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: judgment on the property interest claim. To the extent the defendants seek dismissal of the liberty interest claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the motion will be denied. 3.Interrogations Stultz also claims that Holcomb, Connaughton, Esposito, Thorpe, Hill, Penny, and Howard denied him due process by interrogating him on three separate occasions without advising him that he was under investigation or being considered for disciplinary action. Upon review of the amended complaint, the court concludes that Stultz has not sufficiently alleged that the interrogations deprived him of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest. See Wootten v. Commonwealth, No. 6:14-CV-00013, 2016 WL 1345276, at *14 n. 8, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35949, at *43 n. 8 (W.D.Va. Mar. 23, 2015) (Moon, J.) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the court will dismiss this Options: A. holding that defendants mere allegations of ineffective assistance were insufficient to prevail on such a claim B. holding that similar allegations were insufficient to state a due process claim C. holding that evidence of other allegations of torture was inadmissible in part because it was not similar to the allegations made by defendant D. holding insufficient the plaintiffs generic allegations E. holding that in similar factual situation no due process violation occurred

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that similar allegations were insufficient to state a due process claim
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Wahl’s testimony, the PDJ had “proper grounds” to reconsider his earlier finding that the IME was unreliable. Broyles, 695 P.2d at 1144. In the end, however, Dr. Wahl’s expert report was not the principal grounds for the PDJ’s decision to transfer Bass to disability inactive status. For the reasons explained below, we believe that the PDJ’s order can be affirmed solely on the basis of his “adverse finding” entered against Bass because of her repeated failure to comply with the second IME process. C. When ordering the second IME, the PDJ made clear to Bass that her refusal to cooperate with Drs. Miller and Post would result in an adverse inference of disability. The PDJ was well within his discretion when he imposed this sanction. See People v. Milton, 732 P.2d 1199, 1207 (Colo.1987) (<HOLDING>); KN Energy, Inc. v. Great W. Sugar Co., 698 Options: A. holding that the imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion B. holding under third circuit law that denial of rule 11 sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion C. holding that denial of discovery in habeas proceedings is reviewed for abuse of discretion D. holding that the dismissal of a frivolous action reviewed for abuse of discretion E. holding that denial of joinder motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: United States v. Wetmore, 766 F.Supp.2d 319, 321-22 (D.Mass.2011); United States v. Blake, 2010 WL 702958, 2, 6, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23014, 4-5, 16 (E.D.Cal. February 24) (not designated for publication) (characterizing allegations that provided probable cause for a search warrant as "grooming”); United States v. Hansel, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54725, 2 (N.D.Iowa August 4) (not designated for publication); United States v. Gleich, 2005 WL 741921, 1-2, 3-4, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5149, 4-6, 9-10 (D.N.D. March 30) (not designated for publication). 59 . State v. Sorabella, 277 Conn. 155, 213-14, 891 A.2d 897, 932-33 (2006) (rejecting complaints about Kenneth Lanning’s testimony); Haycraft v. State, 760 N.E.2d 203, 210-11 (Ind.App. 1st Dist.2001), transfer denied, 774 N.E.2d 514 (Ind.2002) (<HOLDING>); People v. Petri, 279 Mich.App. 407, 415-16, Options: A. recognizing that a common illustration of an admissible opinion under rule 701 is an expression of opinion by a lay observer of a cars speed B. holding that witness grand jury testimony was admissible when defendant waived his constitutional right of confrontation by making witness unavailable by threats to his life C. holding that testimony regarding witness credibility is prohibited unless it is admissible as character evidence D. holding the testimony admissible as that of a skilled witness under indianas r 701 E. holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness

