition of ‘Property Damage’ because it is undisputed that Silgan’s defective lids did not physically harm the fruit inside the cups. There was no alteration in the appearance, shape, or color of the fruit and the fruit remained edible. Silgan’s defective lids, moreover, were not so inherently dangerous that they can be considered to have inflicted a physical injury on the fruit by the mere fact of incorporation. Cf. Armstrong World Indus. Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 45 Cal.App.4th 1, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 690, 733-34 (1996) (<HOLDING>). 2. “Loss of use of tangible property that is Options: A. holding that the installation of asbestoscontaining materials caused immediate physical injury to the building because asbestos is ultrahazardous B. holding that present physical injury caused by exposure to asbestos is essential element of claims for mental anguish and medical monitoring costs C. holding that the nexus between an asbestos product and plaintiff may be established by direct and circumstantial evidence and that testimony by someone with knowledge relating to the plaintiffs workplace exposure to an asbestoscontaining product is admissible D. holding that actual injury to property the presence of the asbestos hazard occurs upon installation and exists regardless of whether it yet has been discovered by the building owners E. holding that the physical occupation caused by the mandatory installation of cable television equipment was a compensable taking

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the installation of asbestoscontaining materials caused immediate physical injury to the building because asbestos is ultrahazardous
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 may edit and make formatting changes to your content ( such as translating it , modifying the size , layout or file type or removing metadata ) , we will not modify the meaning of your expression .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant Felix I. Lessambo, pro se, appeals from the September 29, 2010 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Pauley, /.) dismissing the complaint on summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case. This Court lacks jurisdiction to review the District Court’s June 2009 decision granting the motion for partial judgment on the pleadings because that decision was not designated in Lessambo’s notice of appeal, as required by Rule 3(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure. See Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 256 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, insofar as Lessambo challenges the Options: A. holding that mothers failure to appeal prior contempt order precluded her challenge to prior order in appeal from later order entered based upon prior contempt order B. holding that the appeal was properly before the court where the appellant appealed from an order amending a prior order without appealing from the prior order C. holding that when a notice of appeal specified one district court order while failing to reference another an appeal from the unmentioned order cannot be considered D. holding that court lacked jurisdiction on appeal from injunction because the order was simply an interpretation of an earlier order E. holding that because the district courts order failed to comply with rule 58 appellants notice of appeal cannot be considered late

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that when a notice of appeal specified one district court order while failing to reference another an appeal from the unmentioned order cannot be considered
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: rise to an inheritance. See Dillman v. Dillman, 409 Ill. 494, 502, 100 N.E.2d 567 (1951) (‘Heirs’ “designates all those persons, whether many or few, upon whom the law would cast the inheritance in case of intestacy”) (citations omitted); Black’s Law Dictionary 903 (10th ed. 2014) (An inheritance is generally “[property received from an ancestor under the laws of intestacy[,]” or by bequest or devise”). No one disputes that Cronin was survived only by his sister’s descendants, the Debtor and her siblings. He also died without a valid will. As a result, any funds that the Debt- or received from Cronin’s estate is an inheritance. As the Debtor became entitled to acquire the Inheritance on December 17, 2011 when Cronin passed away, see In re Chenoweth, 3 F.3d 1111, 1112 (7th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>), the Debtor was entitled to the Inheritance Options: A. holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint B. holding that the date of sale for an installment contract was the date of contract formation not the date of the last payment due C. holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act D. holding that section 10b violation occurs on date of alleged misrepresentation not the date of the sale or purchase of securities E. holding that the date of death is relevant date of inquiry for the applicability of section 541a5a

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the date of death is relevant date of inquiry for the applicability of section 541a5a
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 General Partner shall keep or cause to be kept at the principal office of the Partnership appropriate books and records with respect to the Partnership’s business, including the Register and all other books and records necessary to provide to the Limited Partners any information required to be provided pursuant to Section 3.3(a) . Any books and records maintained by or on behalf of the Partnership in the regular course of its business, including the Register, books of account and records of Partnership proceedings, may be kept on, or be in the form of, computer disks, hard drives, punch cards, magnetic tape, photographs, micrographics or any other information storage device; provided , that the books and records so maintained are convertible into clearly legible written form within a reasonable period of time. The books of the Partnership shall be maintained, for financial reporting purposes, on an accrual basis in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The Partnership shall not be required to keep books maintained on a cash basis and the General Partner shall be permitted to calculate cash-based measures by making such adjustments to its accrual basis books to account for non-cash items and other adjustments as the General Partner determines to be necessary or appropriate.

