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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Following a Change in Control, if Executive’s employment is terminated (i) voluntarily by Executive without Good Reason, (ii) involuntarily by the Company for Cause or (iii) due to death, Executive shall be entitled to Base Salary and benefits accrued through the date of termination and Executive’s entitlement to all other benefits shall be determined in accordance with the Company’s retirement, insurance and other applicable plans, policies, practices and arrangements. Thereafter, the Company shall have no further obligations to Executive hereunder.

assistant: Death
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: have a legitimate claim of entitlement which invokes procedural due process); Wright v. Califano, 587 F.2d 345, 354 (7th Cir.1978) (“[Benefit] denials do not necessarily deserve less due process than terminations.”); Daniels v. Woodbury Cnty., Iowa, 742 F.2d 1128, 1132 (8th Cir.1984) (refusing to distinguish between applicants and recipients when analyzing the due process requirements for determining eligibility for Iowa welfare benefits); Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1203 (9th Cir.1990) (“An applicant for social security benefits has a property interest in those benefits.”); Ressler v. Pierce, 692 F.2d 1212, 1214 (9th Cir.1982) (affirming that applicants for federal rent subsidies are entitled to due process protection); Griffeth v. Detrich, 603 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>); see also Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334, Options: A. holding that whether children are legitimate for purposes of entitlement to insurance benefits is determined by state law B. holding that applicants for welfare benefits had a property interest or legitimate claim of entitlement and were entitled to due process to protect that interest C. holding that entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution D. holding that sovereign immunity does not protect the state from claims for statutory employment benefits that constitute a protected property interest E. holding that the federal due process clause protects a state employee who under state law has a legitimate claim of entitlement to state employment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that applicants for welfare benefits had a property interest or legitimate claim of entitlement and were entitled to due process to protect that interest
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: or motion has been made in the trial division.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1446(d)(1) (2005). The State also argues that, because defendant’s counsel encouraged the trial court to submit the offense of sexual battery to the jury as a lesser included offense of first degree rape, it would be unfair to allow defendant to now take advantage of the error which he encouraged the trial court to make. Our Supreme Court has adopted the doctrine of invited error, holding that an appellant may not assign error “to the granting of [his] own requests” at trial. State v. Wilkinson, 344 N.C. 198, 213, 474 S.E.2d 375, 383 (1996). North Carolina courts have “consistently denied appellate review” to defendants who do so. Id.; see also State v. Patterson, 332 N.C. 409, 415, 420 S.E.2d 98, 101 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Further, our Supreme Court has held that “a Options: A. holding that an appellant is not permitted to rely on invited error on appeal B. holding that defendant may not complain of error he invited and further holding that reversal cannot be based on such error C. holding a party may not invite error and then be heard to complain of that error on appeal D. holding that a party may not invite error and then be heard to complain of that error on appeal 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 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
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: Sporio v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Songer Constr.), 553 Pa. 44, 717 A.2d 525, 528 (1998). Prior to the Act’s passage, “[i]t was well accepted in Pennsylvania that a common law cause of action could be asserted for negligence of the employer for injuries to an employee resulting from failure to properly maintain the work place.” Greer, 380 A.2d at 1222. “The rule was true before compensation could be had for diseases, and was true as to diseases not covered by the Act after its adoption.” Id. (citations omitted). Despite the WCA’s scope, the common law duty to provide a safe work environment remains, and, in certain circumstances, an employer can face a common law claim for negligence if that duty is breached. See Lord Corp. v. Pollard, 548 Pa. 124, 695 A.2d 767, 769 (1997) (<HOLDING>); see also Boniecke v. McGraw-Edison Co., 485 Options: A. holding that decedent employees common law negligence claim against employer was not barred when disease was not compensable under the wca or the occupational disease act B. holding that clause excluding coverage for temporomandibular joint syndrome without a definition for that disease was not plain and clear C. holding employees negligence claim against his employer was preempted by the lmra D. holding that time was not compensable where the employer provided but did not require use of a shuttle E. holding that an employee could not recover damages and medical monitoring costs under the federal employers liability act unless or until he manifested symptoms of a disease