assistant: The best answer is D. holding the testimony admissible as that of a skilled witness under indianas r 701
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: capacity to store, produce, or call randomly or sequentially generated telephone numbers.” 995 F.Supp.2d at 1193, 2014 WL 494862 at *2 (emphasis in original). In further denying the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, the Gragg court specifically rejected this Court’s February 3, 2014 Order, finding that “[tjhere is no indication that the Ninth Circuit would deem a system that has to be reprogrammed or have new software installed in order to perform the functions of an ATDS to be an ATDS.” Gragg v. Orange Cab Co., Inc., No. C12-0576RSL, 2014 WL 801305 at *2 (W.D.Wash. Feb. 28, 2014). As Yahoo! has argued, two other district courts applying Ninth Circuit law have found similarly. See Hunt v. 21st Mortg. Corp., No. 2:12-CV-2697-WMA, 2013 WL 5230061 at *4 (N.D.Ala. Sept.17, 2013) (<HOLDING>); Dominguez v. Yahoo! Inc., — F.Supp.3d —, 2014 Options: A. holding that defense counsel may call attention to the states failure to produce evidence B. holding that called party in 227b1 means the person subscribing to the called number at the time the call is made and not the intended recipient of the call C. holding that to meet the tcpa definition of an atds a system must have a present capacity at the time the calls were being made to store or produce and call numbers from a number generator D. holding statements on 911 tape admissible as present sense impression where call was made almost immediately after the defendant left the store after a shooting incident E. holding the evidence sufficient to permit the jury to infer the victim escaped from the defendant at a convenience store as opposed to being released in a safe place

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that to meet the tcpa definition of an atds a system must have a present capacity at the time the calls were being made to store or produce and call numbers from a number generator
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: center’s investigation and disciplinary decisions involved the type of legislative or executive policy decisions that we believe must be protected by discretionary immunity. The center’s decisions did not simply require the application of professional judgment to a given set of facts, but were necessarily entwined in a layer of policy-making that exceeded the mere application of rules to facts. Appellants argue that respondents are not immune from liability for the center’s failure to convey certain information to the Department of Human Services to assist in the department’s investigation of appellants’ allegations against Gary Grimm because this failure to convey information was a ministerial, rather than a discretionary, act. See S.L.D. v. Kranz, 498 N.W.2d 47, 55 (Minn.App.1993) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the circumstances here, Options: A. holding the record does not show that the statement to the social worker was for medical treatment because the social worker testified that he questioned the child to determine whether he needed to notify child protective services of a case of suspected child abuse B. holding trial court was proper in admitting a doctors testimony that a delay between the occurrence of an incident of child sexual abuse and the childs revelation of the incident was the usual pattern of conduct for victims of child sexual abuse C. holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse D. holding that county was not immune from liability for continued sexual abuse of child resulting from social workers failure to convey information to supervisor about report of child abuse stating that failure to communicate did not involve planning decisions or the balancing of policy objectives E. holding a social worker treating the child was permitted to testify to statements the child made about the abuse including the victims identification of the perpetrator because the statements were necessary to the treatment of ensuring the continued safety of the child

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that county was not immune from liability for continued sexual abuse of child resulting from social workers failure to convey information to supervisor about report of child abuse stating that failure to communicate did not involve planning decisions or the balancing of policy objectives
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 by Secured Party of any default shall operate as a waiver of any other Event of Default or of the same Event of Default on a future occasion. The taking of this Security Agreement will not waive or impair any other security Secured Party may have or hereafter acquire for the Obligations, nor will the taking of any additional security waive or impair the rights granted in this Security Agreement. Secured Party may resort to any security it may have in any order it deems proper, and may apply any payments made on any part of the Obligations to any part of the Obligations, despite any directions of Debtor to the contrary.

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: version of the peculiar risk doctrine, that is, under either section 413 or section 416. Privette, 5 Cal.4th 689, 21 Cal. Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721 (1993); see also Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc., 18 Cal.4th 253, 264 n. 2, 74 Cal. Rptr.2d 878, 955 P.2d 504 (1998); Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy, 25 Cal.4th 1235, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 617, 25 P.3d 1096 (2001) (applying the peculiar risk analysis of Privette to section 410, negligent hiring, and holding hirer not liable for the negligent performance of a hired contractor for injuries to the contractor’s employees). When considering a hirer’s liability under the peculiar risk provisions, the courts consistently distinguished the issue before them from the tort theory set forth in section 414. Toland, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 955 P.2d at 511 n. 2 (<HOLDING>); Camargo, 25 Cal.4th at 1245, n. 2, 108 Options: A. holding that under the mwa the question of whether an employee was an independent contractor or an employee was a question of statutory interpretation B. holding that the grant of review did not extend to and therefore we do not decide whether privette would preclude an employee of an independent contractor from seeking tort recovery from workplace injuries under the theory of section 414 C. holding that we must decide whether to grant or deny the petition for review based on the boards reasoning rather than our own independent analysis emphasis added D. holding osha does not preclude an employee from pursuing a tort action for a retaliatory discharge E. holding that the determination of whether an individual is an independent contractor lies in the common law and not under an express provision of the act

