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 which Buyer has received the professional advilele and expertise of a certified public accountant retained by Buyer. Defendants argue that this provision (the Satisfaction Clause) is sufficient to preclude Plaintiffs from asserting mistake as a basis for rescinding the contract. 1 38 The Satisfaction Clause may well have been an attempt to allocate to Plaintiffs the risk that the value of the Kendall Agency might be lower than either party believed. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 154(a). Alternatively, this clause may evidence an acknowledgment by Plaintiffs that they deemed their limited knowledge on this issue sufficient, thereby negating any later claim of mistake. See id. § 154(b); see also Deep Creek Ranch, LLC v. Utah State Armory Bd., 2008 UT 8, 118, 178 P.3d 886 (<HOLDING>)'s subsequent approval); Klos, 829 P.2d at Options: A. holding that the office of recovery services of the utah dept of social services was free to collect its postpetition debt for child support from a tax refund that was not dedicated to the plan and therefore vested in the debtors upon confirmation B. holding that under contract armory assumed the risk as to utah general services agency C. holding that nonsignatories to a contract have no rights under the contract and thus no standing to assert claims under the contract D. recognizing this as the general rule E. recognizing utah counties as legal subdivisions

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that under contract armory assumed the risk as to utah general services agency
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 Board has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to provide enhanced severance protections to Executives following a Change in Control of the Company subject to certain terms and conditions of the Agreement which can be found in Schedule II.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: district court correctly concluded, Fisher has not shown that the state court findings are unreasonable, unsupported, or otherwise erroneous. Indeed, they are supported by competent evidence. Furthermore, the record is devoid of any indication that the state court treated the MAR in a haphazard or careless fashion and, on the contrary, it appears that Fisher was afforded much latitude in developing his claims and the evidentiary bases behind them. Finally, to the extent the state court’s order, whether from the bench or in writing, could be considered summary in nature, we have consistently rejected such attempts to circumvent § 2254’s requirement that we accord deference to the state court’s application of clearly established law to the facts found. See e.g., Weeks, 176 F.3d at 259 (<HOLDING>); Wright v. Angelone, 151 F.3d 151, 157 (4th Options: A. holding that the brecht standard applies on federal collateral review even after passage of the aedpa B. holding that aedpa limits a federal habeas court to the record before the state court where a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by the state court C. holding that the aedpa standard of review applies even where the state court has given no indication of how it reached its decision D. holding that a district court has the authority to raise the aedpa statute of limitations on its own motion E. holding that aedpa only applies where the state court adjudicated the constitutional issue on the merits

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the aedpa standard of review applies even where the state court has given no indication of how it reached its decision
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas without regard to its or any other state’s or jurisdiction’s conflicts of law doctrine. The Parties specifically waive any the application of any and all conflicts of law provisions of the State of Texas and any other state or other jurisdiction. The Parties agree that any disputes between them may be heard only in the state or federal courts located in Dallas County, Texas, and the Parties hereby consent to venue and jurisdiction in those courts, subject to any mandatory venue provisions of the State of Texas.

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: This Amendment No. 4 shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, but excluding any principles of conflict of laws or other rule of law that would cause the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the laws of the State of New York.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: [of openness after a governmental actor fails to timely request an AG opinion] can only be overcome by a compelling demonstration that the information should not be released to the public, as might be the case if the information is deemed confidential by some other source of law, or if an exception designed to protect the interest of a third party is applicable.”). 40 . Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 552.352; see also Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD-676 (2002) ("Section [552.101] ... refers to information that a governmental body may not choose to release, and the improper disclosure of which results in criminal penalties under the [Act], Thus, when section 552.101 applies, the [Act] prohibits the governmental body from disclosing the information.”) (footnotes omitted). 41 . Jackson, 243 S.W.3d at 757-58 (<HOLDING>). 42 . Indus. Found. of the S. v. Tex. Indus. Options: A. holding that request for information concerning a drivers license ownership of a vehicle insurance information appellants destination and the purpose of a trip are all proper inquiries after a traffic violation stop B. recognizing relevance of information and that need for this information outweighs the burden to appellants C. recognizing that there is an important privacy interest in corporate financial documents the court agrees that the information can be protected therefore the court required that the information be disclosed pursuant to a confidentiality order only to be used in connection with this litigation D. holding that information required for participation in a voluntary program is information that a party was obliged to furnish E. holding that transportation code section 521051 prohibits disclosure of information in basic drivers license record file and because tdps demonstrated that statute required tdps to maintain confidentiality of this information tdps satisfied burden to show compelling reason to withhold information

