flwrlabs/fed-legal huggingface dataset:
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the Effective Date, Schedule 3.15 sets forth a list of all insurance policies maintained by or on behalf of the Loan Parties (it being understood that the failure to list on such Schedule any insignificant insurance policies shall not result in a breach of this Section, provided that each Loan Party hereby represents and warrants that it reasonably believes that such Schedule sets forth a list of all insurance policies maintained by or on behalf of the Loan Parties). As of the Effective Date, all premiums in respect of the insurance of the Borrowers and the Subsidiaries have been paid. The Borrowers reasonably believe that the insurance maintained by or on behalf of the Loan Parties is adequate.

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: to confer upon Dillard Nolen any cognizable interest or legal standing with respect to matters concerning his former wife. See, e.g., Gloth v. Gloth, 154 Va. 511, 535, 153 S.E. 879, 886 (1930) (following divorce “the marriage bond is completely severed”). One of the principal effects of a decree of divorce is to sever the property interests of the two parties including the extinguishing of all contingent property rights of one spouse to the property of the other. Code § 20-111. Similarly, to the extent that the authority to determine the disposition of a decedent’s remains is a quasi-property right of a surviving spouse, Goldman, 168 Va. at 354, 191 S.E. at 631, that right would not survive the entry of a divorce decree. Cf. Vaughan v. Vaughan, 200 N.E. 912, 913-14 (Mass. 1936) (<HOLDING>). In short, under the specific facts of this Options: A. holding that a wife obtained a vested interest in her portion of the retirement benefits as of the date of the divorce decree and any act of the military spouse that unilaterally decreases the nonmilitary spouses vested interest is an impermissible modification of a division of marital property and a violation of the final decree of divorce B. holding that wife had standing to seek disinterment where death of husband occurred prior to entry of decree of divorce C. holding trial court erred in modifying terms of divorce decree regarding possession where party did not seek that relief D. holding a motion to revise an enrolled divorce decree because of a discrepancy between the separation agreement and the decree filed more than 5 years after entry of the enrolled decree was properly denied E. holding that the trial judge had the power to incorporate a settlement agreement in a decree following the entry of a decree of divorce

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that wife had standing to seek disinterment where death of husband occurred prior to entry of decree of divorce
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: on a Section 1983 claim against an individual is the personal involvement of the individual in the alleged unconstitutional deprivation. See Farrell v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470, 484 (2d Cir.2006) (citations omitted). To prevail, the plaintiff must show some tangible connection between the alleged unlawful conduct and the defendant. Bass, 790 F.2d at 263. Where a defendant is a supervisory official, a mere “linkage” to the unlawful conduct through the “chain of command” (i.e., under the doctrine of respondeat superior) is insufficient to show his or her personal involvement in that unlawful conduct. Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325,102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981); Richardson v. Coord, 347 F.3d 431, 435 (2d Cir.2003); see also Williams v. Smith, 781 F.2d 319, 323-24 (2d Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). In the case of supervisory officials, Options: A. holding that the filing of notice without motion is insufficient B. holding a position in a hierarchical chain of command without more is insufficient to support a showing of personal involvement C. holding evidence insufficient to support finding of implied contract D. holding that failure to follow gaap without more is insufficient to establish scienter E. holding that mere presence at the crime scene without more is insufficient to prove accomplice liability

assistant: The best answer is B. holding a position in a hierarchical chain of command without more is insufficient to support a showing of personal involvement
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 Parent and its Restricted Subsidiaries has timely filed or caused to be filed all federal Tax returns and all other material Tax returns and reports required to have been filed and has paid or caused to be paid all Taxes required to have been paid by it, except (a) Taxes that are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and for which Parent or such Restricted Subsidiary, as applicable, has set aside on its books adequate reserves or (b) to the extent that the failure to do so could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. Endo LLC is treated for United States federal income tax purposes as disregarded as separate from a Person that is not a “ United States person ” within the meaning of Section 7701(a)(30).

