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: failed to prove: (1) that the credit union at issue, Pacific Marine Credit Union (“PMCU”), was insured by the National Credit Union Administration Board; (2) that $100,000 was stolen from PMCU; and, (3) that Lovellette stole the $100,000. Lovellette’s arguments fail, as there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find each of the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). William Bernie, the internal auditor at PMCU, testified that PMCU’s deposits were insured by the federal government. During Bernie’s testimony, the government also offered into evidence a certificate by the National Credit Union Administration. See United States v. Bellucci 995 F.2d 157, 160 (9th Cir.1993) • (<HOLDING>); United States v. Corbin, 972 F.2d 271, 272 Options: A. holding that because exclusion was not provided to certificate holder terms of the certificate controlled B. holding that the fdic may rely on erroneous bank records to determine whether there was an insured deposit at the time of the banks failure C. holding liability could not be transferred to the fund where the certificate of insurance was not signed D. holding that the limitation period for the fdic to remove begins to run when the fdic is appointed receiver E. holding that a banks fdic certificate of insurance was sufficient to establish that the bank was insured by the fdic

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a banks fdic certificate of insurance was sufficient to establish that the bank was insured by the fdic
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: once your account is created and you accept these terms , we grant you a limited , non-exclusive license to use the service subject to these terms , for so long as you are not barred from receiving the service under the laws applicable to you , until you close your account voluntarily or until we close your account pursuant to these terms .

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: where the petitioner is in custody under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed). In addition, we agree with the Commonwealth that to the extent that due process guarantees an opportunity to be heard on her ineffectiveness claim, Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to be heard within the limitations imposed by the PCRA under the facts of this case: she was sentenced January 14, 2008; declined to raise her ineffectiveness claims on direc't appeal pursuant to Bomar; filed a PCRA petition on January 12, 2009; and raised the claim on which the PCRA court ultimately granted relief a mere eleven days prior to the expiration of her two-year probationary sentence. During the two years of her sentence, PCRA relief was available. See Ahlborn, 699 A.2d at 720 (<HOLDING>). Yet Petitioner neither requested expedited Options: A. holding that the denial of pcra relief cannot stand unless the petitioner was afforded the assistance of counsel B. holding that under section 9543a1 a pcra petitioner is not eligible for relief where the petitioner has completed serving the sentence before final adjudication on the petition C. holding pcra statute requires that petitioner must be currently serving sentence of imprisonment parole or probation on underlying crime not only when petition is filed but also when decision on petition is rendered D. holding that the plain language of this section requires the denial of relief for a petitioner who has finished serving his sentence E. holding the bia did not abuse its discretion in finding petitioner did not satisfy the procedural requirements for his motion in part because petitioner failed to submit a completed application for relief

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that under section 9543a1 a pcra petitioner is not eligible for relief where the petitioner has completed serving the sentence before final adjudication on the 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that any recapitalization, stock split, reverse stock split, stock dividend, reorganization, merger, consolidation, split-up, spin-off, combination, repurchase, or exchange of Shares or other securities of the Company, or other change in the corporate structure of the Company affecting the Shares occurs, the Administrator, in order to prevent diminution or enlargement of the benefits or potential benefits intended to be made available under the Plan, will adjust the number and class of Shares that may be delivered under the Plan and/or the number, class, and price of Shares covered by each outstanding Award, and the numerical Share limits in Section 3(a) of the Plan.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. It will not be necessary in making proof of this Agreement or the terms of this Agreement to produce or account for more than one such counterpart. Each party agrees that it will be bound by its own facsimile or scanned signature and that it accepts the facsimile or scanned signature of the other party to this 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: fees, which the government opposed. The government contended that Wagner was not a prevailing party, and even if she were, the government was substantially justified in its position throughout the litigation; in either case, Wagner would not be awarded the fees she sought. We denied Wagner’s motion. In our Order, filed on August 26, 2008, we stated that in order to be a “prevailing party” under the EAJA, a party must establish that a federal court’s actions resulted in a “material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties” and that the alteration was “judicially sanctioned.” See Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W.Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604-05, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001); Perez-Arellano v. Smith, 279 F.3d 791, 794 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). We determined that the Court’s actions Options: A. holding that the buckhannon rule governs an application for fees under the eaja B. holding that buckhannon applies to the attorneys fees provision of the idea C. holding that under the eaja a litigant did not incur fees when his former employer agreed to pay his legal fees and expenses D. holding that payment of eaja fees directly to the attorney also is consistent with the broad purpose for enacting the eaja if the commissioners narrow position was adopted there would be a substantial risk that counsel for a successful plaintiff might not be paid which would have a chilling effect on the willingness of attorneys to represent indigent claimants in social security cases thus thwarting the primary purpose the eaja was enacted E. holding that the eaja application satisfied the eaja content requirements because it contained among other things an itemized statement of the fees sought supported by an affidavit from the appellants counsel