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that transportation code section 521051 prohibits disclosure of information in basic drivers license record file and because tdps demonstrated that statute required tdps to maintain confidentiality of this information tdps satisfied burden to show compelling reason to withhold information
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: To the extent that any provision or language of this Agreement is deemed unenforceable, by virtue of the scope of the business activity prohibited or the length of time the activity is prohibited, Benefitfocus and Associate agree that this Agreement shall be enforced to the fullest extent permissible under the laws and public policies of the State of South Carolina.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All consents, approvals, orders and authorizations required on the part of the Purchaser in connection with the execution, delivery or performance of this Agreement, the purchase of the Shares and the consummation of the other transactions contemplated herein have been obtained or made, other than such consents, approvals, orders and authorizations the failure of which to make or obtain, individually or in the aggregate, would not reasonably be expected to have a Purchaser Adverse Effect.

assistant: Consents
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: After the Separation, Executive will make himself reasonably available to assist and cooperate with the Company in connection with any internal and/or independent review of the Company’s financial policies, procedures and activities in respect of all periods during which Executive was employed by the Company.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No waiver under this Agreement is effective unless it is in writing and signed by the party waiving its right. Any waiver authorized on one occasion is effective only in that instance and only for the purpose stated, and does not operate as a waiver on any future occasion.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: S.Ct. 554, 2 L.Ed.2d 539 (1958) (“in considering a motion for summary judgment, the court is entitled to consider exhibits and other papers that have been identified by affidavit or otherwise made admissible in evidence”) (emphasis added). Discussion The FMLA was enacted by Congress in 1993, in part to address problems arising from “inadequate job security for employees who have serious health conditions that prevent them from working for temporary periods.” 29 U.S.C. § 2601(b)(1). The act was designed to provide a balance between “entitling] employees to take reasonable leave for medical reasons” and “accommo-dat[ing] the legitimate interests of employers.” 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601(b)(l-2); see Callison v. City of Philadelphia, 430 F.3d 117, 119 (3d Cir.2005) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 2601(b)(1)) (<HOLDING>). The FMLA grants eligible employees the right Options: A. holding that the trial court must balance the right to counsel of choice against the needs of fairness and the demands of its calendar B. holding that the effects of the victims deaths upon the families is part of the circumstances of the crime and is properly presented to the jury at the penalty phase C. holding that both the cfra and the fmla require the employee to provide notice to the employer of the employees intent to take leave D. holding that 825220c is a reasonable interpretation of the statutes prohibition on interference with and restraint of employees rights under the fmla 2615a1 and that the labor departments conclusion that employer use of the taking of fmla leave as a negative factor in employment actions violates the act is a reasonable one E. holding that one of the primary purposes of the fmla is to balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of families

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that one of the primary purposes of the fmla is to balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of families
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All of the direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Company are set forth in the SEC Reports. The Company owns, directly or indirectly, all of the capital stock or other equity interests of each Subsidiary free and clear of any Liens, and all of the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of each Subsidiary are validly issued and are fully paid, non-assessable and free of preemptive and similar rights to subscribe for or purchase securities. If the Company has no subsidiaries, all other references to the Subsidiaries or any of them in the Transaction Documents shall be disregarded.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice or other communication required or permitted by this Agreement to be given to a party shall be in writing and shall be deemed given if delivered personally or by commercial messenger or courier service, or mailed by U.S. registered or certified mail (return receipt requested), or sent via facsimile (with receipt of confirmation of complete transmission) to the party at the party's address or facsimile number written below or at such other address or facsimile number as the party may have previously specified by like notice. If by mail, delivery shall be deemed effective 3 business days after mailing in accordance with this Section 11(f) .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: None of the PNG Parties has incurred, directly or indirectly, any Liability for brokerage or finders’ fees or agents’ commissions or any similar charges in connection with the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereunder.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Plan and all rights of Participants to purchase any Shares hereunder shall terminate at the earlier of the conclusion of the last Offering Period authorized herein, or as otherwise determined by and at the discretion of the Company.