assistant: Records
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: oath. Such a prior statement is substantive evidence. D.C.Code § 14-102(b) (2001). As we understand the record, however, the trial court initially admitted the video only to impeach D.J.’s credibility and show her demeanor at the CAC. It later allowed the tape to be treated as substantive evidence because, after the vid 3d 1, 289 P.3d 791, 828 (2012) (comparing refusal to testify to claimed memory loss and holding that “a witness’s refusal to answer may be materially inconsistent with prior statements, exposing the witness to impeachment”). In contrast, some courts have reasoned that a witness’s refusal to testify is unlike a claim of memory loss because there is no current testimony to compare with the pri- or statement. See Tyler v. State, 342 Md. 766, 679 A.2d 1127, 1132 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Barksdale v. State, 265 Ga. 9, 453 S.E.2d 2, Options: A. holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand B. holding that the effect of witnesss refusal to testify was virtually the same as if he had not physically taken the witness stand and if he had not taken the stand his prior testimony could not be deemed inconsistent C. holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case D. recognizing that a witness may claim the privilege if his new testimony might suggest that he had perjured himself in testifying on the same subject at a prior proceeding E. holding that the defendants prior conviction referenced in his presentence report could be taken as admitted because he had made no objection to the facts in his report

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the effect of witnesss refusal to testify was virtually the same as if he had not physically taken the witness stand and if he had not taken the stand his prior testimony could not be deemed inconsistent
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 We review a certiorari petition challenging a circuit court appellate decision to determine: (1) whether the circuit court afforded the parties procedural due process; and (2) whether the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law (also expressed as whether the court applied the correct law). See, e.g., Haines City Cmty. Dev 3 So.2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (reversing mandatory injunction requiring landlord to install new air conditioning system because pleadings did not request that type of injunctive relief and courts are not authorized to grant relief not requested in pleadings). This due process violation was especially egregious as to the Authority, which was not even a party in the case. Cf. Trisotto v. Trisotto, 966 So.2d 986 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>); Leighton v. First Universal Lending, LLC, 925 Options: A. holding injunction was proper after state court entered a temporary restraining order against defendants many of whom were also defendants in a federal multidistrict action because the restraining order would interfere with the multidistrict courts ability to dispose of the action before it B. holding only that although a party cannot interfere with its own contract a supervisor who is not an officer of a plaintiffs employer is not a party to the plaintiffs employment contract and therefore can interfere with it C. holding that trial court erred by entering restraining order against former husbands current wife who was not a party or served with process as a court is without jurisdiction to issue an injunction which would interfere with the rights of those who are not parties to the action D. recognizing that a court is without jurisdiction to issue an injunction which would interfere with the rights of those who are not parties to the action E. holding that a lower court should not take any action once appeal is filed which would interfere with the appeal process or with the appellate courts jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that trial court erred by entering restraining order against former husbands current wife who was not a party or served with process as a court is without jurisdiction to issue an injunction which would interfere with the rights of those who are not parties to 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: court properly denied Munoz’s habeas petition because the extradition court’s probable cause determination was supported by competent evidence. AFFIRMED. 1 . The extradition court did not address Hurta-do's October 12, 2005 statement, which contains a dramatically different description of the events on the day of the alleged kidnapping, but also makes no allegations of torture. Munoz does not contend that the extradition court’s silence as to this statement constitutes error. We therefore express no view on the significance, or lack thereof, of Hurtado’s October 12, 2005 statement. 2 .Barapind. 's analysis of recantation evidence is largely consistent with the approach of other circuit courts that have addressed this issue. See Hoxha v. Levi, 465 F.3d 554, 561— 62 (3d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Eain v. Wilkes, 641 F.2d 504, 511-12 (7th Options: A. holding that the extradition court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a recantation given that the original statement was independently corroborated and the recantation provided an alternative and contradictory narrative that can properly be presented at trial B. holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding violation was willful and substantial C. holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative D. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding hearsay evidence and evidence that violated the best evidence rule in deciding a summary judgment motion E. holding trial court acted within its discretion in excluding expert testimony