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that decedent employees common law negligence claim against employer was not barred when disease was not compensable under the wca or the occupational disease act
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: Keep its insurable properties adequately insured at all times by financially sound and reputable insurers; maintain such other insurance, to such extent and against such risks, including fire and other risks insured against by extended coverage, as is customary with companies in the same or similar businesses operating in the same or similar locations, including public liability insurance against claims for personal injury or death or property damage occurring upon, in, about or in connection with the use of any properties owned, occupied or controlled by it; and maintain such other insurance as may be required by law.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: (1941) (internal citations omitted). “The parties agree that the plaintiffs are citizens of North Carolina and defendants Whitehead and Aden are citizens of Virginia. The parties also agree that TRI was incorporated in Virginia and TRINC was incorporated in North Carolina.” (Appellant’s Br. at 11-12.) For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(c)(1). The district court held that TRINC’s North Carolina citizenship did not destroy complete diversity because TRINC was a “sham” defendant under the doctrine of fraudulent joinder. See Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97, 42 S.Ct. 35, 66 L.Ed. 144 (1921) (<HOLDING>). As Hugger and Settle “acknowledge that there Options: A. holding that the right of removal cannot be defeated by a fraudulent joinder of a resident defendant having no real connection with the controversy B. holding the connection is an element C. holding that the basis for joinder of crimes must be alleged in the charging instrument by alleging the basis for joinder in the language of the joinder statute or by alleging facts sufficient to establish compliance with the joinder statute D. holding that trespass requires only proof of interference with right of possession of real property E. holding that forfeiture of real property may be adjudicated before the seizure occurs because real property cannot abscond

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the right of removal cannot be defeated by a fraudulent joinder of a resident defendant having no real connection with the controversy
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: Assignee hereby (a) assumes and takes responsibility for all damages, losses, costs, claims, liabilities, expenses, demands, and obligations of any kind or nature whatsoever attributable to the Contracts and the Licenses and Permits first arising, related to, and accruing from and after the date hereof, and (b) agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Assignor and the other Seller Parties (as such term is defined in the Sale Agreement) from all damages, losses, costs (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs), claims, liabilities, expenses, demands, and obligations of any kind or nature whatsoever attributable to the Contracts and the Licenses and Permits first arising, related to, and accruing on or after the date hereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (i) If the Executive’s employment is terminated (1) by the Company without Cause, (2) by the Executive for Good Reason, or (3) at the end of the Employment Period following non-renewal under Paragraph 2, in each case within 24 months after a Change in Control, the Company shall pay or provide the Executive with the payments and benefits set forth in Paragraphs 5(b)(i)-(iii), and such payments and benefits shall be paid or provided at the time and in the manner therein provided, except that each number or period under Paragraphs 5(b)(i)-(iii) shall be extended to 18 months. If the Executive’s employment is terminated (x) by the Company without Cause, (y) by the Executive for Good Reason, or (z) at the end of the Employment Period following non-renewal under Paragraph 2, in each case within six months before a Change in Control, the Executive shall be entitled to receive the same payments and benefits as she would have received in accordance with the immediately preceding sentence had her employment with the Company terminated immediately following the occurrence of the Change in Control. To the extent that any cash amounts which the Executive is entitled to receive pursuant to such preceding sentence exceeds the amounts, if any, that were paid to the Executive under Paragraph 5(b) upon her termination of employment prior to the Change in Control, the excess amounts shall be paid to the Executive in a single cash lump sum (x) within 10 days after the date of the Change in Control or (y), in the case of any cash payment that may become payable to the Executive after that date pursuant to Paragraph 5(b)(ii) above, at the time specified therein for such payment to be made. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any payments or benefits accruing to the Executive solely as a result of a Change in Control or similarly defined event under any plan or arrangement of the Company in which the Executive participates shall accrue and be provided to the Executive in accordance with such plan or arrangement as in effect at the time of such event to the extent that such payment or benefit is more favorable to the Executive than the same or similar provision provided for herein. Anything in paragraph 5(b) to the contrary notwithstanding, in the event of any Change in Control applicable to a termination of employment as provided in this paragraph 5(f), no amount or benefit payable under paragraph 5(b) shall be pro-rated on account of a Termination Date occurring prior to the first anniversary of the Effective Date.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York without regard to the conflict of laws principles thereof. The parties hereby irrevocably consent to the personal jurisdiction of the Federal and State courts located in New York, and waive any defense based upon improper venue, inconvenient venue or lack of personal jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The regularly kept records of the Plan Administrator, the Company and the other Employers shall be conclusive evidence of the Service of a Participant, his or her Compensation, his or her age, marital status, status as an Eligible Employee, and all other matters contained in such records applicable to this Plan.

