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: to the Guidelines, its application does not violate the ex post facto clause. See Bertoli, 40 F.3d at 1405. The Government argues that because Amendment 597 to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2Fl.l(b)(4)(B) resolved a Circuit split on whether the “judicial process” included a bankruptcy proceeding, it was a clarifying amendment. However, where an amendment overrules a prior judicial construction of the guideline it is substantive. See Bertoli, 40 F.3d at 1405; United States v. Diaz, 245 F.3d 294, 303 (3d Cir.2001). Because this Circuit has previously held that “judicial process” did not include bankruptcy proceedings, see Thayer, 201 F.3d at 226-28, Brennan argues the change rendered by Amendment 597 is substantive. Cf. also United States v. Butner, 277 F.3d 481, 489 (4th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). If the amendment is indeed substantive in Options: A. holding that amendment 597 is substantive and noting that the sentencing commission did not label it as clarifying B. holding that sentencing court had discretion under sentencing statute noting that the legislature has demonstrated its ability to use restrictive language when it desires to do so C. holding that a law did not violate the first amendment because it did not burden the exchange of ideas and noting most laws restricting a states initiative process would not implicate the first amendment D. holding that it is not E. holding that there is no sixth amendment right to jury sentencing

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that amendment 597 is substantive and noting that the sentencing commission did not label it as clarifying
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: title), an assault against an individual who has not attained the age of 16 years, arson, burglary, robbery, and a felony under section 661 of this title within the Indian country, shall be subject to the same law and penalties as all other persons committing any of the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. (b) Any offense referred to in subsection (a) of this section that is not defined and punished by Federal law in force within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States shall be defined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State in which such offense was committed as are in force at the time of such offense. 4 . The Eighth Circuit has reached a similar conclusion. See United States v. Pemberton, 121 F.3d 1157, 1164 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Stone, 112 F.3d 971, 973 Options: A. holding that a district court had jurisdiction to impose rule 11 sanctions regardless of the existence of subjectmatter jurisdiction B. holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction and subjectmatter jurisdiction is essential to courts authority to hear case C. holding that nonstatutory rules of proce dure are not jurisdictional because only congress may determine a federal courts subjectmatter jurisdiction D. holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction E. holding that crimes of general applicabilitythat is actions that congress has declared illegal regardless of where they occurare not affected by the enactment of 1162 and remain within the subjectmatter jurisdiction of the federal courts

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that crimes of general applicabilitythat is actions that congress has declared illegal regardless of where they occurare not affected by the enactment of 1162 and remain within the subjectmatter jurisdiction of the federal courts
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: jurisprudence. In Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 57 U.S. (16 How.) 314, 327-29, 14 L.Ed. 953 (1854), the Supreme Court, noting that corporations technically were not citizens for diversity purposes, held nonetheless that corporations should be deemed citizens of the State where they were incorporated because a corporation’s shareholders could conclusively be presumed to be citizens of the incorporating State. By contrast, in a line of cases beginning with Chapman v. Barney, 129 U.S. 677, 9 S.Ct. 426, 32 L.Ed. 800 (1889), the Court made clear that artificial entities other than corporations are not citizens for diversity purposes and that courts must look to the citizenship of their members when determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists. Id. at 682, 9 S.Ct. 426 (<HOLDING>); see also Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. Options: A. holding that a joint stock company cannot be a citizen of new york within the meaning of the statutes regulating jurisdiction unless it be a corporation B. holding that a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen C. holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership D. holding that new york city agencies cannot be sued E. holding that a company registered with the new york department of state is found for purposes of rule b