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the extradition court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a recantation given that the original statement was independently corroborated and the recantation provided an alternative and contradictory narrative that can properly be presented at trial
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: would turn into product specifications, which they were never intended to be.”); Loom Co. v. Higgins, 105 U.S. 580, 586, 15 Otto 580, 26 L.Ed. 1177 (1881) (“That which is common and well known is as if it were written out in the patent and delineated in the drawings”). Therefore, the Federal Circuit has stated that “[a] patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art.” Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc., 827 F.2d 1524, 1534 (Fed.Cir.1987). The statutory language of § 112, ¶ 6, however, requires the inventor to disclose “structure ... described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. As a quid pro quo for the' convenience of employing means-plus-function claim language, the inventor has a duty to c 1381-82 (Fed.Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Ampex Corp. v. Mitsubishi Elec. Corp., 966 Options: A. holding that the specifications reference to commercially available vacuum sensors constituted sufficient structure as one skilled in the art would have understood the reference B. holding that black box labeled purchase orders was insufficient structure to perform the generate purchase orders function C. holding that a claim was not indefinite for using the term selector because it was a standard component and its structure was well known in the art D. holding black box labeled sel was sufficient structure because it was a well known electronic structure and performs a common electronic function E. holding that box labeled vacuum sensor and passage which notes that vacuum sensors were well known in the art at the time the patent issued sufficiently disclosed structure

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that box labeled vacuum sensor and passage which notes that vacuum sensors were well known in the art at the time the patent issued sufficiently disclosed structure
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: ( d ) your user material does not identify any individual ( including by way or name , address or a still picture or video ) under the age of 18 and if user material identifies any individual over the age of 18 , you have that person 's consent to being identified in exactly that way in your user material ; and in submitting your user material you are not impersonating any other person .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: suggests a rule of interpretation contrary to AS 01.10.090. See Alaska Admin. R. Alaska R.App. P. 521. We note further that Black's Law Dictionary defines "statute" as "(al law passed by a legislative body; specif., legislation enacted by any lawmaking body, including legislatures, administrative boards, and municipal courts." BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 1542-43 (Oth ed. 2009). Court rules fall comfortably within this definition. Finally, AS 01.10.090 appears to be little more than a codification of principle "deeply rooted in [American] jurisprudence." Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 265, 114 S.Ct. 1483. Accordingly, we will apply AS 01.10.090 to interpret Appellate Rule 106(b). 40 . Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 275, 114 S.Ct. 1483; see also Matanuska Maid, Inc. v. State, 620 P.2d 182, 187 (Alaska 1980) (<HOLDING>). 41 . 156 P.3d 389, 403-04 (Alaska 2007). 42 . Options: A. recognizing that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability B. holding that prosecutors are absolutely immune from claims alleging conspiracy to present false testimony but witnesses including police officerwitnesses are not absolutely immune from such claims C. holding that mere procedural changes which do not affect substantive rights are not immune from retrospective application D. holding that procedural violations merely affect the weight of the evidence E. recognizing that the municipal function test is used to determine both whether municipalities are immune from suit and immune from running of statutes of limitations

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that mere procedural changes which do not affect substantive rights are not immune from retrospective application
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: {¶ 10} In determining whether the trial court properly denied or granted a motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration, the standard of review is whether the order constituted an abuse of discretion. Panzica Constr. Co. v. Zaremba, Inc., Cuyahoga App. No. 95103, 2011-Ohio-620, 2011 WL 496761, citing U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Wilkens, Cuyahoga App. No. 93088, 2010-Ohio-262, 2010 WL 323432. “ ‘ “The term discretion itself involves the idea of choice, of an exercise of the will, of a determination made between competing considerations.” ’ In order to have an abuse of that choice, the result must be so palpably and grossly violative of fact or l . No. 84776, 2005-Ohio-2323, 2005 WL 1119804; Sikes v. Gariley Pontiac Honda (Sept. 13, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 79015, 2001 WL 1075726 (<HOLDING>). {¶ 12} In Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Options: A. recognizing abuse of discretion rather than de novo standard of review B. holding that the standard of review under rule 60 is abuse of discretion C. recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard D. holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion E. holding that the standard of review for an award of statutory damages is even more deferential than an abuse of discretion standard