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the buckhannon rule governs an application for fees under the eaja
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: countries but noting that the right generally remains less expansive than the Fifth Amendment right in the United States). There is no reason to think the drafters of the Vienna Convention had these uniquely American rights in mind, especially given the fact that even the United States Supreme Court did not require Fifth and Sixth Amendment post-arrest warnings until it decided Miranda in 1966, three years after the treaty was drafted. Judge Thomas’s dissent discusses the longer history of the exclusionary rule for an involuntary confession, but that is not the issue we must decide. Although appellant contends that the exclusionary rule is the usual and, in this instance, only effective way to enforc (4th Cir.1995) (same); United States v. Thompson, 936 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Benevento, 836 F.2d 60, 69 Options: A. holding that agents violation of irs regulations did not mandate exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of violation B. holding a statutory violation insufficient to justify imposition of the exclusionary rule absent an underlying constitutional violation or right or evidence that congress intended exclusion as a remedy C. holding that because code 19260 a procedural statute did not expressly provide a right of suppression of evidence a violation of that provision did not require application of the exclusionary rule in the absence of a constitutional violation D. holding that exclusionary rule only requires exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights and that exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of statutory rights is not necessarily required E. holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding a statutory violation insufficient to justify imposition of the exclusionary rule absent an underlying constitutional violation or right or evidence that congress intended exclusion as a remedy
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: under the FTCA. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 477-78, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994). Accordingly, he has not stated an FTCA claim on which relief can be granted. Punchard has not challenged the district court’s conclusion that, to the extent he seeks monetary damages in excess of $10,000, the United States Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over his takings claim against the United States pursuant to the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(a)(2) & 1491, a conclusion with which we agree. Although we may transfer a case to the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 when it is in the interest of justice, we decline to do so here because Punchard’s takings claim accrued no later than 1990 and is barred by the six-ye ravel Co., 469 F.2d 416, 418 (5th Cir.1972) (<HOLDING>). Punehard is not entitled to mandamus relief Options: A. holding defendant to a preference action has a right to a jury trial pursuant to the seventh amendment of the united states constitution but that right can be waived by filing a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings B. holding that seventh amendment right to jury trial not violated by courts dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to rule 12b6 because as a matter of law complaint faded to present an issue for trial C. holding that cases involving public rights may constitutionally be adjudicated by legislative courts and administrative agencies without implicating the seventh amendment right to a jury trial D. holding that seventh amendment right to jury trial not violated by courts dismissal for lack of jurisdiction E. holding that dismissal pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 56 did not violate the seventh amendment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that seventh amendment right to jury trial not violated by courts dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
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: CURIAM. Upon consideration of the appellant’s responses to the Court’s orders of September 2, 2003, and September 30, 2003, the Court has determined that because the appellant was never made a party to the proceedings below, the appellant does not have standing to maintain the appeal. See Forcum v. Symmes, 101 Fla. 1266, 133 So. 88 (1931)(<HOLDING>); see also Stas v. Posada, 760 So.2d 954 (Fla. Options: A. holding that lack of appellate jurisdiction is fundamental error B. holding that when an appellate court determines that it lacks jurisdiction the only thing it can do is dismiss the appeal C. holding that it is not D. holding that it is a fundamental principle of appellate law that appeal jurisdiction is only available to parties E. holding right to be fundamental

