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: it fails to pay its employees promptly, see Biggs v. Wilson, 828 F.Supp. 774, 780 (E.D.Cal.1991), aff'd, 1 F.3d 1537 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 902, 127 L.Ed.2d 94 (1994), any subsequent failure in this regard could not constitute an action taken under an objectively reasonable belief that the State was in compliance with the FLSA. An employer’s failure to heed administrative rulemaking or precedent with respect to the FLSA deprives the employer of the good faith defense. See, e.g., Joiner v. City of Macon, 814 F.2d 1537, 1539 (11th Cir.1987) (in view of Department of Labor regulation, the City of Macon could not reasonably believe that its mass transit system employees were excluded from FLSA requirements); Richard v. Marriott Corp., 549 F.2d 303, 306 (4th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915, 97 S.Ct. 2988, 53 Options: A. holding that defendants answer sufficiently encapsulated the elements of an affirmative defense to have put plaintiff on notice that defendant intended to rely on it B. holding that the plaintiff did not establish a waiver where the defendants answer had put the plaintiff on notice of an arbitration defense C. holding that widely circulated 1974 opinion letter of the wage and hour administrator which apparently was not addressed specifically to defendant put defendant on notice of proper procedure for crediting tips against the minimum wage depriving defendant of ability to assert good faith defense to liquidated damages D. holding that jurys verdict for the defendant in a breach of contract action did not establish the absence of breach because the jury was instructed that it could find for the defendant if it concluded that the defendant had not breached the contract or if the defendant proved an affirmative defense E. holding that filing of litigation against the same defendant put a plaintiff on inquiry notice of the probability of fraud with another transaction involving the defendant where the complaints in both lawsuits involved similar allegations that defendant failed to disclose its inadequate loss reserves and did not sufficiently monitor its operations

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that widely circulated 1974 opinion letter of the wage and hour administrator which apparently was not addressed specifically to defendant put defendant on notice of proper procedure for crediting tips against the minimum wage depriving defendant of ability to assert good faith defense to liquidated 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: misrepresentation claim against him fails because they have failed to allege that he made a representation to any plaintiff. Plaintiffs respond that Morrison is alleged to have made a representation in his written opinion regarding the reverse merger in which he opined that all the requirements and SEC regulations had been complied with and that good and valuable consideration had been paid by all the alleged purchasers of the Literary Playpen, Inc. stock. The court concludes that the alleged misrepresentations in Morrison’s opinion letter are sufficient for the purposes of a motion to dismiss. Such allegations are sufficient since under Iowa law fraudulent misrepresentation claims may be based on statements made to third parties. See Clark v. McDaniel, 546 N.W.2d 590, 593 (Iowa 1996) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, this portion of Morrison’s motion Options: A. holding there is no duty to third parties on the part of a premises owner who could not have foreseen the criminal acts of third parties B. recognizing that either party to a divorce action may bring in third parties who claim an interest in the property alleged to be community or third parties themselves may intervene and have their rights therein determined C. holding that no direct contractual relationship is required between the alleged tortfeasor and the person who justifiably relies to his or her detriment on the alleged tortfeasors representations because under restatement second of torts section 533 1977 hereinafter restatement persons who fraudulently misrepresent the truth can be held liable to third parties if they have a reason to expect their misrepresentation will be communicated to third parties D. recognizing the adoption of the restatement second of torts 552 1977 in boykin v arthur andersen co 639 so2d 504 ala1994 and holding that a real estate appraiser had a duty to third parties that the appraiser intended to influence and to third parties that the appraiser knew his client intended to influence by means of the appraisal E. holding the family court has jurisdiction to join third parties when property is alleged to be marital but is owned by a third party

