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: reliance. However, when Sandel received the May 2001 letter, he had no employment offers or pending interviews and had not identified any potential employers. Failure to seek another job is insufficient because Sandel must show that but for the letter, he would have stopped working for ATP, and he presented no such evidence. See English, 660 S.W.2d at 524; Miller, 229 S.W.3d at 379; see also First Nat’l Bankshares of Beloit, Inc. v. Geisel, 853 F.Supp. 1344, 1356 (D.Kan.1994) (concluding that evidence that plaintiffs relied on promise of stock options in declining to pursue other employment opportunities was insufficient to raise fact issue on detrimental reliance element of promissory es-toppel defense); cf. Johnson & Johnson Med., Inc. v. Sanchez, 924 S.W.2d 925, 930 (Tex.1996) (<HOLDING>); Miller, 229 S.W.3d at 379 (finding no Options: A. holding that employees claim of detrimental reliance on employers alleged representations should be dismissed because employee was atwill B. holding that employers promise to recall laid off employee could not support fraud claim because employee did not present any evidence of detrimental reliance such as turning down other offers of employment C. holding that although incorrect drug report was detrimental to employee employee had no claim against hospital because the report was not intended to primarily or directly benefit the employee D. holding that an employers promise to pay a bonus to an employee was not enforceable where the employee was already obligated under a written contract to perform the services in question E. holding that employee may claim contract created based on employer promise of severance pay to employee

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that employers promise to recall laid off employee could not support fraud claim because employee did not present any evidence of detrimental reliance such as turning down other offers of employment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: normal contract principles. Chrysler emphasizes that the Cudas are the parties against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced and that the Cudas’ abandonment application was responsible for the settlement not being approved. We conclude, however, that the Cudas did no more than they were legally entitled to do as the real parties in interest. See 11 U.S.C. § 554(b) (authorizing party in interest to request a court order of abandonment of a particular property). Additionally, we note that the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court recognized their status as the real parties in interest in approving the abandonment. We do not believe the Cudas can be penalized for taking actions expressly sanctioned by the Code and the appropriate courts. See In re Martin, 91 F.3d 389 (3d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we decline to hold that the Cudas’ Options: A. holding that a debtor could not relitigate the claim that the trustee breached his fiduciary duty because the bankruptcy court had already held that the trustees actions were not improper B. holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt C. holding that court enforcement of a settlement agreement is not state action for constitutional purposes D. holding that a federal habeas court may grant specific performance of a plea agreement in the face of evidence that the state has breached the terms of such an agreement E. holding that trustee could not have breached settlement agreement pending court approval by engaging in behavior violative of the agreement since bankruptcy court formally endorsed trustees course of action

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that trustee could not have breached settlement agreement pending court approval by engaging in behavior violative of the agreement since bankruptcy court formally endorsed trustees course of 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: Upon a Change in Control (as defined in the 2018 Plan), this Performance Award shall be subject to Section 9 of the 2018 Plan. If a Change in Control occurs and the Participant receives a “Replacement Award” (as defined in the 2018 Plan) in respect of this award, then, (A) if such Change in Control occurs on or following the date on which the Committee has determined the number of Eligible Shares in respect of the Measurement Period, any Eligible Shares as of the Change in Control date will be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 9(a)(iv) of the 2018 Plan, and (B) if such Change in Control occurs prior to the date on which the Committee has determined the number of Eligible Shares in respect of the Measurement Period, then the Performance Shares shall be deemed earned at “target” level, and the number of Eligible Shares that results from such determination with be converted to time-based awards and will be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 9(a)(iv) of the 2018 Plan. The determination as to whether an award is a “Replacement Award” shall be made by the Committee, in good faith, taking into account such factors as it deems appropriate, including the feasibility of continuing the applicable Performance Goals or Performance Goals based on the resulting entity in the applicable Change in Control.