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion
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: because the claim involved actions of many different insurance agents with different training and materials); Cohen v. DIRECTV, Inc., 178 Cal.App.4th 966, 101 Cal. Rptr.3d 37, 48 (2009) (distinguishing facts from Tobacco II by noting that the UCL did not “authorize an award for injunctive relief and/or restitution on behalf of a consumer who was never exposed in any way to an allegedly wrongful business practice”). Other courts failed to certify the class because they rejected the plaintiffs’ theories of recovery. See, e.g., Campion v. Old Republic Home Prot. Co., 272 F.R.D. 517, 533 (S.D.Cal.2011) (finding the plaintiffs theory of recover “too speculative to entitle' [the class members] to restitution”); In re Vioxx Class Cases, 180 Cal.App.4th 116, 103 Cal.Rptr.3d 83,101 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Because individualized proof of reliance and Options: A. holding that evidence of prior drug sales was sufficiently similar to the crimes charged to be probative of the fact that the defendant was not merely an innocent driver who was involved in the drug transaction by accident B. holding that the plaintiffs proposed drug comparator was invalid C. holding that unknowing drug courier testimony was admissible in a complex drug importation case D. holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade E. holding that upon conclusion that plaintiffs proposed amendment was futile district court correctly denied plaintiffs motion to amend

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the plaintiffs proposed drug comparator was invalid
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: if you access the service from a social networking site ( `` sns '' ) , such as facebook or google + , you shall comply with its terms of service/use as well as these terms of 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: value of their attorney’s services. Decided June 30, 2011 Reconsideration dismissed July 22, 2011 Jesse W. Hill, for appellants. Mark E. Scott, for appellees. Judgment affirmed. Phipps, P. J., and Andrews, J., concur. 1 The anti-SLAPP statute, OCGA § 9-11-11.1, imposes prerequisites to the filing of a lawsuit that has been asserted against a person or entity arising from an act by that person or entity which could reasonably be construed as an act in furtherance of the right of free speech or the right to petition government for a redress of grievances under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Georgia in connection with an issue of public interest or concern. See Atlanta Humane Soc’y v. Harkins, 278 Ga. 451, 452-54 (1) (603 SE2d 289) (2004) (<HOLDING>). 2 The investigator testified that, like many Options: A. holding claim of unconscionability requires showing of both procedural and substantive elements B. holding that standard of review is a matter of procedural rather than substantive law C. recognizing that ocga 911111 embodies both a procedural and substantive component D. recognizing 1983 substantive due process claim E. holding that ocga 911111 offers substantive protection beyond the procedural consideration related to the timing of the filing of the verification

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that ocga 911111 embodies both a procedural and substantive component
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: the brand may not create or share any spotify playlists , whether within the spotify service or elsewhere , that imply an endorsement or relationship between the brand and any artist or any other party , unless the brand has independently obtained the rights to imply such an endorsement .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Promptly upon the reasonable request by the Administrative Agent, or any Lender through the Administrative Agent, the Borrower shall, shall cause the Subsidiary Guarantors to (a) correct any material defect or error that may be discovered in the execution, acknowledgment, filing or recordation of any Loan Document, and (b) do, execute, acknowledge, deliver, record, re-record, file, re-file, register and re-register any and all such further acts, deeds, certificates, assurances and other instruments as the Administrative Agent, or any Lender through the Administrative Agent, may reasonably require from time to time in order to (i) carry out the purposes of the Loan Documents, (ii) to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, subject any Loan Party’s Equity Interests to the Liens granted by the Pledge Agreement to the extent required thereunder and (iii) perfect and maintain the validity, effectiveness and priority of the Pledge Agreement and any of the Liens created thereunder.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: natural gas sales to proceed at market prices. See id. at 1041-42. Second, the FERC reviewed the natural gas market and determined it was competitive. See id. at 1042. Third, although the FERC did not impose individualized reporting requirements on sellers of natural gas, it maintained ongoing oversight of the market and took corrective responses to evidence of market manipulation. See id. We thus concluded that, "[bjecause FERC has not abdicated its responsibilities but has acted, albeit with a light hand, to authorize just and reasonable rates in the natural gas arena, the Filed Rate Doctrine continues to preempt any rate-setting activities by the courts F.Supp.2d 148, 163 n. 16 (D.Mass.2003); In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 263 F.Supp.2d 172, 192 (D.Mass.2003) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, none of these cases address the Options: A. holding that filed rate doctrine did not apply because pharmaceutical companies do not file rates with any agency B. holding that suits against longdistance companies for unreasonable rates were barred if the defendant had filed a rate tariff with the fcc C. holding that the filed rate doctrine barred private right of action for consumer fraud D. holding that under the filed rate doctrine a question regarding reasonable rates should be addressed to the department of insurance and that the rate plaintiff was charged is conclusively presumed reasonable under the filed rate doctrine E. holding that once a rate is filed with the appropriate agency except for review of the agencys orders the courts can assume no right to a different rate on that ground that in its opinion it is the only or the more reasonable rate