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that no direct contractual relationship is required between the alleged tortfeasor and the person who justifiably relies to his or her detriment on the alleged tortfeasors representations because under restatement second of torts section 533 1977 hereinafter restatement persons who fraudulently misrepresent the truth can be held liable to third parties if they have a reason to expect their misrepresentation will be communicated to third parties
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 Award of Performance Shares (as set forth on the cover page of this Award Agreement) is subject to all the terms and conditions of the Tyson Foods, Inc. 2000 Stock Incentive Plan or any successors thereto, as such plan or its successors may be amended and restated from time to time (the “Plan”). Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms in this Award Agreement shall have the meaning stated in the Plan. Please see the Plan document for more information on these terms and conditions. A copy of the Plan is available upon request.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: To the maximum extent permitted by Requirements of Law, each Grantor hereby waives notice of the time and place of any public sale or the time after which any private sale or other disposition of all or any part of the Collateral may be made. To the extent such notice may not be waived under Requirements of Law, any notice made shall be deemed reasonable if sent to the Grantors, addressed as set forth in Article IX , at least ten (10) days prior to (a) the date of any such public sale or (b) the time after which any such private sale or other disposition may be made. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, each Grantor waives all claims, damages, and demands against the Administrative Agent or any other Secured Party arising out of the repossession, retention or sale of the Collateral, except such as arise solely out of the gross negligence, willful misconduct or bad faith of, or material breach of this Agreement by, the Administrative Agent or such other Secured Party as finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. To the extent it may lawfully do so, each Grantor absolutely and irrevocably waives and relinquishes the benefit and advantage of, and covenants not to assert against the Administrative Agent or any other Secured Party, any valuation, stay, appraisal, extension, moratorium, redemption or similar laws and any and all rights or defenses it may have as a surety now or hereafter existing which, but for this provision, might be applicable to the sale of any Collateral made under the judgment, order or decree of any court, or privately under the power of sale conferred by this Security Agreement, or otherwise. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, each Grantor hereby waives presentment, demand, protest or any notice (to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law) of any kind in connection with this Security Agreement or any Collateral.

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: express the concern that defendants .will “order members of the FOP to disclose the same information in the future as part of another contrived investigation or effort to break the FOP,” this is not reflected in the complaint. See Pis.’ Opp’n at 13-14. Counts II, III, and V focus exclusively on the manner in which this particular investigation was conducted. In instances like this where “a plaintiff has made no challenge to some ongoing underlying policy, but merely attacks an isolated agency action, then the mooting of the specific claim moots any claim for a declaratory judgment that the specific action was unlawful,” unless one of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applies. City of Houston, 24 F.3d at 1429; see also Flynt v. Weinberger, 762 F.2d 134 (D.C.Cir.1985) (per curiam ) (<HOLDING>); Spivey v. Barry, 665 F.2d 1222, 1234-35 Options: A. holding that a civilian employee injured when her automobile was hit by a military vehicle while she was driving on a road on the employers premises the military base to report to work sustained a compensable injury under the federal employees compensation act B. holding military service disability payments are community property C. holding that a former spouse is a proportionate owner of the other spouses future military retirement pay and is thus entitled to onehalf of the percentage of such pay representing the number of military marriage years relative to the total length of military service D. recognizing that suit against the government for alleged negligence of military club bartender would require questioning of a wide range of military and disciplinary decisions E. holding that a challenge of the press ban during the military action in grenada was moot after the military action ended because plaintiffs failed to allege ongoing conduct