assistant: Change In Control
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: 452 F.2d 1154, 1156 n. 2 (8th Cir.1971) (fewer than 1 percent closed out by delivery); Reid, supra, 44 Vill.L.Rev. at 129 n. 27. This option for getting out enables people who are not agriculturalists, and wouldn’t know an ear of corn from a soybean if it slapped them in the face, to speculate in the prices of commodities. In other words, these contracts are really a type of security, like common stock, rather than a means of fixing the terms by which farmers ship their output to grain elevators and other agricultural middlemen. It is because commodity-futures contracts are a type of security that Congress has seen fit to subject them to a regulatory scheme, the Commodity Exchange Act, which parallels that administered by the SEC for trading in corporate stock. There was no in wa 1995) (<HOLDING>); Rowson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Inc., 866 Options: A. holding that where affidavits raise a genuine issue of material fact as to a brady claim an evidentiary hearing should be conducted B. holding that when the grounds stated in the motion for a new trial are evident in the record a hearing is warranted even though the motion is not supported by affidavits or other extrinsic evidence C. holding affidavits must include competent evidence and affidavits are not competent if they fail to show a basis for actual person knowledge or if they state conclusions without the support of evidentiary facts D. holding that a court may review any evidence such as affidavits and testimony to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction E. holding that affidavits of two former coworkers would be considered and allowed to create a genuine or substantial factual issue even though the plaintiff stated in his deposition that he was unaware of coworkers knowledge where the coworkers affidavits specifically referred to a statement made in their presence and which the defendants had not challenged in any other manner

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that affidavits of two former coworkers would be considered and allowed to create a genuine or substantial factual issue even though the plaintiff stated in his deposition that he was unaware of coworkers knowledge where the coworkers affidavits specifically referred to a statement made in their presence and which the defendants had not challenged in any other manner
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Servicer shall, or shall cause USCC to, for itself and the Seller, keep insured by financially sound and reputable insurers all property of a character usually insured by companies engaged in the same or similar business similarly situated against loss or damage of the kinds and in the amounts customarily insured against by such companies, and carry such other insurance as is usually carried by such companies.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No waiver of any breach or default shall be considered valid unless in writing and signed by the Party giving such waiver, and no such waiver shall be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach or default of the same or similar nature.

assistant: No Waivers
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: & Guaranty Co., 996 S.W.2d 506, 508 (Mo.1999). To determine the ordinary meaning of a term in an insurance contract, the Missouri Supreme Court “consults standard English language dictionaries.” Id. If there is no ambiguity, the court need not resort to construction of the contract, but rather the intent of the parties is determined from the four corners of the contract. Id. “To ascertain the intent of the parties to an unambiguous contract, we give the language used its natural, ordinary, and common sense meaning, and consider the entire contract, along with its object, nature and purpose.” Robbins, 27 S.W.3d at 496. The absence of a definition of “managerial” in the contract does not, by itself, create ambiguity. See Burns v. Plaza West Associates, 979 S.W.2d 540 (Mo.Ct.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). The ordinary, common sense meaning of acts Options: A. holding that a broad statutory definition of a term that was inconsistent with the terms plain meaning did not affect the terms definition in other contexts B. holding that the definition of supplier under the ocspa is substantially broader than the definition of debt collector under the fdcpa C. holding that the definition of operating deficits is not ambiguous despite the absence of a definition of the phrase in the contract D. holding that in the absence of a statutory definition a term should be accorded its ordinary meaning E. holding that the statutory definition of motor vehicle is not controlling

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the definition of operating deficits is not ambiguous despite the absence of a definition of the phrase in the contract
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: has the duty of implementing the constitutional safeguards that protect individual rights. When the Government acts to take away [fundamental rights] ..., the safeguards of the Constitution should be examined with special diligence.”); accord Brill v. Hedges, 783 F.Supp. 340, 346 (S.D.Ohio 1991) (“[T]he judiciary’s role [is to serve] as a protector of individual rights and freedoms.”). This is true in even the most dire of circumstances. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 536, 124 S.Ct. 2633, 159 L.Ed.2d 578 (2004) (plurality opinion) (“We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens.”); see also Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 426, 54 S.Ct. 231, 78 L.Ed. 413 (1934) (<HOLDING>). This tension between assuring security and Options: A. holding that appointment of a conservator does not remove a mentally disabled persons legal disability so as to start the statute of limitations running B. holding that even the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties C. recognizing that uniting power to prosecute and power to sentence in executive would raise constitutional concerns D. recognizing that exercise of legislative police power extends to safeguarding solvency of banks E. holding that statute does not remove plaintiffs burden of proving causation and reasonableness