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: The financial statements of the Company included in the SEC Reports comply in all material respects with applicable accounting requirements and the rules and regulations of the Commission with respect thereto as in effect at the time of filing. Such financial statements have been prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles applied on a consistent basis during the periods involved (“ GAAP ”), except as may be otherwise specified in such financial statements or the notes thereto and except that unaudited financial statements may not contain all footnotes required by GAAP, and fairly present in all material respects the financial position of the Company and its consolidated Subsidiaries as of and for the dates thereof and the results of operations and cash flows for the periods then ended, subject, in the case of unaudited statements, to normal, immaterial, year-end audit adjustments.

assistant: Financial Statements
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 Loan Party will enter into any transaction (or series of related transactions), including, without limitation, any purchase, sale, lease or exchange of Property or the rendering of any service, with any Affiliate (other than any other Loan Party and Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries of the Borrower) involving aggregate consideration in excess of $20 million, unless such transaction (or series of related transactions) is otherwise permitted by this Agreement or is in the ordinary course of business on terms not materially less favorable to such Loan Party than those that such Loan Party would reasonably expect to be able to obtain in a comparable arm’s length transaction (or series of related transactions) with a Person not an Affiliate.

assistant: Transactions With Affiliates
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: waived his right to attend the jury view in open court and in the presence of counsel. Moreover, trial counsel did not object to Were’s waiver of his presence as a condition to the jury view. {¶ 98} In addition, Were cannot show that he was materially prejudiced by his absence from the jury view. His counsel were present, and there is no indication in the record that anything improper occurred at the jury view. Were told the trial court that he wanted to attend the jury view to tell his attorneys “about the situation down there,” but he did not explain how his presence at the scene would have provided his attorneys with information that they could not have gained by consulting Were before or after the visit. See State v. Cassano, 96 Ohio St.3d 94, 2002-Ohio-3751, 772 N.E.2d 81, ¶ 70 (<HOLDING>). Based on the foregoing, we reject proposition Options: A. holding that a trial courts refusal to allow the defendant to attend the jury view was not prejudicial B. holding that it was within the trial courts discretion to refuse any additional discovery and that the courts refusal to allow additional discovery was not an abuse of discretion C. holding that a trial courts refusal to withdraw a jury waiver ordinarily does not implicate the federal constitutional right to a jury trial D. holding that trial courts refusal to allow defendant to impeach victims testimony by crossexamining victim about possible motive to lie deprived defendant of his right to confrontation E. holding refusal to give pretext instruction was error but not prejudicial

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a trial courts refusal to allow the defendant to attend the jury view was not prejudicial
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the Nation’s laws.” Geaneas v. Willets, 911 F.2d 579, 584 (11th Cir.1990). CONCLUSION Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Under our Constitutional separation of powers framework, it is essential that all three branches of government strictly observe the limitations on their proper dominion. Thus, out of respect for their limited role within our government, federal courts have long refused to issue advisory opinions. Additionally, we have repeatedly held that moot cases fail to meet the important requirement that courts only address active cases or controversies. In this case, the City of Miami’s amendments to the its zoning code effectively rendered moot National’s claims as to the constitutionality of the prior version of the Ct. 1709, 1715, 52 L.Ed.2d 184 (1977) (<HOLDING>); Diffenderfer v. Cent. Baptist Church, 404 Options: A. holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended B. holding that the plaintiffs had relied on illinois law because they could have filed in a different forum having a different statute of limitations C. holding that an overbreadth challenge to a child pornography law was rendered moot by amendment to the statute D. holding moot a constitutional challenge to a state statute governing the involuntary commitment of mentally ill minors because the law had been replaced with a different statute E. holding moot a challenge to a florida tax exemption for church property when the law had been repealed