assistant: Terminations
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: I believe the obligation to prove a knowing and willful violation of Maryland's licensing law is clear from the plain language of § 1960(b)(1)(A) and the Maryland law it references, I reject the Talebnejads’ argument that § 1960(b)(1)(A) is void for vagueness. See United States v. Klecker, 348 F.3d 69, 71 (4th Cir.2003) (“The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that penal statutes define crimes so that ordinary people can understand the conduct prohibited and so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is not encouraged.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even if the different scienter requirements made the statute ambiguous, I would reach the same result through applying the rule of lenity. See United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 266, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997) (<HOLDING>). A knowing and willful violation of Maryland's Options: A. recognizing that the rule of lenity only applies if after considering text structure history and purpose there remains a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute such that the court must simply guess as to what congress intended B. holding that the rule of lenity applies to sentencing guidelines C. recognizing that the rule of lenity applies not only to interpretations of the substantive ambit of criminal prohibitions but also to the penalties they impose D. holding rule of lenity in the penal context to be a rule of last resort E. holding that the rule of lenity ensures fair warning by so resolving ambiguity in a criminal statute as to apply it only to conduct clearly covered

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the rule of lenity ensures fair warning by so resolving ambiguity in a criminal statute as to apply it only to conduct clearly covered
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to seek return of the properties lost to those tax sales.” Herder Spring, supra at n.15 (quoting Oz Gas at 279). Our High Court agreed that these consequences favor a prospective application of IOGA. We reach the same result when we analyze the Chevron Oil factors on the facts herein. It is beyond cavil that IOGA established a new principle of law as it decided an issue of first impression that was not foreshadowed. In IOGA, our High Court held there is no statutory authority for the taxation of oil and gas beneath the surface. However, at the time of the tax sale herein, the prevailing law in this Commonwealth was that oil, gas, and coal underlying unseated lands were minerals, that they constituted real estate, and were subject to taxation as real estate. F.H. Rockwell & Co., supra (<HOLDING>). The Court in Rockwell reasoned that “tax is Options: A. holding provision in oil and gas lease authorizing lessor to use gas for agricultural purposes contained no geographical limitations B. recognizing oil gas and coal are minerals and holding if oil gas and minerals are reserved from the grant of the surface of several tracts of unseated land they can be taxed as an estate in land C. recognizing that a metes and bounds partition when land contains oil and gas results in a serious loss to a coowner who receives a lot without oil or gas under the surface with the loss due solely to the division of the land D. holding assignment of oil and gas lease is subject to business and commerce code section 2601 E. holding that allegations that states lease and actions that resulted in taking of oil and gas were sufficient to state claim for inverse condemnation

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing oil gas and coal are minerals and holding if oil gas and minerals are reserved from the grant of the surface of several tracts of unseated land they can be taxed as an estate in land
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall retain the Chairman, on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in this Agreement, for the period commencing on January 1, 2017, and ending on December 31, 2017 (such period, the “Term”).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: their complaint because they pled the claim that is the basis for the Affidavit Class. To set forth a claim for relief, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of and a ground for a class action are satisfied. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b). Accordingly, the Court holds that a complaint’s scope includes a class action claim if the complaint contains a short and plain statement of the claim forming the basis for the class action and pleads that the prerequisites of and a ground for a class action are satisfied with respect to that claim. See, e.g., Ladd v. Dairyland County Mut. Ins. Co. of Tex., 96 F.R.D. 335, 338 (N.D.Tex.1982)(<HOLDING>); Wilson v. Zarhadnick, 534 F.2d 55, 57 (5th Options: A. recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members B. holding that the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations C. holding that the claims of the class representative and class members must be based on the same legal or remedial theory D. holding equitable estoppel barred the plaintiffs claims because all of the claims of the amended complaint were in existence during the bankruptcy proceedings yet the plaintiff did not disclose any of the claims in its bankruptcy petitions plans of reorganization or disclosure statements E. holding that certain claims could not be a class issue in part because the complaint did not mention the claims