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that even the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties
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: any such violation of any state or federal law or regulation is now, for the first time, subject to the civil sanction of being prohibited from again “operating another outpatient abortion facility in the state of Louisiana.” Id. § 40:2175.6(1). These changes in law amount to “subjecting [abortion providers] to civil ... liability” by subjecting them to loss of licensure at the will of the Secretary and thus constitute severely injurious legal harm. See Ohio Forestry, 523 U.S. at 733, 118 S.Ct. 1665. Indeed, the Supreme Court recently reiterated that “[l]icense suspension and revocation are significant sanctions,” and referred to “[l]icense termination” as “the business death penalty.” Whiting, 131 S.Ct. at 1983-84; see also Roark & Hardee LP v. City of Austin, 522 F.3d 533, 545 (2008) (<HOLDING>); of. id. at 546 (distinguishing Toilet Goods Options: A. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing because the case was not ripe for adjudication B. holding plaintiffs supervisor subject to suit C. holding declaratory judgment remains an appropriate remedy despite plaintiffs abandoning their claim to compel return of the challenged assets because if plaintiffs ultimately prevail their point is made D. holding ripe plaintiffs claims where violation of challenged ordinance could subject plaintiffs to heavy fines and possible revocation of their licenses and permits E. holding certain plaintiffs did not have standing to attack ordinance governing sexually oriented businesses where the record did not reveal that any one of these plaintiffs was subject to the ordinance even though the city attorney conceded at oral argument before the supreme court that one or two of them had had their licenses denied under the ordinance

assistant: The best answer is D. holding ripe plaintiffs claims where violation of challenged ordinance could subject plaintiffs to heavy fines and possible revocation of their licenses and permits
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: constituted a traffic infraction. Id. at 405. The court held that the officers’ misapprehension of the law did not establish probable cause to stop the vehicle. Id. Here, as in Gordon, the officer’s belief that there was an equipment violation because only one tag light was working was a mistake of law which did not establish probable cause to stop Langello’s car. The State contends that even if Langello did not violate section 316.221(2), the stop was proper under section 316.610(1), Florida Statutes (2004). Section 316.610(1) gives a police officer authority to require the driver of a car to stop and submit to an inspection if the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the car is unsafe or not equipped as required by law. See State v. Schuck, 913 So.2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>). However, as explained above, the State did Options: A. holding that once a vehicle has been lawfully stopped an officer may order the driver out of the vehicle without violating the fourth amendment B. holding a car was broken into or entered when defendant reached in through the open window of a car C. holding that a police officer lawfully stopped the defendants car based on the reasonable belief that the taillight was broken which was an equipment violation D. holding that a police officer may as a matter of course order the driver of a lawfully stopped car to exit his vehicle E. holding that the initial stop by officer was based on reasonable suspicion that defendant was impersonating a police officer although another officer arrested defendant for privacy act violation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a police officer lawfully stopped the defendants car based on the reasonable belief that the taillight was broken which was an equipment violation
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 Recipient acknowledges and agrees that the Company has the right to deduct from payments of any kind otherwise due to the Recipient any federal, state, local or other taxes of any kind required by law to be withheld with respect to the issuance or vesting of the Restricted Shares.

assistant: Withholdings
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: 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998)). To determine whether to authorize discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference in a particular case, this district has applied a “good cause” standard. See Warner Bros. Records Inc. v. Does 1-6, 527 F.Supp.2d 1, 2 (D.D.C.2007) (“the Court finds that plaintiffs have made a showing of good cause for the discovery they seek”). In order to obtain jurisdictional discovery a “plaintiff must have at least a good faith belief that such discovery will enable it to show that the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.” Exquisite Multimedia, Inc., 2012 WL 177885, at *1 (quoting Caribbean Broad. Sys. Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless PLC, 148 F.3d 1080, 1090 (D.C.Cir.1998)). See also Exponential Biotherapies, Inc. v. Houthoff Buruma N.V., 638 F.Supp.2d 1, 11 (D.D.C.2009) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Kopff v. Battaglia, 425 F.Supp.2d 76, Options: A. holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law B. holding that while as a general matter discovery should be freely permitted j jurisdictional discovery is justified only if the plaintiff reasonably demonstrates that it can supplement its jurisdictional allegations through discovery C. holding that not only must discovery requests be reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to case but discovery requests may not be used as fishing expedition or to impose unreasonable discovery expenses on opposing party D. holding that discovery under the federal rules of civil procedure is broad in scope and freely permitted E. recognizing trial courts decision on discovery issues implies a finding that requested discovery was not reasonably available