assistant: The best answer is D. holding moot a constitutional challenge to a state statute governing the involuntary commitment of mentally ill minors because the law had been replaced with a different statute
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 issuance of any shares pursuant to this Award shall be subject to, and shall comply with, any applicable requirements of any foreign and U.S. federal and state securities laws, rules and regulations (including, without limitation, the provisions of the Securities Act, the Exchange Act and in each case any respective rules and regulations promulgated thereunder) and any other law or regulation applicable thereto. The Company shall not be obligated to issue any shares pursuant to this Award if any such issuance would violate any such requirements.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Maker (a) is a corporation duly organized and validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, (b) is duly registered or qualified as a corporation authorized to do business in every jurisdiction where the failure to be so registered or qualified would have a material adverse effect on the Maker, its business, operations or financial condition (considered as a whole), the ability of the Maker to pay its obligations under this Note, the validity or enforceability of this Note or the rights or remedies of the Noteholder against the Maker under this Note (a “ Material Adverse Effect ”) and (c) has the requisite power and authority to own its properties and to carry on its business as now conducted and as proposed to be conducted.

assistant: Organizations
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 happening of any of the foregoing events described in subsections (a), (b) or (c) above, the class and aggregate number of shares set forth in Section 4 hereof that are subject to Stock Rights which previously have been or subsequently may be granted under the Plan shall also be appropriately adjusted to reflect the events described in such subsections. The Committee or the Successor Board shall determine the specific adjustments to be made under this Section 13 and, subject to Section 2, its determination shall be conclusive. If any person or entity owning restricted Common Stock obtained by exercise of a Stock Right made hereunder receives shares or securities or cash in connection with a corporate transaction described in subsections (a), (b) or (c) above as a result of owning such restricted Common Stock, such shares or securities or cash shall be subject to all of the conditions and restrictions applicable to the restricted Common Stock with respect to which such shares or securities or cash were issued, unless otherwise determined by the Committee or the Board.

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: Each party shall do and perform, or cause to be done and performed, all such further acts and things, and shall execute and deliver all such other agreements, certificates, instruments and documents, as any other party may reasonably request in order to carry out the intent and accomplish the purposes of this Agreement and the consummation of the Share Issuance.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Enter into, renew, extend or be a party to any transaction of any kind with any Affiliate of any Loan Party, whether or not in the ordinary course of business, other than on fair and reasonable terms substantially as favorable to the Loan Parties as would be obtainable by the Loan Parties at the time in a comparable arm’s length transaction with a Person other than an Affiliate, provided , that the foregoing restriction shall not apply to the Spin-Off Agreements or any transaction between or among the Loan Parties not prohibited hereunder.

assistant: Transactions With Affiliates
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 any Related Entity are authorized to withhold from any Award granted, any payment relating to an Award under the Plan, including from a distribution of Shares, or any payroll or other payment to a Participant, amounts of withholding and other taxes due or potentially payable in connection with any transaction involving an Award, and to take such other action as the Committee may deem advisable to enable the Company or any Related Entity and Participants to satisfy obligations for the payment of withholding taxes and other tax obligations relating to any Award. This authority shall include authority to withhold or receive Shares or other property and to make cash payments in respect thereof in satisfaction of a Participant's tax obligations, either on a mandatory or elective basis in the discretion of the Committee.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: by the third-party tortfeasor who caused his injury. Permitting Sayre to pursue his claim for loss of future earning capacity should achieve this result. Federal case law, while not controlling, is instructive and consistent with our holding. See, e.g., Van Gordon v. Beaver, 928 F.Supp. 858, 865 (D.Minn.1996), (limiting employee’s action against third-party tortfeasor to damages not compensable under workers’ compensation but permitting employee to include in that action future chiropractic expenses because “she bears some potential of incurring such expenses without reimbursement from the Employer/Insurer”). DECISION Sayre may pursue his claim for loss of earning capacity against the tortfeasor. Reversed. 1 . See Naig v. Bloomington Sanitation, 258 N.W.2d 891, 893-94 (Minn.1977) (<HOLDING>). A reverse-Naig settlement occurs when the Options: A. holding that section 319s mandate that the employer is subrogated to the extent of compensation payable does not mean that the sole right to recover from the tortfeasor is in the employer rather the right of action against the tortfeasor remains in the injured employee and suit is to be commenced in his name B. holding that injured employee has right to settle with thirdparty tortfeasor claims not covered by minnesota workers compensation act C. holding that the workers compensation act does not violate either the united states or minnesota constitution despite employees waiver of the right to a jury trial and providing employers with exemption from commonlaw liabilities D. holding that employers insurer who provided workers compensation benefits to employee but did not consent to employees settlement with thirdparty tortfeasor may maintain an action for payments that become payable in the future E. holding that thirdparty tortfeasor has right to contribution from employer up to amount of employers workers compensation liability