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a joint stock company cannot be a citizen of new york within the meaning of the statutes regulating jurisdiction unless it be a corporation
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: payroll, and sales to compute the apportionment factor. Rather, it merely requires a reasonable attribution of a corporation’s income. MD.ANN.CODE art. 81, § 316(c) (1980). To determine what constitutes a reasonable attribution, it is necessary to examine the statutory scheme within which section 316(c) functions. Under this framework, the Comptroller possesses no authority to tax NCR’s foreign subsidiaries either collectively, as a part of NCR’s total business, or individually on a separate return. As to combined returns, article 81, section 295 of the Maryland Code precludes NCR from reporting the income of its foreign subsidiaries as part of its total Maryland taxable income. See Chesapeake Industries, Inc. v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 59 Md.App. 370, 475 A.2d 1224 (1984) (<HOLDING>). As to individual returns, the Constitution Options: A. holding that the university of maryland law school was a state agency B. holding that maryland law prohibits use of combined reporting C. holding that a maryland court could exercise jurisdiction over an outofstate hospital that provided services to maryland residents and registered as a maryland provider designating itself as a liver transplant referral center D. holding that state constitution prohibits substantive use of prearrest silence E. holding that the combined effect of trial counsels errors should be considered

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that maryland law prohibits use of combined reporting
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: Id. Here there was clearly a jury question under the stipulated facts whether Baker contacted Krause to gather factual information about Krause’s knowledge and views of the sentencing system, or whether the contact was intended to intimidate or alarm Krause in retaliation for her role in convicting Schoo. The district court should not have resolved this factual dispute in ruling on the constitutional issue, since the constitutional challenge to the statute was raised in a motion to adjudicate law points. Motions to adjudicate law points may not be used to resolve factual disputes, only legal issues. See State v. Marti, 290 N.W.2d 570, 579 (Iowa 1980). The real question here is whether the State can, consistently with the First Amendment, punish Baker for conduct that, while ka 1997) (<HOLDING>). Other courts have rejected First Amendment Options: A. holding that statute which prohibited polygamy did not violate first amendment B. holding that a law did not violate the first amendment because it did not burden the exchange of ideas and noting most laws restricting a states initiative process would not implicate the first amendment C. holding statute criminalizing speech intended to influence a juror did not violate the first amendment D. holding that first amendment protections apply to compelled speech as well as restrictions on speech E. holding that the auuw statute did not violate the defendants second amendment rights

assistant: The best answer is C. holding statute criminalizing speech intended to influence a juror did not violate the first amendment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Transactions (a) do not require, on the part of the Borrower, any consent or approval of, registration or filing with, or any other action by, any Governmental Authority, except such as have been obtained or made and are in full force and effect, (b) will not violate any applicable law or regulation or the Organizational Documents of the Borrower or any of its Subsidiaries or any order of any Governmental Authority having applicability to the Borrower or any of its Subsidiaries, (c) other than as set forth on Schedule 3.03(c) , will not violate or result in a default under any indenture, material agreement or other material instrument binding upon the Borrower or any of its Subsidiaries or its assets, or give rise to a right thereunder to require any payment to be made by the Borrower or any of its Subsidiaries, and (d) will not result in the creation or imposition of any Lien on any asset of the Borrower or any of its Subsidiaries, other than Liens created under the Security Documents.

assistant: No Conflicts
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: (a) Each Secured Party by its acceptance of the benefits of this Agreement shall be deemed to have appointed and authorized the Security Trustee to take such action as trustee on behalf of the Secured Parties and to exercise such powers and discretion under this Agreement, the FAA Security Documents and the other Related Documents as are specifically delegated to the Security Trustee by the terms of, and to take instructions and directions from the Administrative Agent pursuant to, this Agreement, the FAA Security Documents and of the other Related Documents, and no implied duties and covenants shall be deemed to arise against the Security Trustee. For the avoidance of doubt, each Secured Party by its acceptance of the benefits of this Agreement hereby requests and instructs the Security Trustee to enter into all Assigned Lease-related documents and instruments which it is requested by any Grantor to enter into on this date and as may arise from time to time for the purpose of establishing and maintaining its security interest for itself and for the benefit of the other Secured Parties in respect of any Assigned Lease.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: in most cases , in the event we elect to close your account , we will provide at least 30 days advance notice to you at the email address you have provided to us , so you have a chance to retrieve any content stored on the service servers ( unless we determine that we are legally prohibited from providing such notice or enabling you to do so ) .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company and each Guarantor shall, and shall cause each of their respective Restricted Subsidiaries to, maintain, with financially sound and reputable independent insurers, insurance with respect to its Properties and business against loss or damage of the kinds customarily insured against by Persons engaged in the same or similar business, of such types and in such amounts and with such deductibles and covering such risks as are customarily carried by companies engaged in similar businesses, owning similar Properties in localities where the Company or such Subsidiary operates, except where the failure to do so would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. Such insurance will be primary and not contributing.