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a challenge of the press ban during the military action in grenada was moot after the military action ended because plaintiffs failed to allege ongoing conduct
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth in Section 3.7 of the Company Disclosure Letter, there are no, and since four (4) years prior to the date hereof, there have not been any Claims pending or, to the Company’s knowledge, threatened against or affecting the Company or any of its officers or directors (or pending or, to the Company’s knowledge, threatened against the Company or any of the officers, directors or Employees of the Company with respect to the business of the Company). The Company is not the subject of any Claim or any inquiry or investigation by a Governmental Entity or any Third Party. The Company is not subject to any judgment, order or decree of any court or other Governmental Entity. The Company has not threatened, initiated or taken any steps towards the commencement of any Claim against any Third Party.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Administrative Agent shall have received a certificate of the chief financial officer or treasurer (or other comparable officer) of the Ply Gem Business certifying the Solvency, after giving effect to the Transactions and after giving effect to the effectiveness of the Atlas Merger, the Atlas Contribution and the repayment of certain existing Indebtedness of the Atrium Business on the Business Day immediately following the Closing Date, of the Parent Borrower and its Subsidiaries on a consolidated basis in substantially the form of Exhibit I hereto.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: The City of Des Plaines ticketed Joyce Kosyla’s Lincoln Town Car numerous times for failing to display a city vehicle sticker. When Kosyla did not pay her tickets, the city placed a “boot” on the car, which was legally parked in the lot adjoining her condominium, and then had it towed and impounded. Although Kosyla resolved the tickets, she never claimed her car, which was later junked. Kosyla sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claim Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Cruz Pagan, 537 F.2d 554, Options: A. holding that society recognizes a reasonable expectation of privacy B. holding common areas of a storage facility not entitled to reasonable expectation of privacy because any tenant could invite anyone in C. holding that captain has reasonable expectation of privacy in all areas of his ship D. holding that defendants lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in common area of residential building E. holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building

assistant: The best answer is B. holding common areas of a storage facility not entitled to reasonable expectation of privacy because any tenant could invite anyone in
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: Mauro Cantoran Quiroz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the BIA’s summary affirmance of the immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings so that he can apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Cantoran Quiroz contends that the IJ erred in concluding that he failed to establish a prima facie case of eligibility for relief under CAT. The generalized evidence attached to his motion did not meet this standard. See Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Options: A. holding that to qualify for protection under the convention against torture an alien must show that he will more likely than not be tortured in his home country if removed B. holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to review whether alien established that he will more likely than not be tortured if removed C. holding that cat applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to his native country D. holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioners argument that the evidence in the record clearly establishes that he is more likely than not to face torture if removed citation quotation marks and brackets omitted E. holding that petitioner must demonstrate it is more likely than not that he will be tortured upon his return

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that cat applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to his native country
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 with all Exhibits and Schedules hereto and the other Loan Documents embody the entire agreement and understanding by and among the parties hereto and thereto relating to the subject matter hereof and thereof and supersedes any and all prior agreements and understandings, oral or written, relating to the subject matter hereof and thereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The services rendered by Executive to the Company are unique and personal. Accordingly, Executive may not assign any of the rights or delegate any of the duties or obligations under this Agreement. This Agreement is enforceable by the Company and its affiliates and may, upon written notice to Executive, be assigned or transferred by the Company to, and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of, any parent, subsidiary or other affiliate of the Company or any entity which at any time, whether by merger, purchase, or otherwise, acquires all or substantially all of the assets, stock or business of the Company.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: . Id. Andrade’s Declaration, ¶¶ 64-65, Exhibits 31-32. 131 .Although it appears that the City has also moved for summary judgment by arguing that Andrade cannot establish that the individual defendants conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights by retaliating against him, that argument is incomplete. Docket no. 44, at 23. Thus, I decline to rule on it for purposes of summary judgment. Any civil conspiracy claims brought by Andrade against the individual defendants within the context of his First Amendment claim will be tried. 132 . Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 8 .1982), overruled on other grounds, International Woodworkers of America v. Champion International Corporation, 790 F.2d 1174, 1181 (5th Cir.1986). 158 . See Nobby Lobby, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 970 F.2d at 92-93, (<HOLDING>); Matthias v. Bingley, 906 F.2d at 1054, Options: A. holding that a jurys finding that a city had delegated its final policymaking authority in the area of law enforcement to a city police chief was supported by the evidence and warranted imposing liability upon the city B. holding that even if the plaintiff had asserted a cause of action under the virginia wrongful death act against the city police officers the police officers would be entitled to sovereign immunity C. holding a city liable for the unconstitutional firing of two clerks by a municipal judge when it was clear the city had delegated to him final administrative authority over employment matters D. holding that the city could be held liable for the numerous seizures by municipal police of video and other equipment from adult video arcades over a period of two years where the police consulted with the city attorneys office which approved same before commencing the seizures and the seizures continued even after the city had requested a federal court to stay a lawsuit filed by arcade operators to permit the state courts to first address the state statute relied upon by the police for the seizures E. holding that a city manager was the final policymaker for purposes of section 1983 liability because of provisions in the norfolk city code requiring that all orders rules and regulations applicable to the entire police department must be approved by the city manager other than some police standard operating procedures