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that injured employee has right to settle with thirdparty tortfeasor claims not covered by minnesota workers compensation act
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Rule of Evidence 609(a). These convictions included: (1) an October 31, 2000 conviction for possession of controlled substances with intent to deliver; (2) an August 20, 2001 conviction for carrying a firearm without a license; (3) a January 26, 2005 conviction for possession of controlled substances with intent to deliver; and (4) a January 27, 2005 conviction for possession of controlled su onies the government asked Ga-ston about on cross-examination. The government contends that it questioned Gaston about only two of the felonies — the felony that he had already admitted to on direct examination and one of the 2005 felonies. Gaston, on the other hand, contends the government asked him about all three felonies. Although we find the government’s reading of the tri 40 (7th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the critical question is whether the Options: A. holding that a prior conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine is admissible under rule 609 B. holding that prior convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana are admissible to impeach defendant C. recognizing possession of cocaine as a lesserincluded offense of possession of cocaine with intent to sell D. holding that prior convictions for simple possession were not similar to the importation of marijuana and thus lack probative value E. holding the imposition of a maximum sentence of life imprisonment was not excessive for conviction of possession of cocaine where defendant was adjudged to be a fourth felony offender with prior convictions for manslaughter two prior convictions for possession of cocaine and numerous arrests for drug offenses possession of a firearm by a felon aggravated battery and armed robbery

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that prior convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana are admissible to impeach defendant
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: shot on one of its properties. Id. at 17. The reasoning applied in Trammell Crow, like the reasoning applied in Timber-walk, should not apply to the instant case, for the same reasons discussed here. Moreover, Chief Justice Jefferson, in a concurring opinion, explained that bare application of the Timberwalk factors might not allow for consideration of all relevant factors. See id. at 18 (Jefferson, J., concurring). For example, Chief Justice Jefferson noted that the ‘‘prior-similar-incidents inquiry” under Timberwalk does not properly "account for crimes that may have been eminently foreseeable despite their never having occurred at a particular place before.” See id. at 19. This same reasoning applies here. Although the record does not show that Love 690 S.W.2d 546, 549-50 (Tex.1985) (<HOLDING>). Here, Whataburger operated a late night Options: A. holding that the victims negligence is not a defense to criminal conduct B. holding that criminal conduct on premises was not foreseeable C. holding that a private actors conduct was not state action just because the government failed to supervise that partys conduct D. holding that criminal conduct of third party is not superseding cause that relieves negligent actor from liability when criminal conduct is foreseeable result of actors negligence E. holding that a district court may depart upward based upon based criminal conduct when such conduct is not included in the computation of criminal history category