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that filed rate doctrine did not apply because pharmaceutical companies do not file rates with any agency
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: Jorge Luis Garza-Gorena, a native of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance 789 (9th Cir.1968) (<HOLDING>). Garza-Gorena’s contention that collateral Options: A. holding collateral estoppel elements met considering changed circumstances in the context of an exception to the general rule of collateral estoppel B. holding that collateral estoppel bars relitigation of previously adjudicated matters C. holding that collateral estoppel bars an alien from asserting us citizenship when he has been previously convicted for a false claim to us citizenship D. holding that collateral estoppel applies to 1983 claims E. holding that the debtor has the burden of showing that collateral estoppel applies

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that collateral estoppel bars an alien from asserting us citizenship when he has been previously convicted for a false claim to us citizenship
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: Finally, we address whether ample alternative channels of communication are available. The ordinance does not prohibit leafletting, distributing pamphlets, or marching on the streets not adjacent to, or leading directly to the courthouse grounds. Moreover, parades and assemblies are allowed on Saturday afternoons. The Movement has many alternative means to communicate its message. III. Accordingly, we hold that the ban on Saturday morning parades is a reasonable time, place and manner restriction and AFFIRM the decision of the district court upholding the constitutionality of the City of Cumming’s ordinance. 1 . The Movement’s claim against the County was resolved by the Supreme Court in Forsyth County v. The Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 112 S.Ct. 2395, 120 L.Ed.2d 101 (1992) (<HOLDING>). This court previously ruled against the Options: A. holding that the fee applicant bears the burden of showing that an adjustment is necessary to the determination of a reasonable fee B. holding first amendment does not permit emotional distress claim for ad parody C. holding that a fee award was justified because the ruling against the defendants would encourage the defendants to comply with the first amendment going forward D. holding that the countys permit fee violated the first amendment E. holding that permit fee assessments required by statute are not taxes under the code

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the countys permit fee violated the first amendment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: signatures on complaint forms from a state Circuit Court. As in the case against Ireland, all criminal charges against the Josephs were dismissed upon preliminary examination in the district court. Relying upon Imbler, the Joseph panel held that the prosecutors were protected by absolute immunity for “knowingly obtaining] issuance of criminal complaints and arrest warrants against the Josephs based on false, coerced statements.” “The decision to file a criminal complaint and seek issuance of an arrest warrant are quasi-judicial duties involved in ‘initiating a prosecution.’ ” As such, they are protected under Imbler, for “securing the person of the defendant is part of initiating a prosecution and should be insulated.” See also Grant v. Hollenbach, 870 F.2d 1135, 1139 (6th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>)- ... Absolute prosecutorial immunity will Options: A. holding prosecutor absolutely immune from suit for deciding to investigate and conspir ing to present false charges to the grand jury B. holding that prosecutors are absolutely immune from claims alleging conspiracy to present false testimony but witnesses including police officerwitnesses are not absolutely immune from such claims C. holding prosecutor absolutely immune for deciding to pursue criminal charges despite challenge to his motivation D. holding the prosecutor is required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury E. holding witnesses are absolutely immune from suit for damages with respect to testimony