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that while as a general matter discovery should be freely permitted j jurisdictional discovery is justified only if the plaintiff reasonably demonstrates that it can supplement its jurisdictional allegations through discovery
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: IHS is responsible as his employer. (First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 21-23.) In Count II, Plaintiff again alleges that IHS knew or should have known that Bullis would sexually assault his patients, rather than provide psychological services, and therefore, IHS breached its duties “which proximately caused Mario to suffer the damages referenced.” (Id. ¶ 27.) Likewise, in Count III, Plaintiff avers that “IHS knew or should have known of Bullis* aberrant behavior, and knew or should have known that it had a duty to warn children and others who were likely to be subjected to Bullis of his aberrant sexual propensities” and that IHS’s breach of its duty to warn “proximately caused Mario to suffer ... damage.” (Id. ¶¶29, 30.) Court Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 885, 101 S.Ct. 240, 66 L.Ed.2d 111 (1980) (<HOLDING>). These claims are, therefore, excluded from Options: A. holding that where jurisdiction was based on 28 usc 2201 venue was determined as per 28 usc 1391 B. holding that 28 usc 2680h bars suits against the government in all eases where the intentional tort was committed by a government employee C. holding that to establish tort liability in a negligence action there must be a legal duty on the part of the defendant to plaintiff D. holding where two offduty airmen committed rape assaults and murders attempt to establish liability on a negligence basis is merely an effort to circumvent the retention of immunity provided in 28 usc 2680h E. holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury

assistant: The best answer is D. holding where two offduty airmen committed rape assaults and murders attempt to establish liability on a negligence basis is merely an effort to circumvent the retention of immunity provided in 28 usc 2680h
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 picture of a rogue witness, completely out of control, acting alone, throwing away tapes and manipulating evidence with callous indifference. Many conversations between Whitacre and one or more conspirators that should have been recorded were not, and the FBI frequently did not file the necessary reports or provide explanations for these missed conversations. Many of the tapes Whitacre made were not collected as promptly as they should have been, and the catalogue of tapes given to and collected from Whitacre was not meticulously maintained. The FBI did not seem to follow its own internal guidelines on supervising taping activities, but this does not provide a basis for constitutional challenge. See United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 752, 99 S.Ct. 1465, 59 L.Ed.2d 733 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Still, these technical deficiencies do not Options: A. holding that a breach of administrative guidelines does not establish a constitutional violation automatically B. holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract C. holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract D. holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation E. holding that denial of a grievance by itself without any connection to the violation of constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff does not establish personal participation under 1983

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a breach of administrative guidelines does not establish a constitutional violation automatically
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All payments to be made by the Company will be made without condition or deduction for any counterclaim, defense, recoupment or setoff. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein and except with respect to principal of and interest on Loans denominated in an Alternative Currency, all payments by the Company hereunder will be made to the Administrative Agent, for the account of the respective Lenders to which such payment is owed, at the applicable Administrative Agent’s Office in US Dollars and in Same Day Funds not later than 1:00 p.m. on the date specified herein. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all payments by the Company hereunder with respect to principal and interest on Loans denominated in an Alternative Currency will be made to the Administrative Agent, for the account of the respective Lenders to which such payment is owed, at the applicable Administrative Agent’s Office in such Alternative Currency and in Same Day Funds not later than the Applicable Time specified by the Administrative Agent on the dates specified herein. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Administrative Agent may require that any payments due under this Agreement be made in the United States. If, for any reason, the Company is prohibited by any Law from making any required payment hereunder in an Alternative Currency, it will make such payment in US Dollars in the US Dollar Equivalent of the Alternative Currency payment amount. The Administrative Agent will promptly distribute to each Lender its Applicable Percentage (or other applicable share as provided herein) of such payment in like funds as received by wire transfer to such Lender’s Lending Office. All payments received by the Administrative Agent (i) after 1:00 p.m., in the case of payments in US Dollars, or (ii) after the Applicable Time specified by the Administrative Agent in the case of payments in an Alternative Currency, will in each case be deemed received on the next succeeding Business Day and any applicable interest or fee will continue to accrue. If any payment to be made by the Company will come due on a day other than a Business Day, payment will be made on the next following Business Day, except (i) as otherwise set forth in the definition of Interest Period, (ii) that no payment will extend past the Maturity Date or the end of the Availability Period, or (iii) as otherwise agreed between the Company and Bid Lender with respect to a Bid Loan, and such extension of time will be reflected in computing interest or fees, as the case may be.