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: judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; and (5) the shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental social policies. In re S.A.V., 837 S.W.2d at 86. 9 . In opposing PVF’s special appearance, Pro Metals submitted affidavits showing that: (1) PVF placed thirty separate purchase .orders with Pro Metals; (2) many of the pipe and pipe fitting components were manufactured in Texas; (3) the goods were purchased from Pro Metals’s Texas inventory; (4) PVF was responsible for the payment of freight because the goods were shipped "F.O.B. Houston;” (5) payment of goods was to be made to Pro Metals’s office in Texas; and (6) PVF initiated contact with Pro Metals by requesting 6 S.W.2d 135, 143 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>); with Southwest Offset Inc. v. Hudco Publ’g Options: A. holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law not arizona law should be applied B. holding that texas lacked jurisdiction over a tennessee general contractor which orally solicited and contracted with a texas electrical contractor to perform electrical work in colorado and which directed payments telephone calls and correspondence to texas C. holding that jurisdiction existed over two georgia residents who leased a machine from a texas resident because they 1 solicited and negotiated the lease agreement by two telephone calls to texas 2 sent correspondence and payments by mail to texas 3 paid for the transfer of the machine from texas and 4 caused their insurance agent to contact the texas resident in texas to arrange coverage for the machine D. holding no jurisdiction over nonresident customer where contract was solicited negotiated and consummated in oklahoma for billboards to be built in texas and erected in oklahoma payments were made to texas and defendant would not earn a profit from texas and had no other contact with texas E. holding that jurisdiction existed over nonresident printing customer despite the fact that texas printer solicited the business in alabama and nonresident sent no personnel to texas because nonresident placed additional orders from which it expected to profit sent payments to texas sent and received printing materials to and from texas paid for shipping of printed goods from texas and sent payments to texas the transactions were governed by texas law and substantial part of performance occurred in texas

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that texas lacked jurisdiction over a tennessee general contractor which orally solicited and contracted with a texas electrical contractor to perform electrical work in colorado and which directed payments telephone calls and correspondence to texas
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 withdrawal statute did not require direct employment. Id. at 813. The circuit court then stated: “The word ‘employer’ describes one who [is] a signatory employer with respect to the [pension] plan.” Id. (emphasis added). Because the employer’s subcontractors continued to perform work covered by the collective bargaining agreement the employer had signed, it was subject to withdrawal liability. Id. This review of the relevant case law reveals one fact common to all of the parties held subject to withdrawal liability: they were contractually bound to make pension contributions, either in collective bargaining agreements, general cargo agreements, or shipping association agreements. Cf. also Laborers Local 938 v. B.R. Starnes Co., 827 F.2d 1454, 1456-57 (11th Cir.1987) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). In this case, it is undisputed that SPAD did Options: A. holding that under the flsas liberal definition of employer the state welfare agencies are the employers of ihss providers B. holding because legislature knew how to include terms within statutory definition and did not do so statutory definition did not include terms in light of the terms contemporaneous inclusion of the same terms in a separate provision C. holding that erisas definition of participant does not include a former employee who became an employer and was allowed to continue purchasing plan coverage D. holding that only employers not individuals acting in their individual capacity who do not otherwise meet the definition of employers can be held liable under title vii E. holding that erisas definition of employer does not include persons other than signatory employers

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that erisas definition of employer does not include persons other than signatory employers
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: period, claimed serious physical injuries to neck, arms, and shoulders). With no additional alleg L 3822220, at *14-15 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2012) (granting summary judgment on tight handcuffing claim where plaintiff experienced 24 hours of swelling and went to hospital but no treatment was provided for wrists); Wang, 2012 WL 119591, at *7 (granting summary judgment where plaintiff was “shrieking in pain” from tight handcuffs but plaintiff, sought no medical attention and there was no evidence that the handcuffing caused actual physical injury); Abdul-Rahman, 2012 WL 1077762, at *7-8 (granting motion for judgment on the pleadings where only alleged injury was numbness and marks on wrists); Bender v. City of New York, No. 09-CV-3286 (BSJ), 2011 WL 4344203, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2011) (<HOLDING>); Richardson v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps., Corp., Options: A. holding that a plan administrators decision to deny benefits was arbitrary and capricious even though an attending physician had submitted a form stating the plaintiff could sit for six hours stand for two hours and walk for two hours B. holding that extremely tight handcuffing for nearly fourteen hours that left indentations in plaintiffs arms for over six hours did not amount to excessive force C. holding that detention for three hours in a checkpoint station required probable cause D. holding that to state a claim for wage violations under the flsa plaintiffs must provide at least some approximation of the overtime hours that defendants required them to work and a time frame for when those hours were worked E. holding that seven hours was a reasonable amount of time to deliberate meaningfully about the choice