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that certain claims could not be a class issue in part because the complaint did not mention the 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: the missing stop sign in Bose ] was based on the fact that its total absence, when a driver on the through street was entitled to rely on its protective presence, created a dangerous condition of public property.” Dudum, supra, 334 P.2d at 971. How do we assess whether, under the New Jersey Act, a “trap” for motorists has been created? One court has suggested an analysis: In Bergen * * *, the malfunction in the signal was actively deceptive: a green light appeared at both junctions of the intersection. A jury could reasonably infer that the light was a cause of the accident, as each person approaching the intersection was, in effect, lulled into a false sense of security by the green light in his favor. [Lytle v. City of Newark, 166 N.J.Super. 191, 196 (399 A.2d 333] (Law Div.1979) (<HOLDING>).] The question is whether the absence of a Options: A. holding that if property is not property1 of the public entity then the public entity cannot be subject to suit under the dangerous condition waiver B. holding public entity immune where motorist killed in accident on a bridge slippery from rain C. recognizing that the municipal function test is used to determine both whether municipalities are immune from suit and immune from running of statutes of limitations D. holding public entity immune when both drivers could plainly see that traffic light was not functioning E. holding that the government is immune from liability for its choice of traffic protection devices

assistant: The best answer is D. holding public entity immune when both drivers could plainly see that traffic light was not functioning
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: unsupported by the record.” The plaintiffs’ contention that HHC failed to meet its production burden lacks merit because HHC produced evidence sufficient for a trier of fact to conclude that Allen and Slone were fired for “giving out unauthorized or confidential information about patients,” which is explicitly prohibited by the Hospital’s em ployee manual. That Allen and Slone believe this proffered reason to be “patently false” does not lead to the conclusion that the Hospital failed to meet its production burden. See Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981) (“The defendant need not persuade the court that it was actually motivated by the proffered reasons.”); Tinker v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 127 F.3d 519, 523 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Rather, the plaintiffs’ argument on this Options: A. holding that former employer met its burden of proof that ubc exception applied B. holding that a company exercising substantial control of the terms and conditions of the work of the employees is an employer under the flsa C. holding employer satisfied its burden of production D. holding that the employer met its production burden by alleging that tinkers termination was the result of his violation of company policy on the preparation of work orders E. holding that section 523a2c shifts the burden of production and not the burden of proof on the issue of intent only

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the employer met its production burden by alleging that tinkers termination was the result of his violation of company policy on the preparation of work orders
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: finding; instead the government now claims that the new AD-FM job differs significantly from the MSO (and thus the prior ADA) position. But neither in its brief nor at oral argument was the government willing to describe these crucial differences. When asked, the government’s attorney repeatedly refused to answer except to refer to an ambiguous affidavit from a BOM personnel officer submitted below that equated the MSO position with the AAD position. To suggest that the district court’s finding — that the third reincarnation of the top administrative job in the Bureau is essentially the same as the earlier two — was clearly erroneous based upon such a weak showing borders on the frivolous. See Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (<HOLDING>). +. * * * * * We conclude that Title VII Options: A. holding that a district courts ruling may be upheld on an alternative ground supported by the record B. holding that a district courts factfindings must be upheld if plausible in light of the entire record C. holding summary judgment must be upheld if it is proper on any grounds D. holding that trial strategy will be reviewed by appellate courts only if the record demonstrates that action was without any plausible basis E. holding that a lower courts findings must be upheld if found to be plausible in light of the entire record even though the reviewing court would have weighed the evidence differently if it sat as the trier of fact