assistant: General
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 is determined to be void invalid, unenforceable, or against public policy, such provisions shall be deemed severable from the Agreement, and the remaining provisions of the Agreement will remain unaffected and in full force and effect. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: pursuant to a routed export transaction under the u.s. export administration regulations and foreign trade regulations , your buyer , as the foreign principal party in interest , will agree to assume responsibility for the export shipment , with pitney bowes inc. acting as your buyer 's forwarding agent .

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: Salvador de Jesus Trujillo-Teo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Because the transitional rules apply, Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We deny the petition for review. We conclude that a reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to find that Trujillo-Teo established past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his actual or imputed political opinion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-82, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Molinar-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, Options: A. holding that attempted conscription by a guatemalan guerrilla group did not constitute persecution on account of a political opinion where petitioner failed to show that the group was motivated by his political opinion B. holding that forced recruitment does not amount to persecution without a showing that it was on account of petitioners political opinion C. holding that persecution was on account of political opinion because petitioners prosecutorial investigation into acts of political corruption was by its very nature political D. holding that a petitioners unwillingness to return must be based upon persecution or a wellfounded fear of persecution on account of race religion nationality membership in a particular social group or political opinion E. holding that retaliation for opposition to government corruption can constitute persecution on account of a political opinion

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that forced recruitment does not amount to persecution without a showing that it was on account of petitioners political opinion
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 have been duly authorized by all requisite corporate action. This Agreement has been duly executed and delivered by the Company, and, upon its execution by Purchaser, shall constitute the legal, valid, and binding obligation of the Company, enforceable in accordance with its terms, except to the extent that its enforceability is limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, or other laws relating to or affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights generally and by general principles of equity.

assistant: Enforceability
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 Assignment and Assumption Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of such counterparts shall constitute one and the same Assignment and Assumption Agreement, binding on all parties notwithstanding that all of the parties are not signatories to the same counterpart.

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: estimates of the robber’s age range from twenty-five to thirty-five years, centering on thirty years. P.Ex. M, Q. The bank photographs clearly show the robber wearing a mustache. P.Ex. S. The information available to the agents at plaintiff’s arrest was sufficient to justify a man of reasonable caution in believing that plaintiff had committed the robbery. That information, as a matter of law, constituted probable cause to believe that plaintiff had committed the robbery. Therefore, no action for malicious prosecution will lie. Zanghi, 752 F.2d at 45; compare Deary, 570 F.Supp. at 196, 200 (finding probable cause and granting summary judgment on malicious prosecution claim where arresting officers identified plaintiff from bank photographs), rev’d, 746 F.2d 185, 190 (3d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Miss Universe, Inc. v. Patricelli, 753 F.2d Options: A. holding 1983 action lies for warrantless arrest without probable cause B. holding that in a 1983 action issue of probable cause is for the jury C. holding that there is no 1983 cause of action for false arrest unless the arresting officer lacked probable cause D. holding that the existence of probable cause in a 1983 case is a jury question E. recognizing the cause of action

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that in a 1983 action issue of probable cause is for the 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: ( 1 ) belonging to another person with the intent to impersonate that person , including without limitation a `` game master '' or any other employee or agent of blizzard entertainment ;