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: In jury trials, it attaches when a jury is empaneled and sworn. Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 36, 98 5.Ct. 2156, 57 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978); Serfass, 420 U.S. at 388, 95 S.Ct. 1055; Terry v. Potter, 111 F.3d 454, 456 (6th Cir.1997). In non-jury trial trials, it attaches when the first witness is sworn and the court begins to hear evidence. Crist, 437 U.S. at 37 n. 15, 98 S.Ct. 2156; Serfass, 420 U.S. at 388, 95 S.Ct. 1055. If a case is dismissed prior to the defendant being put to trial before the trier of fact (e.g., by a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)), then double jeopardy protections will not attach. See Serfass, 420 U.S. at 389-91, 95 S.Ct. 1055; United States v. Gamble, 141 F.3d 621, 623 (6th Cir.1998). See also United States v. Pi, 174 F.3d 745, 748-49 (6th Cir.1999)(<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 74, 145 Options: A. holding that trial on second indictment alleging repeat offender count separate from indictment on primary offense for which defendant was convicted did not offend principles of double jeopardy B. holding initial indictment which was subsequently found to be invalid tolled the thirtyday period and superseding indictment alleging different charges based on same fraudulent acts as earlier indictment was therefore timely C. holding that the government may appeal trial courts dismissal of count in indictment because of prejudice caused by preindictment delay without violating double jeopardy principles D. holding that the dismissal of an indictment before trial and institution of a superseding indictment does not trigger double jeopardy E. recognizing double jeopardy bar is inapplicable where a variance between indictment and proof necessitated prosecution under a new indictment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the dismissal of an indictment before trial and institution of a superseding indictment does not trigger double jeopardy
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: statute’s requirement that the trial court exercise its discretion is a codification of the long-standing common law rule that the decision whether to grant or refuse a request by the jury for a restatement of the evidence lies within the discretion of the trial court.” State v. Barrow, 350 N.C. 640, 646, 517 S.E.2d 374, 378 (1999). “When a motion addressed to the discretion of the trial court is denied upon the ground that the trial court has no power to grant the motion in its discretion, the ruling is reviewable.” State v. Johnson, 346 N.C. 119, 124, 484 S.E.2d 372, 375-76 (1997); see also Barrow, 350 N.C. at 646, 517 S.E.2d at 378. “ ‘In addition, there is error when the trial court refuses to exercise its discretion in the erroneous belief that it has no discretion 656-57 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Instead, the trial judge plainly exercised Options: A. holding that third party seeking to be reimbursed for costs incurred in responding to discovery request had standing to appeal because its interests were directly represented by its own counsel in the trial court it was effectively bound by the trial courts final order of dismissal the other party would have had the right to appeal the trial courts ruling if it had granted the request for reimbursement and the third party had no other legal remedy to contest the trial courts denial of its request B. holding that trial court acted within its discretion in denying defendants request for firstoffender treatment when there was no indication that trial court refused to consider request or erroneously believed that such was not permitted C. holding that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion in merely stating that the request could not be granted because there was no transcript at this point D. holding that where there is evidence sufficient to sustain finding of trial court that prejudicial error was contained in record there is no basis for stating that trial court abused discretion in granting new trial E. holding that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion by stating that it did not have the ability to present the transcript to the jury