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the city could be held liable for the numerous seizures by municipal police of video and other equipment from adult video arcades over a period of two years where the police consulted with the city attorneys office which approved same before commencing the seizures and the seizures continued even after the city had requested a federal court to stay a lawsuit filed by arcade operators to permit the state courts to first address the state statute relied upon by the police for the seizures
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 evidence was more than ample to convict him of both conspiracies had they been separately charged. In his brief, Herrera essentially concedes this point. And, under either or both conspiracies Herrera could have been convicted of the same offenses, since the conspiracies with both Nye and Jimenez separately involved combined weights over 50 grams of methamphetamine. Herrera’s argument is actually one of variance, in that the evidence presented at trial proved that he was a part of two conspiracies, rather than the one conspiracy with which he was charged. A variance “warrants reversal only if it affects the substantial rights of the parties.” Id. at 1081 (internal quotations omitted); see also Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 82-83, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130, 135, Options: A. holding that the conviction should be affirmed despite the existence of two conspiracies where the indictment charged only one because this variance did not prejudice the defendant B. holding that the conviction should be upheld because there was no prejudice to the defendant even though the defendant had been charged with one conspiracy and the proof at trial showed two separate conspiracies C. holding that the jury would have no problem separating the actions of the individual defendants where there were only four defendants and two separate conspiracies D. holding that there was no prejudice when evidence complained of would have been admissible against defendant in separate trial E. holding that res judicata barred conspiracy claim against defendant even though defendant had not been a party to the prior action because the civil conspiracy claim should have been adjudicated in a prior action and defendant as an alleged participant in the conspiracy would have been indispensable party to that adjudication