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: moves into the realm of res judicata.”). The doctrine of issue preclusion “comes into play when an issue involved in a prior decision is the same issue involved in a subsequent action.” See Mabry v. State Bd. of Community Colleges & Occupational Educ., 813 F.2d 311, 316 (10th Cir.1987). If the bankruptcy court’s turnover order, which the debtors did not appeal, “actually and necessarily decided” the exemption issue, principles of issue preclusion could prevent the debtors from raising this argument in an appeal from a subsequent order. See id. (noting that issue preclusion does not apply unless “the issue is actually decided in the first action” and “it was necessary to decide the issue in disposing of the first action”); see also In re Albrecht, 233 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Turshen v. Chapman, 823 F.2d 836, 839 (4th Options: A. holding that court lacked jurisdiction on appeal from injunction because the order was simply an interpretation of an earlier order B. holding that under the doctrine of direct estoppel a law firms failure to appeal the bankruptcy courts earlier order barred it from challenging the courts holding on its appeal from a subsequent order C. holding that an issue not raised on direct appeal of sentence is barred by the law of the case from presentation in a subsequent appeal D. holding that notice indicating appeal was from judgment on date of jury verdict was insufficient to preserve appeal from earlier order granting summary judgment E. holding that under the law of the case doctrine an issue of fact or law decided on appeal may not be reexamined by the appellate court on a subsequent appeal

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that under the doctrine of direct estoppel a law firms failure to appeal the bankruptcy courts earlier order barred it from challenging the courts holding on its appeal from a subsequent order
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: your continued use of a skype premium subscription after publication on the skype website shall constitute your acceptance to be bound by the terms and conditions of the revised fair usage policy .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: At the Closing upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein, (a) Purchaser shall purchase from the Sellers, and one or more of their direct or indirect Subsidiaries, and the Sellers shall, or shall cause one or more of their direct or indirect Subsidiaries to, as applicable, sell, convey, assign, transfer and deliver to Purchaser, the Transferred Assets, and (b) the Sellers shall, or shall cause one or more of their direct or indirect Subsidiaries, as applicable, to assign, and Purchaser shall assume and become responsible for paying, performing and discharging, the Assumed Liabilities.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: production, which would lead to a mass layoff or shutdown. Plaintiffs argue that by failing to issue this conditional notice, Defendant did not “even try to comply with the WARN Act.” However, Plaintiffs misinterpret the relevant regulation, which provides: Notice may be given conditional upon the occurrence or nonoccurrence of an event, such as the renewal of a major contract, only when the event is definite and the consequences of its occurrence or nonoccurrence will necessarily, in the normal course of business, lead to a covered plant closing or mass layoff less than 60 days after the event. 20 C.F.R. § 639.7 (emphasis added). The regulation clearly permits conditional notice, but does not require it. See Loehrer v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 98 F.3d 1056, 1063, n. 9 (8th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Options: A. holding that causation is an essential element in failure to warn claim B. holding that fifra preempts state law failure to warn claims C. holding that a failure to circulate conditional notice can not in itself justify the imposition of warn liability D. holding that defense may only be raised in context of negligent failure to warn claims E. holding that a failure to warn was not a policy judgment

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a failure to circulate conditional notice can not in itself justify the imposition of warn liability
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: See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). Along those lines, “the case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, —, 118 S.Ct. 978, 983, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). Clark appealed the district court’s order extending his period of supervised release after he had completed his prison sentence for mail fraud. The district court ordered extended supervision because Clark had not made restitution of a large sum of money. By the time Clark filed this appeal, his period of supervised release had long since ended. Accordingly, “some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended [supervised release] must exist if the suit is to be maintained.” Id. at —, 118 S.Ct. at 983 (<HOLDING>). The petitioner has the burden to establish Options: A. holding that the collateral consequences of a parole revocation were insufficient to create a case or controversy after the petitioner was released B. holding that revocation of parole does not create collateral consequences sufficient to extend standing beyond expiration of sentence and rejecting as moot a challenge to an allegedly erroneous parole revocation C. holding that there is no significant conceptual difference between the revocation of probation or parole and the revocation of supervised release D. holding that a right to confrontation exists in parole revocation proceedings E. holding drivers license revocation was not moot because collateral consequences of revocation may be substantial including higher insurance rates and adverse employment consequences