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion in merely stating that the request could not be granted because there was no transcript at this point
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: (citations omitted); Richardson v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough, 705 P.2d 454, 456 (Alaska 1985) (adopting the RestaTEmENT (SEconp) or Torts § 46(1) (1965) in defining a claim for IIED). 49 . Id. at 1289. 50 . Id. Compare Lybrand v. Trask, 31 P.3d 801, 802-05 (Alaska 2001) (affirming superior court's dismissal of IIED claim because neighbor's conduct in painting biblical slogans on roof was not "outrageous") and Chizmar v. Mackie, 896 P.2d 196, 209 (Alaska 1995) (affirming trial court's directed verdict based on conclusion that physician's alleged misdiagnosis of patient as HIV positive was nol outrageous conduct even when doctor failed to warn patient that screening test upon which diagnosis was based was unconfirmed) with Teamsters Local 959 v. Wells, 749 P.2d 349, 358 (Alaska 1988) (<HOLDING>). Considered in isolation, Leykis's derogatory Options: A. recognizing that union members interests are adequately represented by the union B. holding that threatening union members life if he did not convince his supervisorspouse to quit during strike was outrageous conduct as matter of law C. holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted D. recognizing union members vital concern in preserving jobs for union members E. holding that the plaintiffs acted on behalf of all union members and reimbursing the attorneys fees from the union treasury such that all union members in effect equally contributed to the costs of litigation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that threatening union members life if he did not convince his supervisorspouse to quit during strike was outrageous conduct as matter of law
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: Operator and the Company shall provide the insurance coverage in such amounts, with provisions for deductible amounts, and for such purposes, as specified in Exhibit B or such other insurance coverage as may be reasonably determined by the Members to be appropriate for the Company and its operations.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event of any default, the Note Amount shall become immediately due and payable at the Mandatory Default Amount. The Mandatory Default Amount shall be 110% of the Note Amount. Commencing five (5) days after the occurrence of any event of default that results in the eventual acceleration of this Note, the interest rate on the Mandatory Default Amount shall accrue at a default interest rate equal to the lesser of ten percent (10%) per annum or the maximum rate permitted under applicable law. In connection with such acceleration described herein, the Lender need not provide, and the Borrower hereby waives, any presentment, demand, protest or other notice of any kind, and the Lender may immediately and without expiration of any grace period enforce any and all of its rights and remedies hereunder and all other remedies available to it under applicable law. While the Mandatory Default Amount is outstanding and default interest is accruing, the Lender shall have all rights as a holder of this Note until such time as the Lender receives full payment pursuant to this paragraph, or has converted all the remaining Mandatory Default Amount and any other outstanding fees and interest into Common Stock under the terms of this Note. In the event of any default and at the request of the Lender, the Borrower shall file a registration statement with the SEC to register all shares of Common Stock issuable upon conversion of this Note that are otherwise not eligible to have their restrictive transfer legend removed under Rule 144 of the Securities Act. Nothing herein shall limit Lender's right to pursue any other remedies available to it at law or in equity including, without limitation, a decree of specific performance and/or injunctive relief with respect to the Borrower's failure to timely deliver certificates representing shares of Common Stock upon conversion of this Note as required pursuant to the terms hereof.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Timely file, and require each of its Subsidiaries to timely file, all required tax returns and reports and timely pay, and require each of its Subsidiaries to timely pay, all foreign, federal, state and local taxes, assessments, deposits and contributions owed by Borrower and each of its Subsidiaries, except for deferred payment of any taxes contested pursuant to the terms of Section 5.8 hereof, and shall deliver to Bank, on demand, appropriate certificates attesting to such payments, and pay all amounts necessary to fund all present pension, profit sharing and deferred compensation plans in accordance with their terms.