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the conviction should be upheld because there was no prejudice to the defendant even though the defendant had been charged with one conspiracy and the proof at trial showed two separate conspiracies
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 fact that this response came only after she had been separately called back and asked leading questions, and her subsequent statement that “it’s just kind of hard not to, you know, give them just a tiny bit more respect because they do protect the people.” Moreover, the transcript hints that Ockerman was eager to please the trial judge as she remarked, “I’ll do whatever you tell me to, because my dad tells me what a great judge you are.” In short, given the entirety of the exchange, we find that the trial judge abused his discretion in failing to excuse juror Ockerman for cause. See Singleton, 783 So.2d at 973 (applying abuse of discretion standard). Consequently, we reverse Scott’s convictions and remand for a new trial. See Davis v. State, 656 So.2d 560, 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(<HOLDING>). REVERSED and REMANDED. STEVENSON, SHAHOOD and Options: A. holding that error in denying such challenge is reversible error without demonstration of prejudice B. holding that district court error was not clear error in denying petition for mandamus C. holding wrongful granting of states challenge for cause reversible error D. holding that if these preservation requirements are met any error in the denial of a challenge for cause is reversible error E. holding that it was reversible error for the trial court to consider cumulative error in assessing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that error in denying such challenge is reversible error without demonstration of prejudice
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: Order” solely because of the possibility that a motion under Rules 59 or 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any analogous Bankruptcy Rule (or any analogous rules applicable in another court of competent jurisdiction) or sections 502(j) or 1144 of the Bankruptcy Code has been or may be filed with respect to such order or judgment. “ Impaired ” Means, with respect to a Claim, Interest, or Class of Claims or Interests, “impaired” within the meaning of sections 1123(a)(4) and 1124 of the Bankruptcy Code. “ Intercompany Claim” Any Claim against any of the Company’s entities held by another of the Company’s entities. “ Intercompany Interest ” An Interest in any of the Company’s direct or indirect subsidiaries held by another of the Company’s entities or an Interest in the Company held by an affiliate of the Company (other than any Preferred Stock or Existing Equity Interest in Holdings). “ Interests ” Means any equity security (as defined in section 101(16) of the Bankruptcy Code) of a Debtor, including all shares, common stock, preferred stock, or other instrument evidencing any fixed or contingent ownership interest in any Debtor, whether or not transferable, and any option, warrant, or other right, contractual or otherwise, to acquire any such interest in a Debtor, whether fully vested or vesting in the future, including, without limitation, equity or equity-based incentives, grants, or other instruments issued, granted or promised to be granted to current or former employees, directors, officers, or contractors of the Debtor, to acquire any such interests in a Debtor that existed immediately before the Effective Date. “ Other Secured Claim ” Means a Secured Claim, other than an Administrative Expense Claim, a Claim in connection with the DIP/Exit Facility, a Priority Tax Claim, a Term Loan Claim, or a Revolving Loan Claim. “ Petition Date ” Has the same meaning as in the Restructuring Support Agreements. “ Plan Supplement ” Has the same meaning as in the Restructuring Support Agreements. “ Priority Non-Tax Claim ” Means any Claim other than an Administrative Expense Claim or a Priority Tax Claim, entitled to priority in payment as specified in section 507(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. “ Priority Tax Claim ” Means any Secured Claim or unsecured Claim of a governmental unit of the kind entitled to priority in payment as specified in sections 502(i) and 507(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code. “ Reinstate”, “Reinstated”, or “Reinstatement” ” Means leaving a Claim Unimpaired under the Plan.

assistant: Defined 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: argue that this .court in United States v. Medjuck, 48 F.3d 1107, 1110 (9th Cir.1995), held that the nexus requirement is an element of the offense. This argument misconstrues Medjuck. In Medjuck we held that the government has the burden of proving nexus and that a defendant should have an opportunity to rebut the government’s proof. Id. at 1111. We did not require that the jury decide nexus. Our use of terms may have created confusion, however, because we labelled the jurisdiction requirement “statutory” jurisdiction and the nexus requirement “constitutional” jurisdiction. Id. at 1110. In an unrelated case, this led us to incorrectly conflate these two requirements and opine, in dicta, that the jury must determine nexus. United States v. Amparo, 68 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1164, 116 S.Ct. 1055, Options: A. holding that possession of a weapon is not in an of itself a crime B. holding possession of an unregistered firearm is presumptive evidence of unlawful violent intentions and therefore involves the substantial risk of violence necessary to label the possession a crime of violence C. holding that theft from the person is not a crime of violence D. holding that possession of a sawed off shotgun is a crime of violence E. holding that for purposes of 4b12 possession of a sawedoff shotgun in violation of 5861d is a crime of violence because by its very nature a sawedoff shotgun always creates a serious risk of physical injury to another