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that it is a fundamental principle of appellate law that appeal jurisdiction is only available to 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: This Agreement may be terminated by either Purchaser, by written notice to the other parties, if the Initial Closing has not been consummated by the fourth (4 th ) Trading Day following the Effective Date of this Agreement; provided that no such termination will affect the right of any party to sue for any breach by the other party (or parties).

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties hereto agree that all provisions of this Lease are to be construed as both covenants and conditions as though the words importing such covenants and conditions were used in each separate paragraph. Subject to any provisions hereof restricting assignment or subletting by Tenant and subject to the provisions of Section 20.1 above, all of the provisions hereof shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns. This Lease shall be governed by the laws of the state in which the Premises are located.

assistant: Binding Effects
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: Second, these materials fall within the “narrowly defined category of materials a court can consider without converting a[n FRCP] 12(b)(6) motion to one for summary judgment. This category includes exhibits attached to the complaint, undisputed documents relied upon by the plaintiff, other items appearing in the record of the case, and matters of public record.” Stuler v. United States, No. 07-642, 2008 WL 957009, at *2 (W.D.Pa. Apr. 8, 2008) (citation omitted). Senate reports, court filings, and resolutions passed by municipalities are public records. See Biomed. Patent Mgmt. Corp. v. Cal., Dep’t of Health Servs., 505 F.3d 1328, 1331 (Fed.Cir.2007) (“[C]ourt filings ... are matters of public record....”); Jones v. Butler, No. 09-03128, 2009 WL 2461885, at *5 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 11, 2009) (<HOLDING>); L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 519 F.Supp.2d 1072, Options: A. holding that a notice because it was docketed should be considered a matter of public record B. holding that bond and miller did not apply because the plaintiff was appointed to the city council by the mayor rather than elected by the public C. holding that neighbors aesthetic concerns could constitute compelling evidence for a city council D. recognizing that a city council resolution is unquestionably a matter of public record E. holding that an employment contract between an outgoing city council and the city manager was void on public policy grounds because it attempted to take away the governmental or legislative power of the incoming council to appoint and remove public officers

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that a city council resolution is unquestionably a matter of public 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: 538 U.S. 1012, 123 S.Ct. 1927, 155 L.Ed.2d 848 (2003), which the FCC issued after the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and remanded an earlier FCC ruling regarding the treatment of ISP-bound traffic. See Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies v. FCC, 206 F.3d 1 (D.C.Cir.2000). 4 . In their Motion to Dismiss, the PSC Defendants also state that the PSC, "as an instrumentality of the State of Delaware, is not subject to an action under ... [42] U.S.C. § 1983 because the PSC is not a ‘person’ under that statutory provision.” (D.I. 16 at 1-2.) However, none of the parties expended any discernable effort briefing or arguing that defense, although there is authority to support it. See Jemzura v. Public Service Comm’n, 971 F.Supp. 702, 706 (N.D.N.Y.1997) (<HOLDING>). Presumably they did not do so because it is Options: A. holding that neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are persons under 1983 B. holding that under authority of will v michigan dept of state police 491 us 58 71 109 sct 2304 105 led2d 45 1989 neither the state nor state public service commission officials acting in their official capacities are persons subject to suit under 1983 C. holding that states and state officials acting in their official capacities are not persons subject to liability under 1983 D. holding that states and state officials acting in their official capacity are not persons under 1983 E. holding that neither a state agency nor its officials acting in their official capacities may be sued under section 1983