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the grant of review did not extend to and therefore we do not decide whether privette would preclude an employee of an independent contractor from seeking tort recovery from workplace injuries under the theory of section 414
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 an Event of Default should occur and the Issuer or the Trustee should incur expenses, including attorneys’ fees, in connection with the enforcement of this Agreement or the collection of sums due hereunder, the Company shall be required, to the extent permitted by law, to reimburse the Issuer and the Trustee, as applicable, for the expenses so incurred upon demand.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: request attorney’s fees in the initial response to the plaintiffs complaint. The court in Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. Sidore (In re Sidore), 41 B.R. 206, 209 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y.1984), did not re quire the debtor to specifically request attorney’s fees at the outset in a § 523(a) case, reasoning that “[s]ince § 523(d) clearly states that the debtor is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, the creditor is on notice that loss of his claim could result in his being assessed those fees and costs.” See also, First Nat’l Bank v. Bernhardy (In re Bernhardy), 103 B.R. 198, 199 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1989); Thorp Credit, Inc. v. Smith (In re Smith), 54 B.R. 299, 303 (Bankr.S.D.Iowa 1985). Compare Montgomery Ward and Co. v. Blackburn (In re Blackburn), 68 B.R. 870, 881 (Bankr.N.D.Ind.1987) (<HOLDING>). It is usually obvious whether a debt is a Options: A. holding that in absence of prayer for attorneys fees trial court should have excluded a purported agreement to pay attorneys fees because there is ample opportunity for the party seeking affirmative relief to plead his case in the body of the complaint B. holding that oncors request for the trial judge rather than the jury to determine the reasonableness of its attorneys fees and the failure to submit the question of attorneys fees to the jury resulted in a waiver of oncors claim for the recovery of attorneys fees C. holding that the debtor must request attorneys fees in the answer to a complaint in a 523a case D. holding defendant waived request for fees pursuant to contract provision by only generally referring to fees in the answer and not citing the contract E. holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the debtor must request attorneys fees in the answer to a complaint in a 523a case
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in the lease which indicates that the charge for termination will be $700. As a result, the lessee decides to remain in the lease. Unbeknownst to the lessee, the lessor intends on offering a reduction of $250. The lessee has based a decision on incomplete information and in fact has made the wrong decision. We note that in such a situation, the lessee has been harmed by the lessor’s policy, even though the penalty, if imposed, would have been less that than expected. The harm lies in the lessee being induced to make an irrational decision because he does not possess a full understanding of the true costs of his actions. Chrysler next argues that Villasenor has made this argument, that the actual formula for determining the penalty differs from what is stated in th 72 (7th Cir. 1992) (<HOLDING>)- “This rule is necessary to give plaintiffs Options: A. holding that a plaintiff may present unsubstantiated factual allegations on appeal provided they are consistent with the complaint to show that the complaint should not have been dismissed B. holding that a title vii cause of action is limited to those discrimination allegations in the complaint that have been under the scrutiny of a formal eeoc complaint C. recognizing that one of those conditions for a district judge to grant leave to amend the complaint may properly be that claims contained in the original complaint but not included in the amended complaint be considered dismissed with prejudice D. holding that the plaintiffs complaint was valid because despite general allegations it provided notice E. holding that the fraud claims against the defendant should not have been dismissed as the complaint provided him with fair notice of the claims made against her

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a plaintiff may present unsubstantiated factual allegations on appeal provided they are consistent with the complaint to show that the complaint should not have been dismissed
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 representations and warranties of the Obligors hereunder shall survive the execution and delivery of this Security Agreement, the other Credit Documents, the Secured Hedging Agreements and the Secured Cash Management Agreements, the delivery of the Notes and the making of the Loans and the issuance of the Letters of Credit under the Credit Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All payments to be made by the Borrower shall be made free and clear of and without condition or deduction for any counterclaim, defense, recoupment or setoff. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all payments by the Borrower hereunder shall be made to the Lender, at the Lending Office in Dollars and in immediately available funds not later than 2:00 p.m. on the date specified herein. All payments received by the Lender after 2:00 p.m. shall be deemed received on the next succeeding Business Day and any applicable interest or fee shall continue to accrue. If any payment to be made by the Borrower shall come due on a day other than a Business Day, payment shall be made on the next following Business Day, and such extension of time shall 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: The Service Vesting Condition applicable to your Performance Award Shares shall be deemed satisfied if prior to the Service Vesting Condition being satisfied (1) a Change in Control occurs, and (2) at any time after the Change in Control and during the twenty-four (24) month period ending on the second anniversary of the Change in Control, your service with the Company, Sterling National Bank and/or any of their subsidiaries is terminated without Cause or for Good Reason. You will forfeit any Performance Award Shares for which the Performance Goals have not been attained prior to termination.