assistant: Taxes
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: Immediately after the consummation of the Transactions on the Closing Date, (a) the fair value of the assets of the Borrower and the Subsidiaries on a consolidated basis, at a fair valuation, will exceed their debts and liabilities, subordinated, contingent or otherwise, (b) the present fair saleable value of the property of the Borrower and the Subsidiaries on a consolidated basis will be greater than the amount that will be required to pay the probable liability of their debts and other liabilities, subordinated, contingent or otherwise, as such debts and other liabilities become absolute and matured, (c) the Borrower and the Subsidiaries on a consolidated basis will be able to pay their debts and liabilities, subordinated, contingent or otherwise, as such debts and liabilities become absolute and matured and (d) the Borrower and the Subsidiaries on a consolidated basis will not have unreasonably small capital with which to conduct the business in which they are engaged as such business is now conducted and is proposed to be conducted following the Closing Date.

assistant: Solvency
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: and necessary, are all issues for the damages phase of these claims.” Id. FAS disagrees, citing cases suggesting summary judgment on claims for expenses and overtime is inappropriate when issuer of fact are left unresolved. Opp’n at 25 (citing Morgan v. Wet Seal Inc., 210 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1358, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 70 (2012) (proving liability for failure to reimburse expenses would involve answering: (1) what, if anything, the employee was told regarding reimbursement of expenses; (2) whether each expense was necessary and a direct consequence of the discharge of the employees’ job duties; (3) whether the employee sought reimbursement of that expense; and (4) whether the employee was in fact reimbursed)); Sotelo v. MediaNews Group, 207 Cal.App.4th 639, 654, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 293 (2012) (<HOLDING>). Defendants’ cases are inapposite. In Morgan, Options: A. holding that an employer does not necessarily regard an employee as disabled simply by finding the employee to be incapable of satisfying the singular demands of a particular job B. recognizing that simply having the status of an employee does not make the employer liable to a claim for overtime compensation C. holding that glc 152 15 provides that the only party immune from suit under the statute is the direct employer a special employer is not immune because the special employer is not liable for the payment of workers compensation and there was no agreement between the direct employer and the special employer that the special employer would be liable for the payment of such compensation D. holding that where employee gave notice to employer of injury and employer told employee that nothing could be done for him through workmans compensation employer had breached statute and was liable for medical treatment which was reasonable and necessary to restore employee to maximum usefulness E. holding that an employer is accountable to a discharged employee for unpaid compensation if the employee was terminated in bad faith and the compensation is clearly connected to work already performed

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that simply having the status of an employee does not make the employer liable to a claim for overtime compensation
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: Cir. 1976)). The Due Process Clause imposes “less stringent procedural requirements in the case of an academic dismissal,” id. at 86, 98 S.Ct. 948, recognizing that judges are ill-equipped to second-guess the academic judgment of school administrators. But this hands-off approach is appropriate only when the school’s decision is, in fact, academic. If, as the administrators contend, the reason for the dismissal was “the violation by a student of valid rules of conduct”—here, the College’s Code of Conduct—the Supreme Court has said the dismissal is properly characterized as disciplinary, not academic. Id. at 86-90, 98 S.Ct. 948 (characterizing sanctions for “disruptive or insubordinate behavior” as disciplinary); see also Monroe v. Ark. State Univ., 495 F.3d 591, 595 (8th Cir. 2007) (<HOLDING>); Pugel v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ill., 378 Options: A. holding that plaintiffs dismissal of personal injury action and subsequent dismissal of declaratory judgment action concerning extent of tortfeasors insurance coverage did not trigger double dismissal rule B. holding that plaintiffs were entitled to vacate final order of dismissal as void when they did not receive the motion for dismissal or notice of the hearing on the order until after the dismissal was entered C. recognizing that a dismissal for alleged but not conceded drug use might constitute a disciplinary dismissal D. holding dismissal for failure to comply with rule 8 was dismissal of entire action which was appealable final order E. holding that in considering dismissal of an appeal the court should exercise discretion to determine whether dismissal is appropriate in the circumstances presented by the case