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that under authority of will v michigan dept of state police 491 us 58 71 109 sct 2304 105 led2d 45 1989 neither the state nor state public service commission officials acting in their official capacities are persons subject to suit under 1983
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: then proceed either with a bench trial or a trial to me on stipulated facts? “THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.” Furthermore, in the stipulated facts agreement, Rizo acknowledged his waiver: “1. Defendant, having previously knowingly, intelligently, freely, and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial on all charges in the Information filed in this case, now agrees to proceed to bench trial by stipulated facts.” Rizo does not cite any authority requiring the district court to explain other trial rights to a defendant in order to obtain a knowing and voluntaiy jury trial waiver. Further, our caselaw has upheld jury trial waivers even when the district court fails to explain the particulars surrounding the right to a jury trial. See State v. Lewis, 301 Kan. 349, 377-78, 344 P.3d 928 (2015) (<HOLDING>); Beaman, 295 Kan. at 859, 862 (holding jury Options: A. holding that the district courts observation that a challenge for cause might have been justified as to this juror was more than sufficient under batson which emphasized that the prosecutors explanation need not rise to the level justifying exercise of a challenge for cause quoting batson 476 us at 97 106 sct 1712 B. holding that a postconviction petitioner has 60 days from the date of publication of 1997 philadelphia magazine article to raise claims based thereon under batson v kentucky 476 us 79 106 sct 1712 90 led2d 69 1986 C. holding that batson v kentucky 476 us 79 106 sct 1712 90 led2d 69 1986 does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review D. holding jury trial waiver valid although district court did not inform defendant of his attorneys ability to make challenges under batson v kentucky 476 us 79 8889 106 s ct 1712 90 l ed 2d 69 1986 E. holding jury trial waiver valid although district court did not inform defendant of right to unanimous verdict

assistant: The best answer is D. holding jury trial waiver valid although district court did not inform defendant of his attorneys ability to make challenges under batson v kentucky 476 us 79 8889 106 s ct 1712 90 l ed 2d 69 1986
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 binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective acquirors, successors (including any personal successors by law or otherwise), permitted assignees, heirs, executors, transferees, administrators, receivers, or other corporate successors or representatives of the Parties.

assistant: Successors
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: however, cannot grant a remand merely because it is unhappy with the ALJ’s result, Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 100-01, 111 S.Ct. 2157, 2163-64, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991), or “ ‘because substantial evidence would have supported an opposite decision.’ ” Frankl v. Shalala, 47 F.3d 935, 937 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting Smith v. Shalala, 987 F.2d 1371, 1374 (8th Cir.1993) in turn quoting Baker v. Heckler, 730 F.2d 1147, 1150 (8th Cir.1984)). Further, in order to remand a case such as this one, which falls under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court must either affirm, modify or reverse the decision so that it will be considered a final judgment. Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 101, 111 S.Ct. at 2163; see also Shalala v. Schaefer, -U.S. -, -, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 2627, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993) (<HOLDING>). With this jurisdictional basis in mind, the Options: A. holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court B. holding that it is axiomatic that remanding a case to state court terminates the jurisdiction of a federal bankruptcy or district court over that case C. holding a district court remanding a case pursuant to sentence four of 405g must order judgment in the case and may not retain jurisdiction over the ad ministrative proceedings on remand D. holding that bankruptcy court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over related case after dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case E. holding that a sentence four remand under 42 usc 405g is a final appealable decision and that a party who wins a remand under sentence four is a prevailing party for purposes of the eaja