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: All questions concerning the construction, validity, enforcement and interpretation of this Note shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the internal laws of the State of New York, without regard to the principles of conflict of laws thereof. Each party agrees that all legal proceedings concerning the interpretation, enforcement and defense of the transactions contemplated by any of the Documents (whether brought against a party hereto or its respective Affiliates, directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents) shall be commenced in the state and federal courts sitting in the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan (the “ New York Courts ”). Each party hereto hereby irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the New York Courts for the adjudication of any dispute hereunder or in connection herewith or with any transaction contemplated hereby or discussed herein (including with respect to the enforcement of any of the Documents), and hereby irrevocably waives, and agrees not to assert in any suit, action or proceeding, any claim that it is not personally subject to the jurisdiction of such New York Courts, or such New York Courts are improper or inconvenient venue for such proceeding. Each party hereby irrevocably waives personal service of process and consents to process being served in any such suit, action or proceeding by mailing a copy thereof via registered or certified mail or overnight delivery (with evidence of delivery) to such party at the address in effect for notices to it under this Note and agrees that such service shall constitute good and sufficient service of process and notice thereof. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to limit in any way any right to serve process in any other manner permitted by applicable law. Each party hereto hereby irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, any and all right to trial by jury in any legal proceeding arising out of or relating to this Note or the transactions contemplated hereby. If any party shall commence an action or proceeding to enforce any provisions of this Note, then the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be reimbursed by the other party for its attorneys' fees and other costs and expenses incurred in the investigation, preparation and prosecution of such action or proceeding.

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: Ctr., 372 F.3d 572, 579 (3d Cir.2004) (citing Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 315-19, 102 S.Ct. 2452); Redman, 942 F.2d at 1439. This interest encompasses a right to protection from psychological as well as physical abuse. See K.H. v. Morgan, 914 F.2d 846, 851 (7th Cir.1990) (“Youngberg v. Romeo made clear ... that the Constitution requires the responsible state officials to take steps to prevent children in state institutions from deteriorating physically or psychologically.”). The record indicates that the conditions at HYCF are both physically and psychologically unsafe for the plaintiffs, such that the conditions amount to punishment. The plaintiffs do not complain of a few isolated incidents of name-calling or verbal harassment. See DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 612 & n. 3 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 138 Options: A. holding that loss of visitation and commissary privileges inter alia did not deprive the prisoner of a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest B. holding that a prisoner cannot be deprived of a protected liberty interest in goodtime credits without procedural due process C. holding that a verbal assault although tortious does not deprive a plaintiff of a protected interest D. holding that sjtanding alone simple verbal harassment does not deprive a prisoner of a protected liberty interest but noting that racially derogatory language can be quite important evidence of a constitutional violation E. holding that a prisoners loss of privileges for thirty days was not a property right that would constitute a violation of his constitutionally protected liberty interest

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that sjtanding alone simple verbal harassment does not deprive a prisoner of a protected liberty interest but noting that racially derogatory language can be quite important evidence of a constitutional 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: Each party agrees that, without the prior written consent of the other party, neither it nor its Representatives will disclose to any other person (other than to such party’s Representatives who agree, or are otherwise bound, not to disclose the following except as contemplated by this Agreement) any of the other party’s Evaluation Material, the fact that discussions between the parties are taking place concerning the Transaction, or any terms or other facts relating to the Transaction.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to seek applicants from persons with complainant's qualifications. McDonnell, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817.; see also Okoye v. Univ. of Tex. Houston Health Sci. Ctr., 245 F.3d 507, 512-13 (5th Cir.2001) (addressing a racial discrimination claim). 16 . McDonnell, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817. 17 . McMillian v. Svetanoff, 878 F.2d 186, 189 (7th Cir.1989) (noting that "[a]n employer, even a public employer ... is free to choose among qualified candidates so long as that choice is not based on unlawful criteria”) (citing Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 259, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1097, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981)). 18 . See Deines v. Tex. Dep't Protective & Regulatory Servs., 164 F.3d 277, 282 (5th Cir.1999). Price v. Fed. Express Corp., 283 F.3d 715, 723 (5th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). 19 . 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301-6578. 20 . Price, 283 Options: A. holding that second element of qualified immunity test is whether the law violated was clearly established B. holding that expert was qualified to testify regarding sexuallyabused children based on witness education professional license and experience C. holding that better education work experience and longer tenure with the company do not establish that an applicant is clearly better qualified D. holding plaintiff with nineteen years experience as hospital assistant and bachelors and masters degrees to be significantly better qualified for pharmacy technician position than applicant with no college education and two months relevant experience E. holding that the applicant failed to satisfy the statute because the applicant did not have an ownership right or access right to the reservoir site