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that possession of a sawed off shotgun is a crime of violence
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 will pay all expenses associated with effecting the registration of the Registrable Securities, including filing and printing fees, the Company’s counsel and accounting fees and expenses, costs associated with clearing the Registrable Securities for sale under applicable state securities laws, listing fees and the Investors’ other reasonable expenses in connection with the registration, but excluding discounts, commissions, fees of underwriters, selling brokers, dealer managers or similar securities industry professionals with respect to the Registrable Securities being sold and excluding the fees and disbursements of counsel to any Investor.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the child can, if necessary, be protected”)- Instead, to determine if a child’s statements were taken in preparation for a legal proceeding, we look to the “totality of the circumstances to determine whether the interviews were primarily to investigate the allegations or primarily to prepare a legal action against the accused.” Id. The “factual circumstances as interpreted by the trial court must govern,” and we will not disturb the court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. State v. Blackburn, 162 Vt. 21, 24, 643 A.2d 224, 226 (1993). ¶ 23. The interview here was plainly investigatory. Z.S. had not disclosed any abuse before he was interviewed for the first time, nor did the investigators possess any knowledge that he had been abused. See Fisher, 167 Vt. at 42, 702 A.2d at 45 (<HOLDING>); Blackburn, 162 Vt. at 25, 643 A.2d at 226 Options: A. holding that where an action is brought by the debtors at the initial proceeding the appeal of that action is not a continuing proceeding against the debtors B. holding that when no appeal was taken from an initial application for postconviction relief the claims were fully and finally determined in that previous proceeding C. holding a party to be an initial transferee because she was given legal title to the funds D. holding that statements gathered during a childs initial interview with dcf and police which was held within a week of the initial disclosure to dcf were not taken in preparation for a legal proceeding E. holding because an initial order contemplated the subsequent entry of a judgment the initial order was not considered a final adjudication

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that statements gathered during a childs initial interview with dcf and police which was held within a week of the initial disclosure to dcf were not taken in preparation for a legal proceeding
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: is made, the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such claim ... and shall allow such claim in suc scretion in this case. While Porges obtained a dismissal of his bankruptcy ease and chose not to convert his petition to a proceeding under another chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, he previously had sought bankruptcy protection and initiated the adversary proceeding. Porges thus subjected himself “ ‘to all the consequences that attach to an appearance,’ ” including the determination of liability on Gruntal’s claims. In re McLaren, 3 F.3d at 966 (quoting Hillman, 296 U.S. at 242, 56 S.Ct. at 211). A party seeking relief in bankruptcy court cannot avoid an adverse judgment by subsequently abjuring bankruptcy protection. See Pepper, 308 U.S. at 305, 60 S.Ct. at 244 (<HOLDING>). Finally, the exercise of a court’s equitable Options: A. holding that where a court possesses jurisdiction over a disputed matter it may exercise its equitable powers to ensure that substance will not give way to form and that technical considerations will not prevent substantial justice from being done B. holding that it may not C. holding that congress may impose its will on the states as long as it is acting within the powers granted by the constitution D. holding that any attempt by way of contract to deprive a city of control over exercise of it police powers is void E. holding a court of criminal appeals may not exercise its sentence approval powers to criticize a state court conviction

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that where a court possesses jurisdiction over a disputed matter it may exercise its equitable powers to ensure that substance will not give way to form and that technical considerations will not prevent substantial justice from being done
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: injuries to children who may have fallen therein.... ” Neal v. Home Builders, 232 Ind. 160, 111 N.E.2d 280, 286 (1953) (quoting 38 AmJur. § 151), reh’g denied. Thus, the risk of falling from a height to the ground or of falling into an excavation, pit, or ditch is considered obvious and, therefore, generally precludes the application of the doctrine. See 62 Am. JuR.2d § 352. However, certain exceptions have been made in cases where a dangerous condition was concealed, where the structure from which the child fell was defective, where there existed a distracting influence which made it likely that the child would not appreciate the danger, or where the child was too young to appreciate any risk. See id. at § 353; see also Greene v. Di Fazio, 148 Conn. 419, 424, 171 A.2d 411, 414 (1961) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, the parties dispute the Options: A. holding that to find negligence jury need not find violation of federal motorcarrier regulation B. holding in a securities fraud action that a court may only find the lack of materiality where a jury could not reasonably find materiality C. holding that the jury could find that a nine year old boy did not realize the risk of falling fiom a plank over an open stairwell in a house under construction D. holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury E. holding that at the summary judgment stage there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could find for the plaintiff