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a district courts factfindings must be upheld if plausible in light of the entire record
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: federal definition of "disabilities” that require accommodation under the ADA. See Green v. DGG Properties Co., Inc., 2013 WL 395484, at *9 (D.Conn. Jan. 31, 2013). Given that Plaintiff’s disability is not in dispute here, the Act would offer no assistance to her. 11 . US Airways asserts in a footnote that the NYSHRL and NYCHRL do not apply because Plaintiff has failed to allege any discriminatory conduct in New York. See Lucas v. Pathfinder’s Personnel, Inc., 2002 WL 986641, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2002). However, even though it is unclear where the decision to deny Plaintiff these positions originated, at least some of the positions to which she applied were located in New York. (See Amended Complaint Ex. 16); see also DiStefano v. Carozzi N. Am., Inc., 286 F.3d 81, 85 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Rylott-Rooney v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Options: A. holding that television station was not subject to personal jurisdiction in new york under that states longarm statute since libel claim did not arise from defendants delivery of mail orders to new york B. 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 C. holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york D. holding that for purposes of longarm jurisdiction because plaintiff was employed in new york the original event causing his injury occurred in new york E. holding that outofstate defendants transmittal into new york of ceaseanddesist letter to new york plaintiff for purported trademark infringement was insufficient to create jurisdiction over defendant in a new york declaratory judgment action

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that for purposes of longarm jurisdiction because plaintiff was employed in new york the original event causing his injury occurred in new york
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment Agreement may be executed in counterparts (and by different parties hereto in different counterparts), each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which when taken together shall constitute a single contract. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Amendment Agreement by facsimile or in electronic (i.e., “pdf” or “tif”) format shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Amendment Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Prison officials are deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs when they “deny, delay, or intentionally interfere with medical treatment” for a serious medical need. Hunt v. Dental Dep’t, 865 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir.1989) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). There is evidence in this record that prison officials simply refused to follow the directions of Plaintiff’s treating physician with respect to treatments designed to combat the onset of AIDS. Plaintiff’s medical need for the treatment was serious, and there is evidence that the officials were deliberately indifferent to that need. See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). There also is evidence that Plaintiff was Options: A. holding that a prison official acts with deliberate indifference when he ignores the instructions of the prisoners treating physician B. holding that deliberate indifference to prisoners medical needs is cruel and unusual punishment C. holding that the prison physician lacked standing to raise the prisoners rights of access to the courts D. holding that the eighth amendment protects prisoners only from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs E. holding that the eighth amendment is violated when prolonged detention is the result of deliberate indifference where prison officials failed to investigate claims in prisoners letter questioning the method used to compute his release date

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a prison official acts with deliberate indifference when he ignores the instructions of the prisoners treating physician
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 incident. As to the first reason, the court may not base a downward departure on the defendant’s “intoxication at the time of the offense.” § 921.0016(5), Fla. Stat. (1999). Thus, the court erred in departing downward based on its finding that Chapman lacked the capacity to appreciate the criminal nature of the offense and that his conduct was substantially impaired. The trial court’s second reason for the down ward departure, that Chapman’s need to support his child outweighs his need for prison, has been rejected by this court as well. See Rafferty v. State, 799 So.2d 243, 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); State v. Bray, 738 So.2d 962, 963 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). The fact that Chapman has had no arrests since 1994, the trial court’s third reason for departing downward, is not d DCA 1988) (<HOLDING>). Reversed. CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ„ Concur. Options: A. holding that a circuit court has no jurisdiction to review a district courts discretionary decision not to depart downward from the guidelines but would have jurisdiction if the district court based its decision on the belief that it did not have the authority to depart B. holding that a conviction for receiving stolen property based on possession must be vacated because it involved the same act constituting theft based on retaining property C. holding that the trial court may not depart downward based on the quantity of money stolen in a theft case based on the reasoning in atwaters D. holding that district court did not have authority to depart downward under note 9 based on low purity of methamphetamine involved in case E. holding that a court may depart upward based upon a third partys injury in an assault case

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the trial court may not depart downward based on the quantity of money stolen in a theft case based on the reasoning in atwaters
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 Preferred Unit Purchaser is duly organized and validly existing as a limited partnership and in good standing under the Laws of its state of formation, with all necessary power and authority to own properties and to conduct its business as currently conducted.

assistant: Existence
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 proceeds of the Loans and Letters of Credit will be used for general corporate purposes of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries not in contravention of any Law or any of the Loan Documents. No part of the proceeds of any Loan or Letter of Credit will be used, whether directly or indirectly, for any purpose that entails a violation of any of the regulations of the Board, including Regulations T, U and X, or in violation of Section 3.18 or Section 3.19.