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that criminal conduct of third party is not superseding cause that relieves negligent actor from liability when criminal conduct is foreseeable result of actors negligence
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: its discretion by not telling the jury: (1) the amount awarded to the Whites in compensatory damages; (2) that the first jury found Ford’s brake defect did not proximately cause the accident; and (3) that the Whites were 40 percent responsible for the accident. We decline to decide whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding Ford’s 2002-03 Financial Statement and 2002 Annual Report, and we reject the remainder of Ford’s arguments. 1. Reasonable Relationship Instruction and Compensatory Damages Reasonable relationship. We reject Ford’s argument that due process requires the district court to instruct the jury that any award of punitive damages must bear a reasonable relationship to compensatory damages. See Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 767, 781-82 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Ford’s argument that Hilao was implicitly Options: A. holding the eighth amendment inapplicable to an award of exemplary damages B. holding that punitive damages are available in an intentional discrimination action even if the jury does not assess compensatory damages C. holding that when compensatory damages are nominal a much higher ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages can be contemplated D. holding that procedural due process does not require the jury to be instructed that a reasonable relationship must exist between the amounts of compensatory and exemplary damages E. holding that conduct must be beyond the fraud which supported compensatory damages to award punitive damages

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that procedural due process does not require the jury to be instructed that a reasonable relationship must exist between the amounts of compensatory and exemplary damages
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: at 1545 (determining that deputy sheriff who used his office and patrol car to prevent police interception of his drug sales to an undercover agent correctly received ah enhancement for abuse of a position of public trust); United States v. Pedersen, 3 F.3d 1468, 1469-72 (11th Cir.1993) (upholding a section 3B1.3 enhancement for police officer who unlawfully used his access to confidential information stored in various government data bases, including the National Crime Information Center, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Social Security Administration, to assist a corporation that sold personal background information to employers, investigators, and others and which was a customer of his investigation business); United States v. Claymore, 978 F.2d 421, 423 (8th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>) with Mullens, 65 F.3d at 1566-67 (determining Options: A. holding that against her will in the rape statute means without her consent and that the fact that the victim was under the age of consent was sufficient to establish that element B. holding that excited utterance was proven when evidence showed that a patrol officer saw the victim screaming and waiving her hands when he approached she was crying her dress was ripped and she asked the officer to keep the defendant away from her C. holding evidence insufficient to support kidnapping in four rapes in which 1 attacker held knife to victim and forced her into car where he raped her 2 assailants forced their way into victims home walked victim through dining room into kitchen put dish towel over her face and raped her 3 attackers forced way into victims apartment one pulled out gun took victim to couch for oral sex then took her into adjoining bathroom raped her and threatened to rip out phone and 4 assailants forced their way into victims apartment at gunpoint put hand over victims mouth walked her toward kitchen and then to bedroom checking first to see if anyone was present and then raped her D. holding that police officer who raped a thirteenyearold girl whom he had apprehended for curfew violation and fathered her child properly received a section 3b13 enhancement for using his position of trust to detain the victim and his patrol ear in which to rape her E. holding that a letter written by a thirteenyearold victim two years after her alleged rape was admissible reasoning that the issue of the twoyear delay was one of credibility not admissibility

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that police officer who raped a thirteenyearold girl whom he had apprehended for curfew violation and fathered her child properly received a section 3b13 enhancement for using his position of trust to detain the victim and his patrol ear in which to rape her
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: not enough of the Debtors’ income is subject to the inherent risks of farming to say they engage in a “farming operation.” Therefore, VBHS concludes, absent such risks in a petitioner’s income, the special provisions of Chapter 12 should not apply. Regarding the good faith proposal of the Debtors’ Plan, VBHS claims its treatment as an alleged, but not judicially determined tort feasor unfairly discriminates against VBHS, and therefore not only violates 11 U..S.C. § 1222(b)(1), but also § 1225(a)(8) as being proposed in bad faith to thwart the claims of the Debtors’ chief creditor. Furthermore, the Court has an independent duty to inquire into the issue of the Debtors’ bad faith. See Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York v. Warren (In re Warren), 89 B.R. 87, 90 (9th Cir. BAP 1988) (<HOLDING>). I. At the outset, the Court finds that in the Options: A. holding that a district court need not inquire into the veracity of a classified affidavit unless the information it provides is insufficient or contradicted by the record or there is evidence of bad faith on behalf of the agency B. holding that bad faith in a 706a conversion permits the court to consider sua sponte whether the petitioner engaged in abuse of process under 11 usc 105a C. holding title company liable for bad faith D. holding that a bad faith claim is a tort E. holding court has independent duty to inquire into bad faith under 11 usc 1325a3