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that a dismissal for alleged but not conceded drug use might constitute a disciplinary dismissal
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: disclosing information subject to grand jury secrecy: No grand juror or district attorney is competent to testify as to anything that took place before the grand jury during its sessions, or to testify upon what evidence any indictment was found, or that it was found upon insufficient evidence, or without evidence; but the grand jurors and the district attorney are competent witnesses both for the state and for the defense in any prosecution for perjury or false swearing, |g1 alleged to have been committed before the grand jury, and as authorized by Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 606.[ ] La.R.S. 15:471. All defenses raised before trial, except mental capacity, shall be raised by motion to quash. La.Code Crim.P. art. 531; Reaves, 376 So.2d at 136; State v. Cooper, 449 So.2d at 1376 (<HOLDING>). Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Articles Options: A. holding that a denial of a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena is not final and therefore not appealable B. holding that untimeliness is sufficient grounds for denying a motion to quash C. holding that the list of grounds for a motion to quash found in lacode crimp arts 532 and 534 are merely illustrative D. holding the regulations enumerated examples are nonexclusive and merely illustrative of situations where redcircling is appropriate E. holding that overruling of motion to quash does not affect substantial right and is therefore not final appealable order

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the list of grounds for a motion to quash found in lacode crimp arts 532 and 534 are merely illustrative
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: we may suspend or terminate your account or cease providing you with all or part of the services at any time for any or no reason , including , but not limited to , if we reasonably believe : ( i ) you have violated these terms or the twitter rules , ( ii ) you create risk or possible legal exposure for us ; ( iii ) your account should be removed due to prolonged inactivity ; or ( iv ) our provision of the services to you is no longer commercially viable .

assistant: Unilateral termination
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, the Amended Credit Agreement and the other Loan Documents, the Consenting Lender Agreements and, when executed, the Joinder Agreements, constitute the entire agreement among the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and thereof and supersede all other prior agreements and understandings, both written and verbal, among the parties or any of them with respect to the subject matter hereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: At Closing, Seller shall deliver to Buyer, at Buyer’s address or at such other location as directed by Buyer all originals of the Records, or where originals are not available, copies, at Buyer’s sole cost and expense, of the Records.

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 following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 507 U.S. 290 113 S.Ct. 1231 122 L.Ed.2d 636 John Robert DEMOS, Jr.v.Michael C. STORRIE et al. No. 92-6846. March 8, 1993. PER CURIAM. 1 Pro se petitioner John R. Demos, Jr. has made 48 in forma pauperis filings in this Court since the beginning of the October 1988 Term, many of which challenged sanctions imposed by lower courts for frivolous filings. Almost two years ago, we prospectively denied Demos leave to proceed in forma pauperis "in all future petitions for extraordinary relief." In re Demos, 500 U.S. ----, ----, 111 S.Ct. 1569, 1570, 114 L.Ed.2d 20 (1991) (per curiam ). At that time, we said that Demos "remains free under the present order to file in forma pauperis requests for relief other than an extraordinary writ, if he qualifies under this Court's Rule 39 and does not similarly abuse that privilege." Ibid. 2 Since then, Demos has filed 14 petitions for certiorari. We denied the first seven petitions outright, and denied Demos leave to proceed in forma pauperis under our Rule 39.8 as to the following six. Today, we invoke Rule 39.8 again with respect to the instant petition. Demos is allowed until March 29, 1993, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit the petition in compliance with this Court's Rule 33. Because Demos has refused to heed our prior warning, we further direct the Clerk to reject all future petitions for certiorari from Demos in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (per curiam ). Demos' continued course of abusive filings plainly warrants this sanction. 3 It is so ordered. 4 Justice STEVENS, with whom Justice BLACKMUN joins, dissenting. 5 In my opinion, the administration of special procedures for disposing of repetitive and frivolous petitions is less efficient than our past practice of simply denying such petitions.* I continue to adhere to my previously stated views on this issue, see Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 397, 398, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Zatko v. California, 502 U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 355, 357, 116 L.Ed.2d 293 (1991) (Stevens, J., dissenting), and would deny certiorari rather than invoking Rule 39 in this case. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. * The next issue the Court will confront in developing its Rule 39.8 jurisprudence, for instance, is whether to apply orders like today's retroactively, to petitions pending on the date they are issued.