assistant: Use Of Proceeds
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: Intrepid has the right to deduct from any payments otherwise due to you any federal, state, or local taxes, domestic or foreign, of any kind required by law upon the issuance of any shares of Stock or payment of any kind upon the exercise of the Option. At the time of issuance, vesting, or payment, you will pay to Intrepid the amount that Intrepid determines is necessary to satisfy applicable withholding obligations at rates determined by Intrepid, which will not exceed the minimum statutory rate or any other rate that will not cause an adverse accounting consequence or cost. You may elect to pay this amount, in whole or in part, (a) in cash or (b) by delivering to Intrepid unrestricted shares of Stock you already own. Your election will be irrevocable and must be made in advance and in accordance with Intrepid’s Insider Trading Policy, Stock Ownership Guidelines , and any other applicable policies or procedures. If you do not make a proper election in accordance with this Section, Intrepid will automatically deduct cash otherwise issuable to you to satisfy the applicable withholding obligations at rates not to exceed the minimum statutory rate or any other rate that will not cause an adverse accounting consequence or cost.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: at 7 (3) (punctuation omitted). 5 291 Ga. App. 208 (661 SE2d 576) (2008). 6 Id. at 209 (1). 7 Id. at 210 (1). 8 Id. (punctuation omitted). 9 Id. at 210 (1) n.9. 10 Id. 11 Former OCGA § 24-9-67.1 (b), repealed by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2 (effective Jan. 1, 2013). OCGA § 24-7-702 (b), which became effective January 1, 2013, contains language identical to that quoted above from former OCGA § 24-9-67.1, but the provisions of Georgia’s new Evidence Code "apply to any motion made or hearing or trial commenced on or after” January 1, 2013. Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 101. Because the relevant trial occurred before this date, the prior evidence code applies in the case sub judice. 12 Former OCGA § 24-9-67.1 (b). 13 See id. 14 Cf. Jones v. Scarborough, 194 Ga. App. 468, 470 (3) (390 SE2d 674) (1990) (<HOLDING>). 15 Cf. Raines v. Maughan, 312 Ga. App. 303, Options: A. holding that trial court erred in prohibiting discovery or testimony from a witness it deemed an expert when appellant merely sought to discover facts that were observed by the witness B. holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand C. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify D. holding that a forensic accountant is an expert witness not a lay witness E. holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that trial court erred in prohibiting discovery or testimony from a witness it deemed an expert when appellant merely sought to discover facts that were observed by the witness
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, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: leaves the officers with unbridled discretion as to the time of operation; and (2) the plan is flawed because while it requires a 30-minute minimum operational duration, the plan does not establish a maximum time, thus allowing the officers at the checkpoint to determine the duration of the operation. These omissions, appellant contends, render the checkpoint constitutionally unsound, thus violating his Fourth Amendment rights. “As a preliminary matter, checkpoints with the primary objective of enforcing safety requirements are constitutional.” Wright v. Commonwealth, 52 Va.App. 263, 268, 663 S.E.2d 108, 111 (2008) (citing Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 658, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1398, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979)); see also Palmer v. Commonwealth, 36 Va.App. 169, 172, 549 S.E.2d 29, 30 (2001) (<HOLDING>). The Fourth Amendment protects people from Options: A. holding that a man standing between two insured vehicles while attempting to jump start one of them was occupying them when one of the vehicles between which he was standing was struck by a third vehicle B. holding description all of the goods then owned or to be owned in the future sufficient to cover equipment and vehicles C. holding that police officers may stop vehicles when they observe minor traffic violations D. holding that the sugar tree ruse did not violate the fourth amendment when officers only stopped vehicles for minor traffic violations E. holding the purpose of a checkpoint was valid when officers stopped vehicles to look for any violations on the vehicles such as drivers license equipment or inspection