assistant: The best answer is A. holding prosecutor absolutely immune from suit for deciding to investigate and conspir ing to present false charges to the grand jury
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: in such event , the licenses granted by you in this section 2 shall terminate in the manner provided below , but only for those particular copies or instances of content that you have deleted from the 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Not consolidate or merge with or into any other Person or sell, lease or transfer all or substantially any portion of its property and assets, or agree to do any of the foregoing, except that (i) any Seller can merge with or consolidate into, or sell all or substantially all of its assets to another Seller, (ii) any Seller can merge with or consolidate into, or sell all or substantially all of its assets to any Person that is a Subsidiary of Sprint, so long as such Person assumes all of the Seller’s obligations under this Agreement and the Master Lease Agreement, (iii) any Person can merge into or consolidate with, or sell all or substantially all of its assets to any Seller, and (iv) any Seller can merge with or consolidate into, or sell all or substantially all of its assets to any Person other than a Seller so long as (A) the Buyer and the Applicable Parties shall have received 30 days’ prior written notice thereof, (B) no Lease Event of Default or Lease Default has occurred and is continuing or would result immediately after giving effect thereto, (C) the Buyer and the Applicable Parties shall have consented in writing thereto, if the resulting entity following such merger, consolidation or other restructuring is any Person other than such Seller and (D) the Buyer and the Applicable Parties receive such additional certifications as the Buyer or the Applicable Parties, respectively, shall reasonably request. Within ten (10) Business Days thereof, the Seller shall provide written notice to each of the Buyer, the Senior Security Agent, the Tranche A Security Agent, the Tranche B Security Agent and the Tranche C Security Agent of any such merger or consolidation.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement, but this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this Agreement.

assistant: Severability
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: who had not filed a notice of appearance as co-counsel, attended the hearing on behalf of Coutts. Nevertheless, the hearing proceeded as scheduled. When the trial court inquired of coverage counsel if he was prepared to present evidence, coverage counsel stated to the court: “This can be decided as a matter of law.” At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court entered an order denying Coutts’s motion. On appeal, Coutts maintains, inter alia, that the trial court erred because it failed to afford the appellant an evidentia-ry hearing. This argument is without merit, as Coutts’s coverage counsel affirmatively advised the court that no eviden-tiary hearing was necessary and that the issue could be decided as a matter of law. See Pope v. State, 441 So.2d 1073, 1076 (Fla.1983) (<HOLDING>); Behar v. Southeast Banks Trust Co., N.A., 374 Options: A. holding that a party failing to make a timely objection to evidence at trial cannot as a matter of law be heard to complain on appeal that its admission is error constituting an irregularity in the proceeding B. holding that defendant may not complain of error he invited and further holding that reversal cannot be based on such error C. holding that a party may not invite error and then be heard to complain of that error on appeal D. recognizing that a party cannot complain on appeal that the trial court considered an issue that that party consented to submit to the trial court E. holding that invited error does not entitle the defendant to any relief and of which he will not be heard to complain on appeal

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a party may not invite error and then be heard to complain of that error on 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by the Company and the consummation by the Company of the transactions contemplated hereby do not and will not: (i) conflict with or violate any provision of the Company’s certificate or articles of incorporation, bylaws or other organizational or charter documents, or (ii) conflict with, or constitute a default (or an event that with notice or lapse of time or both would become a default) under, result in the creation of any lien upon any of the properties or assets of the Company, or give to others any rights of termination, amendment, acceleration or cancellation (with or without notice, lapse of time or both) of, any material agreement, credit facility, debt or other material instrument (evidencing Company debt or otherwise) or other material understanding to which the Company is a party or by which any property or asset of the Company is bound or affected, or (iii) subject to the Required Approvals, conflict with or result in a violation of any law, rule, regulation, order, judgment, injunction, decree or other restriction of any court or governmental authority to which the Company is subject (including federal and state securities laws and regulations), or by which any property or asset of the Company is bound or affected, except in the case of each of clauses (ii) and (iii), such as would not have or reasonably be expected to result in (i) a material adverse effect on the legality, validity or enforceability of this Agreement, (ii) a material adverse effect on the results of operations, assets, business or condition (financial or otherwise) of the Company and its subsidiaries, taken as a whole, or (iii) a material adverse effect on the Company's ability to perform in any material respect on a timely basis its obligations under this Agreement (any of (i), (ii) or (iii), a “ Material Adverse Effect ”).

assistant: No Conflicts