assistant: The best answer is E. holding court has independent duty to inquire into bad faith under 11 usc 1325a3
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the grand jury terminates on the expiration of the term of court for which it is summoned " (quoting 38 C.J.S. Grand Juries § 32, at 1023)). Consequently, the cited cases are of limited help when construing the current statute. € 39 The current statute refers to the "efficient administration of justice." Colorado courts have applied the abuse of discretion standard to other provisions involving similar terminology. See, e.g., People v. Lee, 93 P.3d 544, 549 (Colo.App.2003) (deciding whether to disqualify a district attorney under criteria including "the orderly or efficient administration of justice"). € 40 Further, other courts have held that a trial court has discretion in deciding whether to extend a grand jury's term. See Korman v. United States, 486 F.2d 926, 933 (7th Cir.1973) (<HOLDING>). 141 To say that a court has discretion in Options: A. holding the trial court erred in ordering the transcription of grand jury proceedings so that it could intervene in the operations of the grand jury B. holding that a district court may not construe an untimely notice of appeal as a motion for extension of time C. holding that a defendants false grand jury testimony was insufficient to establish perjury where the defendant was called before the grand jury for the mere purpose of laying the foundation for a perjury prosecution such testimony was immaterial to the grand jurys purpose D. holding a stay appealable because the state suit was likely to continue beyond the expiration of the federal grand jurys term with the practical effect of a dismissal of the proceedings E. holding that extension of a federal grand jurys term was within the discretionary powers of the district court

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that extension of a federal grand jurys term was within the discretionary powers of the district court
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 unjust. City of Las Cruces v. Garcia, 102 N.M. 25, 26-27, 690 P.2d 1019, 1020-21 (1984). In considering a motion to dismiss, well-pleaded facts are taken as established. Saenz v. Morris, 106 N.M. 530, 531, 746 P.2d 159, 160 (Ct.App.1987). Initially, we note that Plaintiffs rely in part on Article II, Section 17. That section guarantees the individual’s right to “freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects” and provides that truth is a defense in libel actions. Plaintiffs cite no authority, and we are not aware of any, holding that Article II, Section 17, of the New Mexico Constitution was intended to guarantee “rights of association.” Cf. U.S. Const, amend. 1 (freedom of assembly guaranteed); Futrell v. Ahrens, 88 N.M. 284, 286, 540 P.2d 214, 216 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Article II, Section 4 of our Constitution Options: A. holding that the federal constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to decisions to impose consecutive sentences B. recognizing even federal constitutional right of association does not apply to the right of one individual to associate with another C. holding right to testify was federal constitutional right D. holding that custodial parent has constitutional right to determine with whom children associate E. holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing even federal constitutional right of association does not apply to the right of one individual to associate with another
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: Hewitt v. State, 242 Md. 111, 113-14, 218 A.2d 19, 20-21 (1966) (specifically holding that a double jeopardy issue may not be raised for the first time on appeal pursuant to then Rule 885); Iozzi v. State, 224 Md. 42, 46, 166 A.2d 257, 260 (1960) (not reaching a claim that the defendant was not allowed his right to counsel when his attorney was not present at a portion of the trial, citing Rule 885 and stating, “[i]n the absence of anything to show a request to the trial court or a ruling thereon, there is nothing before us to consider”) (alteration added); Kirby v. State, 222 Md. 421, 425, 160 A.2d 786, 788 (1960) (stating that “cases almost uniformly hold that the right to a speedy trial ... like other statutory or constitutional rights, may be waived and that it 363, 365-66 (1982) (<HOLDING>); see also Johnson v. State, 138 Md.App. 539, Options: A. recognizing that even constitutional issues may be waived if not properly raised at the trial court level pursuant to rules 885 and 1085 both predecessors to current md rule 8131a B. holding issues not raised at trial level cannot be argued for the first time on appeal C. holding that we consider issues not raised at administrative level waived D. holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal E. holding that exhaustion of issues is waived if not raised by the government