assistant: 2
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 little or nothing to do with the present case. The statute does not bear on First Amendment rights, it prohibits no conduct and gives rise to no civil or criminal enforcement action. If there is a constitutional bar of vagueness applicable to a statute like this, all that it requires is “legislative language which is not so conflicting and confused that it cannot be given meaning in the adjudication process.” Id. This standard is readily met as the statute merely sets out circumstances under which a guardian can be appointed; the definition of such circumstances is found elsewhere in the statutes. Merely because judges are given discretion to appoint guardians does not mean that the statute is unconstitutionally vague. See Coghill v. Coghill, 836 P.2d 921, 929 (Alaska 1992) (<HOLDING>). IV. CONCLUSION R.R.’s claim that the superior Options: A. holding that government officials are provided with qualified immunity so long as their actions could have been reasonably thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated B. holding that absolute immunity protects judges so long as their acts are judicial in nature internal quotation omitted C. holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion D. holding that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets as long as its exercise is not inconsistent with a rule or statute E. holding exceptions such as good cause not unconstitutionally vague so long as judges and hearing commissioners contin ue to exercise their discretion to achieve equitable results consistent with existing case law

assistant: The best answer is E. holding exceptions such as good cause not unconstitutionally vague so long as judges and hearing commissioners contin ue to exercise their discretion to achieve equitable results consistent with existing case law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement or as otherwise provided by court order, if any Bank (a “ benefitted Bank ”) shall at any time receive any payment of all or part of its Committed Rate Loans or L/C Obligations, or interest thereon or commitment fee or letter of credit fee hereunder, or receive any collateral in respect thereof (whether voluntarily or involuntarily, by set-off, pursuant to events or proceedings of the nature referred to in clause (e) of Section 8, or otherwise) in a greater proportion than any such payment to and collateral received by any other Bank, if any, in respect of such other Bank’s Committed Rate Loans or L/C Obligations, or interest thereon, or commitment fee or letter of credit fee hereunder, such benefitted Bank shall purchase for cash from the other Banks such portion of each such other Bank’s Committed Rate Loans or L/C Obligations, or shall provide such other Banks with the benefits of any such collateral, or the proceeds thereof, as shall be necessary to cause such benefitted Bank to share the excess payment or benefits of such collateral or proceeds ratably with each of such other Banks; provided , however, that if all or any portion of such excess payment or benefits is thereafter recovered from such benefitted Bank, such purchase shall be rescinded, and the purchase price and benefits returned, to the extent of such recovery, but without interest. The Borrowers agree that each Bank so purchasing a portion of another Bank’s Committed Rate Loans or L/C Obligations may exercise all rights of payment (including, without limitation, rights of set-off) with respect to such portion as fully as if such Bank were the direct holder of such portion.

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: Tenant covenants, warrants and represents that the broker set forth in Section 1.9(A) was the only broker to represent Tenant in the negotiation of this Lease (“ Tenant’s Broker ”). Landlord covenants, warrants and represents that the broker set forth in Section 1.9(B) was the only broker to represent Landlord in the negotiation of this Lease (“ Landlord’s Broker ”). Landlord shall be solely responsible for paying the commission of both Tenant’s Broker and Landlord’s Broker. Each party agrees to and hereby does defend, indemnify and hold the other harmless against and from any brokerage commissions or finder’s fees or claims therefor by a party claiming to have dealt with the indemnifying party and all costs, expenses and liabilities in connection therewith, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses, for any breach of the foregoing. The foregoing indemnification shall survive the termination or expiration of this Lease.