assistant: The best answer is E. holding the purpose of a checkpoint was valid when officers stopped vehicles to look for any violations on the vehicles such as drivers license equipment or inspection
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: Payment of a Member’s Account balance (as determined pursuant to Section 11.1) shall be made pursuant to the Member’s request for payment and within the time frame established by the Administrative Committee. Notwithstanding any provision of the Plan to the contrary, but subject to applicable Treasury Regulations, a distribution may not be made to a Member without the Member’s consent unless the Member’s Account is subject to the mandatory cashout rules described in Section 11.2(b) below. Unless a Member elects to defer distribution of his Account balance the Member’s Account balance shall be distributed no later than 60 days after the end of the Plan Year in which occurs the latest of: (i) the Member’s attainment of age 65, (ii) the tenth anniversary of the Member’s participation in the Plan, and (iii) the Member’s Termination from Service. If a Member does not make an affirmative election to receive his Account balance, he shall be deemed to have made an election to defer distribution.

assistant: Consents
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: Purchaser has taken all necessary and appropriate action to enable it to enter into, execute, deliver and perform this Agreement and the other Transactional Documents and the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby. The execution and performance of this Agreement and the other Transaction Documents by Purchaser will not violate any applicable Law and no consent of or notice to any Person is required in connection therewith.

assistant: Authority
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: through international waters or airspace. See Sugiyama, 846 F.2d at 572; Perez, 776 F.2d at 801. Cabaccang expressly overruled settled law. 332 F.3d at 635 (“To the extent that Sugiyama and Perez address the transport of drugs through international airspace on a nonstop domestic flight, they are overruled.”). Alaimalo could not have raised his claim of innocence in an effective fashion prior to Cabaccang, at which point he had already exhausted his direct appeal and § 2255 motion. See Triestman 124 F.3d at 379; Davenport, 147 F.3d at 610; contra Harrison, 519 F.3d at 961 (noting that case law at the time of petitioner’s direct appeal and first § 2255 “invited the very argument” raised in the purported § 2241 petition); Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957, 958, 963 (8th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). The government argues that Alaimalo’s actual Options: A. holding that children could receive permanent total disability payments after the death of their mother where the mothers claim was pending before the effective date of the 2008 statutory amendments and was still pending at the time of her death B. holding that a case remained pending where the time to file a rehearing petition had not expired C. holding that where petitioners 2255 motion was still pending at the time the supreme court effected a material change in the applicable law he had an unobstructed chance to raise his actual innocence claim in the pending petition D. recognizing that aedpa would not apply to a habeas petition that was pending at the time of its enactment E. holding in a 2255 case that the failure to raise a bailey claim on direct review can be overcome by a showing of actual innocence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that where petitioners 2255 motion was still pending at the time the supreme court effected a material change in the applicable law he had an unobstructed chance to raise his actual innocence claim in the pending petition
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: 258, 265-66 (D.D.C.2010) (finding that movant had failed to show it would suffer irreparable harm if its trade secrets were not immediately ordered returned to it because movant had offered nothing to indicate that the non-movant was “unwilling or unable to protect whatever secrets it still has until this case is decided”). Plaintiffs also appear to claim that the very fact of the disclosure of the employee information to the Union will cause the employee plaintiffs irreparable harm, but the cases they rely upon do not stand for the proposition that the disclosure of private contact information automatically constitutes irreparable injury. See Pl.’s Mem. at 12, citing U.S. Dep’t of Defense v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 510 U.S. 487, 501-02, 114 S.Ct. 1006, 127 L.Ed.2d 325 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, Options: A. holding that individual has privacy interest in medical information including diagnosis B. holding that even if a particular privacy interest is minor nondisclosure remains justified where the public interest in disclosure is virtually nonexistent C. holding that bargaining unit employees have some nontrivial privacy interest in nondisclosure of their home addresses under the freedom of information act and concluding that that interest substantially outweighed the virtually nonexistent public interest in disclosure under foia and the privacy act not the nlra D. recognizing privacy interest in medical records requested under freedom of information act E. recognizing as a privacy right the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that bargaining unit employees have some nontrivial privacy interest in nondisclosure of their home addresses under the freedom of information act and concluding that that interest substantially outweighed the virtually nonexistent public interest in disclosure under foia and the privacy act not the nlra