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that even constitutional issues may be waived if not properly raised at the trial court level pursuant to rules 885 and 1085 both predecessors to current md rule 8131a
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: Compare OCGA §§ 16-13-26 (1) (D), 16-13-30 (c) with Cal. Health & Saf. Code §§ 11054 (f), 11350 (a) (possession of cocaine), and OCGA § 16-8-40 with Cal. Pen. Code § 211 (robbery). Thus, Williams has not shown that an objection by his counsel would have been successful, nor has he established that his counsel’s allegedly deficient performance prejudiced his defense. See Hendrix, 284 Ga. at 422 (2); Lattimore v. State, 282 Ga. App. 435, 437 (3) (638 SE2d 848) (2006). Consequently, Williams’s ineffective assistance claim fails. Id. 2. Williams next argues that he was illegally sentenced as a recidivist because the state failed to prove that the former guilty pleas had been entered into knowingly and voluntarily. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238 (89 SC 1709, 23 LE2d 274) (1969) (<HOLDING>). When a criminal defendant challenges the Options: A. holding that due process requires state courts to make an affirmative showing that a guilty plea is intelligent and voluntary B. holding that for a trial judge to accept a defendants guilty plea without an affirmative showing that it was intelligent and voluntary violates the defendants constitutional rights C. holding that in order to secure a reversal the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the fee ord D. holding that a valid plea requires an affirmative showing of voluntariness on the record in order to conclude that a defendant has waived his constitutional rights E. holding that a failure to advise even when the defendant has an affirmative obligation to do so is not the same as engaging in affirmative misconduct

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a valid plea requires an affirmative showing of voluntariness on the record in order to conclude that a defendant has waived his constitutional rights
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 383 U.S. 268 86 S.Ct. 924 15 L.Ed.2d 743 ARIZONAv.CALIFORNIA et al. No. 8, Orig. Supreme Court of the United States February 28, 1966 1 Mark Wilmer, for plaintiff. 2 Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of California, Northcutt Ely, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Burton J. Gindler and David B. Stanton, Deputy Attys. Gen., C. Emerson Duncan II, Jerome C. Muys, Roy H. Mann, Earl Redwine, Harry W. Horton, R. L. Knox, James H. Carter, Charles C. Cooper, Jr., John H. Lauten, H. Kenneth Hutchinson, Roger Arnebergh, Gilmore Tillman, Edward T. Butler, Harvey Dickerson, Atty. Gen. of Nevada, and Robert E. Jones, Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendants. 3 Solicitor General Marshall, for the United States. ORDER. 4 Ordered. 5 The joint motion to amend Article VI of the Decree in this case entered on March 9, 1964, 376 U.S. 340, 84 S.Ct. 755, 11 L.Ed.2d 757, is hereby granted and Article VI of said decree is hereby amended to read as follows: 6 VI. Within three years from the date of this decree [March 9, 1964], the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada shall furnish to this Court and to the Secretary of the Interior a list of the present perfected rights, with their claimed priority dates, in waters of the mainstream within each State, respectively, in terms of consumptive use, except those relating to federal establishments. Any named party to this proceeding may present its claim of present perfected rights or its opposition to the claims of others. The Secretary of the Interior shall supply similar information, within a similar period of time, with respect to the claims of the United States to present perfected rights within each State. If the parties and the Secretary of the Interior are unable at that time to agree on the present perfected rights to the use of mainstream water in each State, and their priority dates, any party may apply to the Court for the determination of such rights by the Court. 7 THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.