assistant: The best answer is C. holding a district court remanding a case pursuant to sentence four of 405g must order judgment in the case and may not retain jurisdiction over the ad ministrative proceedings on remand
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: Gresh, 311 Fed.Appx. at 771 (noting that “ordinary business relationships” conducted at arm’s length do not rise to the level of a fiduciary relationship); Quadrille Bus. Sys. v. Ky. Cattlemen’s Ass’n, 242 S.W.3d 359, 365 (Ky.Ct.App.2007) (“An ordinary business relationship or an agreement reached through arm’s length transactions cannot be turned into a fiduciary one absent factors of mutual knowledge of confidentiality or the undue exercise of power or influence.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). Additionally, while “fiduciary relationships can be informal, [] they must evidence circumstances showing both parties agreed that one party would be acting in the interest of the other.” In re Sallee, 286 F.3d at 893; see also Abney v. Amgen, Inc., 443 F.3d 540, 550 (6th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). Kentucky courts have found Options: A. holding that the defendant lacked sufficient contacts with the forum state because there was no evidence the defendant knew where the product would be sold B. holding that because there was no factual dispute between the parties the presumption of correctness is not relevant C. holding that no fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and defendant because there was no evidence that the parties agreed that defendant would be acting primarily for the benefit of the plaintiffs D. holding there was no evidence to support the existence of any alleged fiduciary duty E. holding that a defendant owed no duty to a plaintiff with regard to the safekeeping of evidence because there was no promise by the defendant or its employees to inspect or safeguard the evidence for the plaintiffs benefit and destruction of physical evidence was not criminal because destruction was innocent and designed to ensure the safety of the defendants employees

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that no fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and defendant because there was no evidence that the parties agreed that defendant would be acting primarily for the benefit of the plaintiffs
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: accompanied by fraud or other inequitable conduct of the remaining parties. Mullin v. Eaton, 19 A. 371, 372 (N.H. 1889) erefore, qualitatively different from an action challenging title. Compare McCormick, 37 A.3d at 298 (explaining that covenant of warranty is a promise to defend lawful claims by third persons), with Bourne, 540 A.2d at 361 (stating that reformation is limited to the original parties and their successors in title). Consequently, we hold that RSA 477:27 does not authorize attorney’s fees for an action seeking reformation of a deed. See Anderson v. Selby, 700 N.W.2d 696, 702 (N.D. 2005) (declining to award attorney’s fees under warranty deed in reformation action by grantor); see also Civic Realty, Inc. v. Development, Inc., 641 P.2d 1361, 1362-63 (Haw. Ct. App. 1982) (<HOLDING>). Here, the petitioners asserted that, by Options: A. recognizing this distinction B. recognizing distinction between smith and mcdonnell C. recognizing distinction between tolling and estoppel D. recognizing distinction between two types of waiver E. recognizing distinction between attack on title by third party and complaint alleging mutual mistake in deed

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing distinction between attack on title by third party and complaint alleging mutual mistake in deed
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: Notwithstanding any provision in the Operating Agreement to the contrary, upon the execution of this Assignment, Assignor hereby transfers, assigns, conveys and delivers to Assignee, all of the membership interests in, including without limitation, the profits, losses, capital, property and distributions of, the New Property Owner and all other right, title and interest in and to the New Property Owner of Assignor (the “ Interest ”). From and after the date hereof, Assignor shall have no right, title or interest in or to the New Property Owner or to the membership interests in, or the profits, losses, capital, property and distributions of, the New Property Owner, whether arising on, prior to or after the date hereof.

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: of those events may constitute a fraudulent misrepresentation.” (citing Lawson v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 259 S.C. 477, 485, 193 S.E.2d 124 (1972))); Loubier v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2010 WL 1279082, at *5 (D.Conn. Mar. 30, 2010) (collecting cases wherein fraud claims based on slogans and advertisements were not actionable); Wilson v. Popp Yarn Corp., 680 F.Supp. 208, 215 (WD.N.C.1988) (“Statements of opinion ... are not actionable as fraudulent.”); Mortarino v. Consultant Eng’g Serv., Inc., 251 Va. 289, 293, 467 S.E.2d 778 (1996) (“It is well settled that a misrepresentation, the falsity of which will afford ground for an action for damages, must be of an existing fact, and not the mere expression of an opinion.”); Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 107 Wash.2d 127, 727 P.2d 655, 668 (1986) (<HOLDING>); see also Howard v. Haddad, 962 F.2d 328, 331 Options: A. holding that loose general praise of goods sold known as puffing is not ac tionable for fraud B. recognizing fraud to be a known misrepresentation or a nondisclosure C. holding that a creditors pmsi in goods sold to debtors did not survive consolidation of the original installment contract with a later contract for the purchase of additional goods D. holding that the hobbs act jurisdictional nexus was met by the robbery of a delicatessen that sold goods produced out of state without mentioning whether the goods were purchased from outofstate or instate suppliers E. holding that puffing does not give rise to fraud liability under mississippi law