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that better education work experience and longer tenure with the company do not establish that an applicant is clearly better qualified
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that the Committee determines that any distribution (whether in the form of cash, Units, other securities, or other property), recapitalization, split, reverse split, reorganization, merger, consolidation, split-up, spin-off, combination, repurchase, or exchange of Units or other securities of the Partnership, issuance of warrants or other rights to purchase Units or other securities of the Partnership, or other similar transaction or event affects the Units such that an adjustment is determined by the Committee to be appropriate in order to prevent dilution or enlargement of the benefits or potential benefits intended to be made available under the Plan, then the Committee shall, in such manner as it may deem equitable, adjust any or all of (i) the number and type of Units (or other securities or property) with respect to which Awards may be granted and (ii) the number and type of Units (or other securities or property) subject to outstanding Awards or, if deemed appropriate, make provision for a cash payment to the holder of an outstanding Award; provided, that the number of Units subject to any Award shall always be a whole number.

assistant: Adjustments
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 date, amount, interest rate, Type and duration of Interest Periods (if applicable) of each Loan made by each Lender to the Borrower, and each payment made on account of the principal thereof, shall be recorded by such Lender on its books and such entries shall be binding on the Borrower absent manifest error; provided, however, that (i) the failure of a Lender to make any such record shall not affect the obligations of the Borrower under any of the Loan Documents and (ii) if there is a discrepancy between such records of a Lender and the statements of accounts maintained by the Administrative Agent pursuant to Section 3.8, in the absence of manifest error, the statements of account maintained by the Administrative Agent pursuant to Section 3.8 shall be controlling.

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: the prosecutors believed section 775.15(15)(a), Florida Statutes (2006) — which permits a prosecution for certain offenses within one year after the date on which the identity of the accused is established, or should have been established by the exercise of due diligence, through the analysis of DNA — authorized the prosecution of Mr. Dixon more than ten years after the charged offense. The problem, however, is that this statute had not been enacted when the statute of limitations for this sexual battery offense otherwise expired. The State now concedes that this action could have been dismissed and Mr. Dixon discharged of this crime if the statute of limitations had been raised by his attorney as Mr. Dixon requested. See generally Lawson v. State, 51 So.3d 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (<HOLDING>). The State does not concede error in this case Options: A. holding statute that extended statute of limitations for certain criminal sexual conduct could not be applied retroactively to a prosecution commenced after the limitations statute in effect at the time of the alleged offense had expired B. holding that subsections 7751515 16 did not apply where threeyear statute of limitations expired on january 25 2006 and thus prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations C. holding that threeyear statute of limitations was not an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus D. holding that the plaintiffs claims under 22a452 were barred by the statute of limitations but declining to decide which statute to apply E. holding that trial court erred by granting a directed verdict on statute of limitations defense and remanding for a new trial on the statute of limitations only

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that subsections 7751515 16 did not apply where threeyear statute of limitations expired on january 25 2006 and thus prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations
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: either evidentiary or conclusive. If competent evidence is available to show that Guastella was responsible for the fire, the Sassanos and Insurance Guaranty Corporation will be free to offer it at a retrial. Because no evidence was introduced to show Wasyluk’s culpability, we hold that the trial court’s dismissal of the Sassanos’ claim against him for lack of evidence precludes their making any further attempt to prove that claim. However, Insurance Guaranty Association voluntarily dismissed its claim against Wasyluk without prejudice; relitigation of Insurance Guaranty Association’s claim will therefore not be barred. We agree with Insurance Guaranty Association that there was no legal basis for the trial court’s ordering Insurance Guarant uper. 350, 354, 327 A.2d 240 (App.Div.1973) (<HOLDING>); Ambassador Ins. Co. v. Montes, 76 N.J. 477, Options: A. holding that a judgment debt against both spouses can be satisfied by selling the entireties property B. holding that where one spouses arson destroyed the house which both spouses owned as tenants by the entireties the innocent spouse was entitled to recover under their fire insurance policy for her share of the loss C. holding that plaintiffs claim for loss of consortium is separate and distinct from spouses malpractice claim for purposes of applying insurance policy limitations D. holding that spouse could not claim exemption in property that was only property of other spouses estate E. holding that when the house is destroyed by fire and there exists thereon a policy by insurance the money arising therefrom stands in the place instead of such house the proceeds of the policy therefore take the place of the property loss