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that extremely tight handcuffing for nearly fourteen hours that left indentations in plaintiffs arms for over six hours did not amount to excessive force
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: summary judgment dismissing the Claims based on judicial estoppel. Accordingly, we reverse, sever, and remand that portion of the trial court’s judgment that dismisses Horizon’s claims for breach of contract, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation. 1 . The cases Horizon cites are not on point. See Duzich v. Marine Office of Am. Corp., 980 S.W.2d 857, 865 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998, pet. denied) (stating that insurer denied that broker was its agent but provided no evidence in support of this assertion, that insurance brokers are generally considered agents of the insured, and that fact issues existed as to whether insurer was estopped from denying that broker was its agent); Robles v. Consol. Graphics, Inc., 965 S.W.2d 552, 557 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc. v. Great Sw. Options: A. holding that liability to the insured for acts or contracts of an insurance agent within the scope of his agency with a full disclosure of the principal rests on the company B. holding that party was an agent under the plain terms of his contracts C. holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes D. holding that under illinois law silence can constitute acceptance under the terms of the restatement of contracts E. holding that the court was not bound by the parties agreement that contracts were unambiguous and holding that contracts were ambiguous

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that party was an agent under the plain terms of his contracts
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth on Schedule 3.6 as of the Closing Date, and except as hereafter disclosed to Lender in writing (including disclosures pursuant to Section 4.9 or otherwise, it being understood that any such disclosures shall not act as a consent or waiver of any Default or Event of Default arising under Section 4.9, Section 10.1(h) or any other provision of this Agreement), there is no Litigation pending against, or to such Credit Party’s knowledge threatened against or affecting, any Credit Party or, to such Credit Party’s knowledge, any party to any Operative Document other than a Credit Party. Other than as disclosed on Schedule 3.6, there is no Litigation pending in which an adverse decision could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect or which in any manner draws into question the validity of any of the Operative Documents.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to any choice of law or conflict of law rules or provisions (whether of the State of Delaware or any other jurisdiction) that would cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than the State of Delaware.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: liberty; it has a far greater bearing on future administrative or judicial decisions than denial of early eligibility, especially since the latter denial may reflect a judgment on the seriousness of the underlying crime rather than about rehabilitative progress or suitability for parole.” Id. at 704. See Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 Mass. App. Ct. 612, 615 (1987); Commonwealth v. Smith, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 324, 325 n.l (1995) (where we noted that, as of the date of appeal, “the defendant had completed all but one month of the sentence. A decision now cannot affect this sentence, but we do not know that its result may not affect the commencement date of later from-and-after sentences”). Compare Commonwealth v. Christian, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 477, 479-480 (1999), S.C., 429 Mass. 1022 (1999) (<HOLDING>). Contrast Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, Options: A. recognizing application of the doctrines may involve a fact question for the jury but not finding such a question in the case before it B. recognizing the general rule that a rule 12f motion is decided on the pleadings but treating the motion as for summary judgment because the record had been developed by the parties as undisputed facts C. holding that the appellant developed his argument sufficiently to raise the issue for appellate review D. holding that where a witness had been convicted seventeen years earlier but had been given probation and had not been confined the date of the conviction controlled E. recognizing in a probation revocation case that a revocation in a persons record may have future administrative or judicial consequences but deciding to pretermit a mootness question on the grounds that it had not been developed in the argument and the defendant had diligently pursued his claims