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the jury could find that a nine year old boy did not realize the risk of falling fiom a plank over an open stairwell in a house under construction
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: subject to these terms of use , vivino may offer to provide the services , as described more fully on the site , and which are selected by you , solely for your own use , and not for the use or benefit of any third party .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 1337 (1949)). In Whitehead, the defendant was sentenced for possession of cannabis less than 20 grams, contributing to the delinquency or dependency of a child, and delivery of a controlled substance to a minor. 21 So.3d at 158. He appealed his sentence, arguing, among other things, that the trial court improperly considered pending charges from another county. The pending charges were for unlawful sex acts with a minor in Indian River County. Finding the pending charges relevant to sentencing because it involved the defendant’s conduct toward minors, we affirmed the sentence. Id. at 160. We noted that the trial court reviewed the arrest affidavit in the pending case, which contain Ill.Dec. 632, 485 N.E.2d 443, 446 (1985)); People v. Biggs, 89 Ill.App.2d 324, 231 N.E.2d 626, 628 (1967) (<HOLDING>); Daniels, 2003 WL 22519882, at *3 (holding Options: A. holding the trial court properly admitted evidence of defendants subsequent conduct in determining whether he possessed the intent and motive for the first degree burglary charge B. holding that the district court properly considered the moisture content in the calculation of the weight of the marijuana for sentencing purposes C. holding that the trial court improperly relied on a subsequent charge in sentencing where the trial court stated she was imposing the sentence based on the fact that you reoffended among other reasons D. holding that the trial court properly considered the defendants subsequent arrests for two other robberies while on bond when sentencing the defendant E. holding that trial judge properly considered defendants misdemeanor convictions

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the trial court properly considered the defendants subsequent arrests for two other robberies while on bond when sentencing the 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as required by applicable law, rule or regulation, the Company shall not, either before or after a Support Termination Event (a) use the name of the Support Party in any press release or SEC filing without the Support Party’s prior written consent (not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed), or (b) disclose to any person, other than legal, accounting, financial and other advisors to the Company, the principal amount or percentage of any Participating Claims/Interests held by the Support Party or any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliates; provided , however , that the Company shall be permitted to disclose at any time the aggregate principal amount of, and aggregate percentage of, any class of Participating Claims/Interests held by all of the Supporting Stakeholders.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) From and including the date of this Agreement to but excluding the last day of the Revolving Credit Period, Borrower shall pay to Lender a nonrefundable commitment fee on the unused portion of the Revolving Credit Commitment (determined by subtracting the aggregate amount of all Revolving Credit Loans from the amount of the Revolving Credit Commitment) multiplied by the Applicable Fee Percentage. Said commitment fee shall be (i) calculated on a daily basis, (ii) payable quarterly in arrears on the last day of each Fiscal Quarter during the Revolving Credit Period and on the last day of the Revolving Credit Period and (iii) calculated on an actual day, 360-day year basis.

assistant: Fees
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 pay the Executive an annual base salary of $365,000.00. The annual base salary shall be paid to the Executive in accordance with the established payroll practices of the Company (but no less frequently than monthly) subject to ordinary and lawful deductions. The Compensation Committee of the Company will review the Executive’s base salary from time to time to consider whether any increase should be made. The base salary during the Term will not be less than that in effect at any time during the Term.

assistant: Base Salary
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: conviction became final.” The two exceptions set forth in Teague are inapplicable here. The “rule” in question would not “place[] certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law-making authority to proscribe.” Teague, 489 U.S. at 307, 109 S.Ct. 1060 (citing Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 692, 91 S.Ct. 1160, 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (1971)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nor would it “require[ ] the observance of those procedures that ... are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Id. (citing Mackey, 401 U.S. at 693, 91 S.Ct. 1160; quoting Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 58 S.Ct. 149, 82 L.Ed. 288 (1937)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 242, 110 S.Ct. 2822, 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 311, 109 S.Ct. Options: A. recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception B. holding the rule of ejusdem generis inapplicable to interpret the nonspecific term otherwise improve where the legislature had expressly defined the word improve C. holding rules of appellate procedure are obviously procedural in nature D. holding that the court of appeals correctly stated the public policy exception but erroneously concluded that the exception did not apply E. holding that for exception to apply procedure must not only improve accuracy but also alter our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of the proceeding

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that for exception to apply procedure must not only improve accuracy but also alter our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of the proceeding
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed by one or more of the parties to this Agreement on any number of separate counterparts, and all of said counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed signature page of this Agreement by facsimile or other electronic transmission shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof. A set of the copies of this Agreement signed by all the parties shall be lodged with the Company and the Administrative Agent.