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the collateral consequences of a parole revocation were insufficient to create a case or controversy after the petitioner was released
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall terminate April 27, 2018 and may be renewed for an unlimited number of successive one-year terms upon mutual consent of the parties. The Company (acting through the Conflicts Committee) will evaluate the performance of the Advisor annually before renewing this Agreement, and each such renewal shall be for a term of no more than one year. Any such renewal must be approved by the Conflicts Committee.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive shall have the benefit of indemnification to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law pursuant to the Company’s indemnification policy, which indemnification shall continue after the termination of this Agreement for such period as may be necessary to continue to indemnify Executive for his acts during his employment and/or other service with the Company. In addition, the Company shall cause Executive to be covered by the current policies of directors’ and officers’ liability insurance covering directors and officers of the Company, copies of which have been provided to Executive, in accordance with their terms, to the maximum extent of the coverage available for any director or officer of the Company. The Company shall use commercially reasonable efforts to cause the current policies of directors’ and officers’ liability insurance covering directors and officers of the Company to be maintained throughout the Term and for such period thereafter as may be necessary to continue to cover acts of Executive during his employment and/or other service with the Company (provided that the Company may substitute therefor, or allow to be substituted therefor, policies of at least the same coverage and amounts containing terms and conditions which are, in the aggregate, no less advantageous to the insured in any material respect). In the event of any merger or other acquisition of the Company, the Company shall no later than immediately prior to consummation of such transaction purchase the longest applicable “tail” coverage available under the directors’ and officers’ liability insurance in effect at the time of such merger or acquisition. For purposes of this Section 4.2 , all references to the Company shall be deemed to include Parent and each of its other subsidiaries to the extent that Executive has provided services to Parent or any such subsidiary, as applicable.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice required to be delivered to the Company under this Agreement shall be in writing and addressed to the Committee, care of the Company, at the Company’s principal corporate offices. Any notice required to be delivered to the Grantee under this Agreement shall be in writing and addressed to the Grantee at the Grantee’s address as shown in the records of the Company. Either party may designate another address in writing (or by such other method approved by the Committee) from time to time.

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: Hinderaker’s name. Plaintiffs also assert that Purdy is in contempt because statements falsely attributed to Hinderaker appeared on a dis cussion board on a web site controlled by-Purdy. These statements created the impression that Hinderaker supports Purdy’s actions. Purdy asserts that he does not know who posts messages on his message boards and that Plaintiffs cannot prove who posted the Hinderaker comment. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that Purdy posted the Hinderaker statements on his bulletin board. Under the Communications Decency Act, “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information con 4, 31 P.3d 37, 41 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Pur-dy is immune from defamation or Options: A. holding that amazoncom was immune from liability for negative comments posted on its web site because as an interactive web site operator it was a provider of interactive computer services and although it could edit postings it was not an information content provider B. holding that it may not C. holding site of accident without more was not a suspicious place D. holding that it is not E. holding plaintiffs public nuisance claim was barred by the economic loss rule because it wasnt actually a landowner of the site and thus there was no allegation of harm to any property

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that amazoncom was immune from liability for negative comments posted on its web site because as an interactive web site operator it was a provider of interactive computer services and although it could edit postings it was not an information content provider
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: P. 44, 47, 48(a), that the State had failed to argue accomplice liability and arguing that D.B. had not been given an opportunity to present a defense to this alternate theory. Although a post-judgment motion on an issue is not necessary if D.B. had otherwise raised the issue, a timely postjudgment motion may in some instances be used to preserve an issue not previously raised if the court considers and rules on the issues raised in a postjudgment motion. Cf. Normandeau v. Hanson Equip., Inc., 2009 UT 44, ¶ 23, 215 P.3d 152 (" [OJnee trial counsel has raised an issue before the trial court, and the trial court has considered the issue, the issue is preserved for appeal. " (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Belgard, 830 P.2d 264, 265-66 (Utah 1992) (<HOLDING>). 111 D.B.'s failure to object either at trial, Options: A. holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal B. holding issues not raised to and ruled upon by the trial court are not preserved for appellate review C. holding issues not raised before the district court are not preserved for appeal D. holding that issues raised and dealt with in posttrial evidentiary hearings are preserved for appeal E. holding that issues not raised before a district court are waived on appeal

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that issues raised and dealt with in posttrial evidentiary hearings are preserved for 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you agree that given the unique and irreplaceable nature of the rights granted and obligations made under these terms and the community rules , if you breach these terms , feature terms , community rules and/or our privacy policy , or intend to breach these terms , feature terms , community rules or privacy policy , money damages alone will not be enough to repair the harm to zynga .

assistant: None