assistant: Brokers
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 claim preclusion — is applied to bar litigation of an claim previously decided in another proceeding by a court of competent jurisdiction when — but only when — the facts and the legal standard used to assess the facts are the same in both proceedings. Collateral estoppel does not bar the litigation of the state actor issue in the present suit because, although an entity may be deemed a state actor generally, in the case of a private party, the relevant question is whether the specific conduct in question constituted state action. Milonas determined that Old Provo Canyon’s challenged conduct — treatment of the class — constituted state action. That conduct is irrelevant to whether New Provo Canyon’s individualized treatment of Taylor constitutes state action. T (11th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). 12 . Lib. Mut. Ins., 969 F.2d at 1388; see Options: A. holding that cjourts may take judicial notice of facts not subject to reasonable dispute B. recognizing that a court may rely on matters of which a court may take judicial notice C. holding district court could not properly take judicial notice of findings of another court establishing nature of salary dispute in question D. holding district court could not take judicial notice of finding of another court that use of tear gas was reasonable and necessary E. recognizing that a court may take judicial notice of a document filed in another court to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings

assistant: The best answer is C. holding district court could not properly take judicial notice of findings of another court establishing nature of salary dispute in question
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: F.Supp. at 838. Both Yerger and Felker construed statutes that narrowed the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in habeas eases. The statute at issue in Yerger prohibited direct appeals to the Supreme Court of habe-as decisions by lower courts. See 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) at 105. In Felker the statute at issue prohibited appeals and petitions for certiorari from decisions by the circuit courts to grant or deny motions for leave to make a successive habeas application. See 116 S.Ct. at 2337-39. In both cases the Supreme Court concluded that Congress had not repealed its jurisdiction to hear original habeas petitions under § 2241. In contrast to the narrow jurisdictional proscriptions at issue in Yerger and Felker, however, AEDPA section 440(a) contains a categorical prohibition on judicial review “b (<HOLDING>). The precise scope of review need not be Options: A. holding that 1983 claims may be joined with an administrative review B. holding that nonconstitutional claims that could have been raised on direct appeal may not be asserted in a collateral proceeding C. holding that courts may review nonconstitutional claims D. holding that appellate courts may review trial courts legal conclusions to determine their correctness E. holding that courts may only review claims for fundamental miscarriage of justice

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that courts may review nonconstitutional 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Lucian Johnson maintained through his employment with General Motors. 2 . Cronenwett and Gross have set forth other stipulated facts that are not relevant to the insurance beneficiary issue raised by Met Life in its interpleader action. 3 . As a result of Lucian Johnson's life insurance policy being maintained as part of an ERISA plan, the Court has federal-question jurisdiction over the present interpleader action. See Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Howell, 227 F.3d 672, 674 n. 2 (6th Cir.2000) (recognizing that "the federal courts have jurisdiction over an action for interpleader to determine the proper beneficiary of benefits payable from an ERISA employee welfare plan”); see also Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Marsh, 119 F.3d 415, 418 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). 4 . As noted above, the record also contains Options: A. holding that an insurance company assignee of a fiduciary of an erisa trust has standing to sue under 29 usc 1132a2 B. holding that because an erisa plan is not a participant beneficiary or fiduciary subject matter jurisdiction did not exist under 502e of erisa over a suit brought by such a plan C. holding that an interpleader action brought by an insurance company to determine the proper beneficiary under an erisa plan arises under 29 usc 1132a3bii and therefore presents a federal question D. holding that a hospital could not be an erisa beneficiary E. holding that suit by a beneficiary to recover benefits from a covered plan falls directly under 502a1b of erisa and therefore was necessarily federal in character and subject to removal to federal court

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an interpleader action brought by an insurance company to determine the proper beneficiary under an erisa plan arises under 29 usc 1132a3bii and therefore presents a federal question
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 of the parties hereto agrees that this Commitment Letter is a binding and enforceable agreement (subject to the effects of bankruptcy, insolvency, fraudulent transfer, fraudulent conveyance, reorganization and other similar laws relating to or affecting creditors’ rights generally and general principles of equity) with respect to the subject matter contained herein, including an agreement to negotiate in good faith the Credit Documentation by the parties hereto in a manner consistent with this Commitment Letter, it being acknowledged and agreed that the funding of the Facility is subject only to the Funding Conditions.

assistant: Miscellaneous