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing in a probation revocation case that a revocation in a persons record may have future administrative or judicial consequences but deciding to pretermit a mootness question on the grounds that it had not been developed in the argument and the defendant had diligently pursued his claims
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument, and any party hereto may execute this Agreement by signing any such counterpart. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Agreement by telecopy, emailed pdf. or any other electronic means that reproduces an image of the actual executed signature page shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Agreement. The words “execution,” “signed,” “signature,” “delivery,” and words of like import in or relating to any document to be signed in connection with this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby shall be deemed to include Electronic Signatures, deliveries or the keeping of records in electronic form, each of which shall be of the same legal effect, validity or enforceability as a manually executed signature, physical delivery thereof or the use of a paper-based recordkeeping system, as the case may be, to the extent and as provided for in any applicable law, including the Federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, the New York State Electronic Signatures and Records Act, or any other similar state laws based on the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Comply with all Applicable Laws, including ERISA, Environmental Laws, FLSA, OSHA and laws regarding collection and payment of Taxes, and maintain all Governmental Approvals necessary to the ownership of its Properties or conduct of its business, in each case, unless failure to comply or maintain could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, if any Environmental Release occurs at or on any Properties of any Obligor or Subsidiary that could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, it shall act promptly and diligently to investigate and report to Lender and all appropriate Governmental Authorities the extent of, and to make appropriate remedial action to eliminate, such Environmental Release, whether or not directed to do so by any Governmental Authority. The Obligors and their Subsidiaries shall comply in all material respects with all applicable consent decrees issued by any Governmental Authority.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the Erne. We found that even with access to these informants, the government had been able to meet the necessity requirement: [T]he Mexican Mafia is a broad-based organization with several hundred members and an unknown number of associates. Several informants — including former members of the Mexican Mafia ... — could not possibly reveal the full nature and extent of the enterprise and its countless, and at times disjointed, criminal tentacles. Id. (citations omitted). Our holding in Shryock is controlling here and defeats Appellants’ arguments regarding the informants. See also Canales Gomez, 358 F.3d at 1226 (“The government need not show that informants would be useless in order to secure a court-authorized wiretap.”); United States v. McGuire, 307 F.3d 1192, 1197 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Appellants also argue that the fact that the Options: A. holding that the government had established necessity for wiretaps despite its use of three cooperating witnesses because those witnesses were able to give agents only limited information not including the names of all members of the conspiracy B. holding that criminal defendants are entitled to obtain for impeachment purposes statements made by government witnesses to government agents that relate to the subject matter of the witnesses direct testimony C. holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial D. holding that where movant alleged the names of uncalled witnesses and them anticipated testimony which would have been relevant mitigation evidence in the penalty phase but did not allege that trial counsel knew of the witnesses or that the witnesses were available to testify at trial the movant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction relief motion because he did not allege facts sufficient to satisfy the standard applicable to his claim E. holding that the prosecutor is not required to provide the defense with the names of rebuttal witnesses because until the defense case has been presented the state cannot know of witnesses needed for rebuttal

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the government had established necessity for wiretaps despite its use of three cooperating witnesses because those witnesses were able to give agents only limited information not including the names of all members of the conspiracy
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 term or condition of this Agreement and Release shall be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect by a court of competent jurisdiction, this Agreement and Release shall be construed without such term or condition. If at the time of enforcement of any provision of this Agreement, a court shall hold that the duration, scope or area restriction of any provision hereof is unreasonable under circumstances now or then existing, the parties hereto agree that the maximum duration, scope or area reasonable under the circumstances shall be substituted by the court for the stated duration, scope or area.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to the limitations contained herein and Section 2.1(b) , the Option will vest and become exercisable according to the following Vesting Schedule (the “ Vesting Schedule ”): the total number of Shares subject to the Option shall vest in [ twenty-five percent (25%) ] increments (rounded down to the next whole number of Shares) on each of the [ first, second, third and fourth ] anniversaries of the Grant Date.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: court has refused to find a ‘genuine issue’ where the only evidence presented is ‘uncorroborated and self-serving’ testimony”) (citations omitted). In contrast, Defendants have submitted incident reports that all consistently state that Plaintiff was resisting. In addition, the facts show that Defendant Diaz sprayed Plaintiff with one shot of O.C. spray to subdue Plaintiff when he was biting C/O Bernal. (See Cobb Decl. Ex. E by Diaz at 18; See Pl.’s Compl. at 7.) The Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit has held that in a prison, tear gas may legitimately be used in small quantities to prevent small disturbances from becoming dangerous to other inmates or personnel. See Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 195 (9th Cir.1979); see also Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 903-04 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Although Plaintiff does not discuss whether Options: A. holding that a prison official can violate a prisoners eighth amendment rights by failing to intervene B. holding that bystander prisoners who were exposed to pepper spray when prison officials dispensed spray across their pod area to break up a fight were not subjected to excessive force C. holding that the use of pepper spray on nonviolent protestors was excessive force D. holding that otherwise acceptable use of pepper spray became excessive when arrestee was offering no further active resistance E. holding that two bursts of pepper spray to stop fighting in a cell was not considered excessive force and did not violate prisoners eighth amendment rights