assistant: 11
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: 5 The court, however, refused to abrogate the immunities that a landowner enjoys in relation to trespassers. Antoniewicz v. Reszczynski, 70 Wis. 2d 836, 839, 236 N.W.2d 1 (1975). 6 But see Johnson v. Blackburn, 227 Wis. 2d 249, 257-58, 595 N.W.2d 676 (1999)("As a general matter, a landlord owes a tenant, as well as guests of a tenant, the duty to exercise ordinary care. A landlord's duty to trespassers, however, is to refrain from willful and intentional injury."); Rockweit v. Senecal, 197 Wis. 2d 409, 421, 541 N.W.2d 742 (1995) ("Although individuals generally owe a duty of ordinary care to all persons, we recognize that limitations do exist with respect to the imposition of a legal duty in some cases.”). 7 Compare Shannon v. Shannon, 150 Wis. 2d 434, 445-46, 442 N.W.2d 24 (1989) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Pagelsdorf, 91 Wis. 2d at 745); Options: A. recognizing that the court in pagelsdorf v safeco ins co of am 91 wis 2d 734 745 284 nw2d 55 1979 imposed a duty upon landlords to exercise ordinary care in the maintenance of the premises B. holding that the law imposes on every person who enters upon an active course of conduct the positive duty to exercise ordinary care to protect others from harm and calls a violation of that duty negligence that a complete binding contract between the parties is not a prerequisite to a duty to use due care in ones actions and that architects may be held liable for a breach of the duty of care and breach of contract that results in foreseeable injury economic or otherwise C. holding that under either theory the duty is the same ordinary care D. holding that a railroad had a duty to exercise this level of care even in the absence of statutorily imposed duties E. recognizing a landlords duty for injuries sustained on leased premises where the landlord is aware that the premises are leased with intent to admit the public

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that the court in pagelsdorf v safeco ins co of am 91 wis 2d 734 745 284 nw2d 55 1979 imposed a duty upon landlords to exercise ordinary care in the maintenance of the premises
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 that the restrictions were not preempted. See id. at 1024-29. Applying that precedent here, we hold that the City satisfies both prongs of the Cardinal Towing test and so was acting as a market participant when it added section 25 to the LAX licensing contract. 1. Efficient Procurement of Goods and Services First, like the college in Johnson, the City is attempting to avoid disruption of its business: If a private entity operated LAX, that entity would have a pressing interest in avoiding strikes, picket lines, boycotts, and work stoppages. Those interests are not any less pressing simply because the City rather than a private business operates the airport, and labor peace agreements are one way to protect those interests. See Boston Harbor, 507 U.S. at 231-32, 113 S.Ct. 1190 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs urge the opposite conclusion on Options: A. holding that citys enforcement of the entire state penal code would not constitute a city policy because the city was required to follow state law B. holding that the owner could maintain a 93a claim against the subcontractor where there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the owner was the thirdparty beneficiary of the contract between the general contractor and the subcontractor C. holding that bostons requiring a nostrike provision in subcontractor agreements was permissible mar ket participation because the city was attempting to ensure an efficient project that would be completed as quickly and effectively as possible and because analogous private conduct would be permitted D. holding that a case was not moot where city failed to provide assurance that policeman charged with misconduct would not be rehired or that challenged conduct would not be resumed E. holding that where contract between contractor and subcontractor allowed subcontractor to recover if contractor recovered contractor was not barred from bringing suit on behalf of subcontractor

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that bostons requiring a nostrike provision in subcontractor agreements was permissible mar ket participation because the city was attempting to ensure an efficient project that would be completed as quickly and effectively as possible and because analogous private conduct would be permitted
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 Agreement, PRSUs and all related documentation and matters shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California (without giving effect to principles of conflicts of laws thereof) and applicable Federal law.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this Agreement is held or determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable under any present or future law, and if the rights or obligations of the parties under this Agreement will not be materially and adversely affected thereby, such provision shall be fully severable, and this Agreement will be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision had never comprised a part of this Agreement, and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and will not be affected by the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: the company reserves the right to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter which is subject to indemnification under this section if the company believes that you are unwilling or incapable of defending the company 's interests .

assistant: None