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: concurrently with the state sentence. This issue has been passed upon in several cases in this circuit. We have consistently held that the language of application note 6 is mandatory. See United States v. Lathern, No. 02-2789, 2003 WL 145638, 59 Fed.Appx. 167 (8th Cir. Jan. 22, 2003); United States v. Smith, 282 F.3d 1045, 1048 (8th Cir.2002); United States v. Goldman, 228 F.3d 942, 944 (8th Cir.2000); United States v. Dungy, No. 95-3997, 1996 WL 193150 (8th Cir. April 23, 1996). Several other circuits have reached the same conclusion. See United States v. Reyes-Lugo, 238 F.3d 305, 309-10 (5th Cir.2001); United States v. Gondek, 65 F.3d 1, 2-3 (1st Cir.1995); United States v. Bernard, 48 F.3d 427, 430-32 (9th Cir.1995); But see United States v. Maria, 186 F.3d 65, 70-74 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). As acknowledged by both the Defendant and the Options: A. holding that the guidelines did not strip the sentencing court of its discretion to impose a concurrent sentence B. holding that sentencing court could consider whether the applicable guidelines were outdated and disproportionate but that imposing sentence based on the guidelines did not render sentence substantively unreasonable C. holding that a court could not agree to impose a sentence within the guidelines but then give a sentence that suspended all but an amount within the guidelines because a reasonable defendant would believe that within the guidelines included suspended time D. holding that the mere mandatory application of the guidelines the district courts belief that it was required to impose a guidelines sentence constitutes error E. holding that the district court which had considered the guidelines but found an upward variant sentence necessary given the defendants previous violations did not abuse its discretion when it imposed a 24month sentence instead of a guidelines range sentence of 3 to 9 months incarceration

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the guidelines did not strip the sentencing court of its discretion to impose a concurrent sentence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: This Agreement will come into force on the [date of its execution]6 and will continue in force [indefinitely, unless and until terminated in accordance with Clause [5] / until [date] [event], upon which it will terminate automatically, unless terminated in accordance with Clause [5]]. Upon termination: (b) all the provisions of this Agreement will cease to have effect, save that the following provisions of this Agreement will survive and continue to have effect (in accordance with their terms or otherwise indefinitely): Clauses [1, 3, 5.2 to 5.4, and 6].

assistant: No
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: is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A. Fourth Amendment Malicious Prosecution Claim against Popp Popp argues he should have been granted qualified immunity on the malicious prosecution claim because there was no Fourth Amendment violation. We agree, because Popp did not make the decision to charge Kinkus, and there is no proof in the record that Kinkus presented false information to the prosecutor. This Court has held that a police officer cannot be liable for Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution when he did not make the decision to bring charges, as long as the information he submitted to the prosecutor is truthful. See Skousen v. Brighton High Sch., 305 F.3d 520, 529 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); see also McKinley v. City of Mansfield, 404 Options: A. holding that the defendant could not be liable for malicious prosecution where the plaintiff presented no evidence suggesting that defendants conspired with influenced or even participated in the prosecutors decision to bring charges against him B. holding that a police officer cannot be held liable for malicious prosecution when he did not make the decision to prosecute the plaintiff C. holding that the statute applies also to malicious prosecution actions D. holding that malicious prosecution claim accrues when underlying prosecution is terminated E. holding the same for malicious prosecution

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a police officer cannot be held liable for malicious prosecution when he did not make the decision to prosecute the plaintiff