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that two bursts of pepper spray to stop fighting in a cell was not considered excessive force and did not violate prisoners eighth amendment rights
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 given hereunder shall be sufficient if in writing, and sent by email, by reliable overnight delivery service (with proof of service), hand delivery or certified or registered mail (return receipt requested and first-class postage prepaid), addressed as follows: (a) if to Parent or Merger Sub, in accordance with the provisions of the Merger Agreement, and (b) if to Stockholder, to Stockholder’s address or email address set forth on a signature page hereto, or to such other address as any party shall specify by written notice so given. Any party to this Agreement may notify any other party of any changes to the address or any of the other details specified in this paragraph; provided, however, that such notification shall only be effective on the date specified in such notice or five (5) Business Days after the notice is given, whichever is later.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Grantor shall, (i) in addition to executing and delivering this Agreement, take such other action as the Administrative Agent may reasonably request, to perfect the Administrative Agent’s security interest in the Intellectual Property; (ii) promptly after requested by the Administrative Agent, or quarterly with respect to registered Intellectual Property that has been created or acquired by any Grantor after the date hereof which is registered or becomes registered or the subject of an application for registration with the U.S. Copyright Office or the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as applicable, provide a supplement to Schedule 6 to include any Intellectual Property which becomes part of the Collateral and which was not included on Schedule 6 as of the date hereof as supplemented hereunder and, if requested by the Administrative Agent, record an amendment to this Agreement or enter into and record an Intellectual Property Security Agreement (or an amendment to an Intellectual Property Security Agreement) with the U.S. Copyright Office or the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as applicable, and take such other action as may be necessary, or as the Administrative Agent or the Required Lenders may reasonably request, to perfect the Administrative Agent’s security interest in such Intellectual Property.

assistant: Intellectual Property
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: Grantor has full right, power and authority to enter into this Security Agreement and to perform all of its duties and obligations under this Security Agreement. The execution and delivery of this Security Agreement and the other Loan Documents to which Grantor is a party will not, nor will the observance or performance of any of the matters and things herein or therein set forth, violate or contravene any provision of law or of the articles of incorporation or by-lawsof Grantor. All necessary and appropriate action has been taken on the part of Grantor to authorize the execution and delivery of this Security Agreement.

assistant: Authorizations
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 subfreights prevented, as a matter of law, INB from validly receiving the subfreight fund, and that therefore the transfer of funds from POSCO could not have extinguished Cornish’s lien because it did not constitute legal payment of the subfreights to the charterer or its agent. Under our holding above, Cornish’s lien did not attach to the specific funds transferred by POSCO to INB; at the same time, this transfer was ineffective to extinguish Cornish's lien on POSCO's debt for subfreights. We note, in addition, that plaintiffs' argument incorrectly assumes that a Rule C arrest warrant is effective against property that comes into the possession of a garnishee after service of the warrant. See Reibor International Ltd. v. Cargo Carriers (KACZ-CO.) Ltd., 759 F.2d 262 (2d Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); see also Union Planters National Bank v. Options: A. holding that exclusionary rule does not extend to proceedings other than criminal trials B. holding that an insurers obligation to defend an insured was a property interest subject to prejudgment attachment C. holding that the attachment statute which did not expressly reach property beyond territorial limits of state would not be construed to apply to property outside state D. holding that rule b attachment does not extend to afteracquired property E. holding that the waiver of immunity from other liability did not explicitly waive immunity from prejudgment attachment but supporting the attachment on other grounds