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that where one spouses arson destroyed the house which both spouses owned as tenants by the entireties the innocent spouse was entitled to recover under their fire insurance policy for her share of the loss
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this Mortgage should be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such provision shall be enforced to the maximum extent permitted by law and the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained herein shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. Mortgagor and Mortgagee shall endeavor in good-faith negotiations to replace the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provisions with valid provisions the economic effect of which comes as close as possible to that of the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provisions.

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: Upon the issuance or Modification by the LC Issuer of a Facility LC, the LC Issuer shall be deemed, without further action by any party hereto, to have unconditionally and irrevocably sold to each Lender, and each Lender shall be deemed, without further action by any party hereto, to have unconditionally and irrevocably purchased from the LC Issuer, a participation in such Facility LC (and each Modification thereof) and the related LC Obligations in proportion to its Five-Year Revolving Pro Rata Share. For the avoidance of doubt, no 364-Day Revolving Loan Lender shall have any obligations under this Section 2.19 .

assistant: Participations
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 expressly understand and agree that evernote , its subsidiaries , affiliates , service providers , and licensors , and our and their respective officers , employees , agents and successors shall not be liable to you for any direct , indirect , incidental , special , consequential or exemplary damages , including but not limited to , damages for loss of profits , goodwill , use , data , cover or other intangible losses ( even if evernote has been advised of the possibility of such damages ) resulting from : ( i ) the use or the inability to use the service or to use promotional codes or evernote points ; ( ii ) the cost of procurement of substitute services resulting from any data , information or service purchased or obtained or messages received or transactions entered into through or from the service ; ( iii ) unauthorized access to or the loss , corruption or alteration of your transmissions , content or data ; ( iv ) statements or conduct of any third party on or using the service , or providing any services related to the operation of the service ; ( v ) evernote 's actions or omissions in reliance upon your basic subscriber information and any changes thereto or notices received therefrom ; ( vi ) your failure to protect the confidentiality of any passwords or access rights to your account ; ( vii ) the acts or omissions of any third party using or integrating with the service ; ( viii ) any advertising content or your purchase or use of any advertised or other third-party product or service ; ( ix ) the termination of your account in accordance with the terms of these terms of service ; or ( x ) any other matter relating to the service .

assistant: Limitation of 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Advisory Agreement shall continue in force until the first anniversary of the date hereof. Thereafter, this Advisory Agreement may be renewed for an unlimited number of successive one-year terms upon mutual consent of the parties. The Company, acting through the Board, will evaluate the performance of the Advisor annually before renewing the Agreement, and each such renewal shall be for a term of no more than one year.

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: The Company shall have the right to approve, before issuance any press release or any other public statement with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby made by any other Party; and the Company shall be entitled, without the prior approval of Buyer, to issue any press release or other public disclosure with respect to such transactions required under applicable securities or other laws or regulations or as it otherwise deems appropriate.

assistant: Publicity
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: Constitution and federal statutes that it describes”). To determine whether a given right may be .enforced through section 1983, we must look to the underlying constitutional provision that the plaintiff seeks to enforce. Here, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant officers initiated a criminal prosecution against Mr. Pitt without probable cause, in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. This court has not yet addressed whether malicious prosecution can give rise to a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, nearly every other Circuit has held that malicious prosecution is actionable under the Fourth Amendment to the extent that the defendant’s actions cause the plaintiff to be “seized” without probable cause. See Britton v. Maloney, 196 F.3d 24, 28-29 (1st Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Singer v. Fulton County Sheriff, 63 F.3d 110, Options: A. holding that in a mali cious prosecution action under the fourth amendment the constitutional violation is the deprivation of liberty accompanying the prosecution B. holding that malicious prosecution is actionable under 1983 where the plaintiff as part of the commencement of a criminal proceeding has been unlawfully and forcibly restrained in violation of the fourth amendment and injuries due to that seizure follow as the prosecution goes ahead citation omitted C. holding the same for malicious prosecution D. holding that the fourth amendment right implicated in a malicious prosecution action is the right to be free of unreasonable seizure of the person E. holding that for a state actor to violate the fourth amendment by initiating a malicious prosecution against someone the criminal charges at issue must have imposed some deprivation of liberty consistent with the concept of a seizure citation omitted