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that rule b attachment does not extend to afteracquired property
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: on this issue, but the several courts around the country that have addressed the issue have held that persons in a same-sex relationship qualified for domestic violence protection under various state statutes. See Glater v. Fabianich, 252 Ill.App.3d 372, 192 Ill.Dec. 136, 625 N.E.2d 96 (1993) (affirming domestic violence injunction in homosexual relationship based on statute defining family or household member in part as those who share or formerly shared common dwelling); Ireland v. Davis, 957 S.W.2d 310 (Ky.Ct.App.1997) (2-1 decision) (reinstating domestic violence proceedings in homosexual relationship based on statute defining members of unmarried couple as those who are living together or have formerly lived together); State v. Hadinger, 61 Ohio App.3d 820, 573 N.E.2d 1191 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Affirmed. STRINGER and SILBERMAN, JJ., Options: A. holding as relevant in a murder case a history of domestic violence involving defendant and his victim B. holding that theft from the person is not a crime of violence C. holding that previous domestic violence finding did not have res judicata effect in proceeding to modify visitation because domestic violence and visitation modification proceedings are different causes of action D. holding that domestic violence statute applied to partners in samesex relationship based on statutes definition of person living as spouse to include person who is otherwise cohabiting with offender rejecting trial courts imposition of requirement that such persons must have the ability to marry before domestic violence statute applied E. holding south carolina crime of criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature was categorically a crime of violence under ussg 4b121 because its lesserincluded offense criminal domestic violence fell entirely within 4b12ls force clause

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that domestic violence statute applied to partners in samesex relationship based on statutes definition of person living as spouse to include person who is otherwise cohabiting with offender rejecting trial courts imposition of requirement that such persons must have the ability to marry before domestic violence statute applied
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: he did not violate DR 7-110(B). First, the accused, like everyone else, is presumed to know the law. See In re Devers, 328 Or 230, 241, 974 P2d 191 (1999) (so stating). Moreover, as we have explained, the purpose of DR 7-110(B) is to prevent the appearance or the effect of granting an undue advantage to one party. Smith, 295 Or at 759. The appearance or effect of undue advantage occurs regardless of the mental state of a lawyer who fails to comply with the requirements of the rule. Although, as we explain later in this opinion, an accused’s mental state is relevant in assessing the appropriate sanction for a violation of that rule, a mistaken belief that the lawyer was not required to provide notice or service is not a defense to a charge under DR 7-110(B). SeeEadie, 333 Or at 59 (<HOLDING>). In this proceeding, the accused’s only Options: A. holding misplaced reliance on statute to excuse service not defense to violation of dr 7110b B. holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense C. holding in the context of a non 212c iirira retroactivity challenge that if reliance were required we would insist at most upon objectively reasonable reliance and not subjective reliance D. holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service E. holding that each class member was not required to prove justifiable reliance when an inference of reliance arises if a materially false representation was made to persons whose acts thereafter were consistent with reliance upon the representations

assistant: The best answer is A. holding misplaced reliance on statute to excuse service not defense to violation of dr 7110b
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.2d at 1085 (statement by officer that he would not play interrogation tapes for victim’s mother did not constitute a promise). The trial court found, and we agree, that the officers assured Doody that his statements would not be disclosed to the other suspects because the officers believed Doody’s fear of reprisal affected his willingness to talk. The detectives did not imply that the state would not prosecute Doody if he revealed the information or that the state would not use his statements against him in a subsequent prosecution. See State v. Burr, 126 Ariz. 338, 340, 615 P.2d 635, 637 (1980). Second, Doody fails to establish that he relied on the statements in confessing. See Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. at 165, 800 P.2d at 1273; see also Utah v. Strain, 779 P.2d 221, 227 (Utah 1989) (<HOLDING>). For those reasons, we conclude that the trial Options: A. recognizing that under totality of circumstances test a threat or promise does not render confession inadmissible absent reliance B. holding that agents promise to inform prosecutor of defendants cooperation does not render a subsequent confession involuntary C. holding reasonable suspicion is based on totality of circumstances D. holding that admissibility of a confession is governed by determining from the totality of the circumstances whether or not it was made voluntarily E. holding that the district courts finding that an allegedly coercive threat did not specifically motivate the defendants confession where 1 there was no evidence that the threat was repeated at the police station 2 defendant offered no admissible evidence that the threat was the crucial factor motivating his confession and 3 he confessed immediately after the officer threatened to administer a gun residue test as opposed to confessing immediately after the allegedly coercive threat was made thus the gunresidue test was just as plausible a motivating factor for the confession as was the threat

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that under totality of circumstances test a threat or promise does not render confession inadmissible absent reliance