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that for a state actor to violate the fourth amendment by initiating a malicious prosecution against someone the criminal charges at issue must have imposed some deprivation of liberty consistent with the concept of a seizure citation omitted
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 Executive acknowledges that the Company’s remedy at law for a breach by the Executive of the provisions of this Article V will be inadequate. Accordingly, in the event of a breach or threatened breach by the Executive of any provision of this Article V, the Company shall be entitled to injunctive relief (without posting a bond or other security) in addition to any other remedy it may have. If any of the provisions of, or covenants continued in, this Article V are hereafter construed to be invalid or unenforceable in any jurisdiction, the same shall not affect the remainder of the provisions or the enforceability thereof in any jurisdiction, which shall be given full effect, without regard to the invalidity or unenforceability in such other jurisdiction. If, at any time of enforcement of this Article V, a court or an arbitrator holds that the restrictions stated herein are unreasonable and/or unenforceable under circumstances then existing, the parties hereto agree that the maximum period, scope or geographical area reasonable and/or enforceable under such circumstances shall be substituted for the stated period, scope or area and that the court or arbitrator shall be allowed to revise the restrictions contained herein to cover the maximum period, scope and area permitted by law provided, however, that the determination of such court or arbitrator shall not affect the enforceability of this Article V in any other jurisdiction. This Agreement shall not authorize a court or arbitrator to increase or broaden any of the restrictions in this Article V.

assistant: Remedies
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: Water Act’s objective include “those necessary to meet water quality standards, treatment standards, or schedules of compliance____” 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(B) ( ifornia, 426 U.S. 200, 223-24, 96 S.Ct. 2022, 2033-34, 48 L.Ed.2d 578 (1976) (stating that citizen suits against permit holders under 33 U.S.C. §' 1365(f)(6) may be brought if citizen can show violation of either “conditions imposed in accordance with EPA promulgated effluent limitations and standards and ... those imposed in accordance with more stringent standards and limitations established by a State pursuant to § 510 [of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1370]”). But see Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 12 F.3d 353, 358-59 (2d Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 62, 130 L.Ed.2d 19 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the Court determines that the Options: A. holding private citizens have no standing to enforce broader state regulations contained in npdes permits B. holding citizens lacked standing to challenge statute when all citizens affected in the same way C. holding all members of beneficial society bound by state decree in class action including citizens of the state in which federal action seeking to enforce state decree was brought who were not parties to the state suit D. recognizing that private citizens do not have standing to initiate proceedings to enforce municipal zoning regulations E. holding constitutional a tax on a private citizens interest in housing on government property received as part of the private citizens compensation

assistant: The best answer is A. holding private citizens have no standing to enforce broader state regulations contained in npdes 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any and all payments by Borrower hereunder and under the other Loan Documents shall be made free and clear of and without deduction for any and all present or future taxes, levies, imposts, deductions, charges or withholdings, and all liabilities with respect thereto, excluding taxes imposed on Lender’s income, and franchise taxes imposed on Lender by law or regulation of any Governmental Authority (all such non–excluded taxes, levies, imposts, deductions, charges, withholdings and liabilities being hereinafter referred to in this Section 2.2.3 as “ Applicable Taxes ”). If Borrower shall be required by law to deduct any Applicable Taxes from or in respect of any sum payable hereunder to Lender, the following shall apply: (i) the sum payable shall be increased as may be necessary so that after making all required deductions (including deductions applicable to additional sums payable under this Section 2.2.3 ), Lender receives an amount equal to the sum it would have received had no such deductions been made, (ii) Borrower shall make such deductions and (iii) Borrower shall pay the full amount deducted to the relevant taxation authority or other authority in accordance with applicable law. Payments pursuant to this Section 2.2.3 shall be made within ten (10) days after the date Lender makes written demand therefor.

assistant: Taxes