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that loose general praise of goods sold known as puffing is not ac tionable for fraud
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: were generally unclear and it appears this money was completely commingled with strictly "marital" income. There is no indication or argument that Vonderahe improperly used this social security money for his own benefit and deprived his step-daughter of its use, nor that he ever requested that any withdrawal from her accounts be made to pay for ordinary household expenses. In fact, there is evidence that Fobar used it for her own personal benefit, as she testified that she used her daughter's social security money to pay for her own (Fo-bar's) college education. Under the circumstances, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by not awarding more property to Fobar based on her daughter's social security income. Cf. Gower v. Gower, 427 N.E.2d 703, 707-08 (Ind.Ct.App. 1981) (<HOLDING>). Conclusion The dissolution decree is not void Options: A. holding that circuit court erred in failing to consider that marital property in the form of marital earnings was used to pay debt against nonmarital property B. holding that separate property may become marital property if spouse donates it to marital unit with intent at time of donation that property become marital C. holding income tax liability incurred during marriage is one of accepted costs of producing marital income and should be treated as marital debt for purposes of determining equitable distribution of marital estate D. holding that the trial court erred in finding that marital property was the former wifes separate property based on a nonseparation agreement in which the former husband purported to relinquish any interest in the marital property E. holding trial court had no authority to award portion of the marital property to wifes children from another marriage even though money they received by way of social security benefits were commingled with the marital estate and used in part for the aequisition of marital property

assistant: The best answer is E. holding trial court had no authority to award portion of the marital property to wifes children from another marriage even though money they received by way of social security benefits were commingled with the marital estate and used in part for the aequisition of marital property
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event a claim for indemnification under this Article 5 has been finally determined and the Seller is the Indemnifying Party, the amount of such final determination shall be paid by the Seller to the Indemnified Party, on demand, at the Seller’s option (which shall be delivered to the Indemnified Party in writing), by delivering (i) a wire transfer of immediately available funds and/or (ii) such number of Shares as is calculated by dividing the indemnification amount by the volume weighted average trading price of the common shares of MHI Inc. on the TSX, for the ten trading days ending on the date such claim for indemnification is finally determined, or the fair market value of the Shares, in the event the common shares of MHI Inc. are no longer listed on the TSX; provided, however, that if Seller elects to deliver Shares pursuant to (ii) above, at the request of the Indemnified Party given in writing to the Seller within five (5) Business Days following the date on which the notice above is provided by the Seller, the Seller shall sell such Shares on the TSX (or other exchange on which the Shares are trading) and the proceeds shall be paid to the Indemnified Party (in lieu of delivering the Shares) and all costs and expenses incurred by the Seller in connection with the sale of such Shares on the TSX (or such other exchange) shall be paid by the Partnership and MHI Inc. In the event a claim for indemnification under this Article 5 has been finally determined and MHI Inc. and/or the Partnership is the Indemnifying Party, the amount of such final determination shall be paid by the Indemnifying Party to the Indemnified Party, on demand by wire transfer of immediately available funds.

assistant: Payments
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: When warned by St. Peter that his threat of picketing Blue Cross constituted prohibited secondary activity, Coleman brazenly responded that he didn’t care. But there is more evidence from which this Court easily can infer an intent to exert unlawful pressure. During his deposition, Bouthillette explained that Lima, also an authorized agent of Local 254, told him during a recorded phone conversation that Local 254 would contact Blue Cross in order to sabotage Intercity’s relationship if the cleaning company did not accede to the union’s wishes. This testimony is bolstered by the transcriptions of those calls. Bouthillette’s conversation with Lima provides insight into Local 254’s reasons for calling St. Peter and corroborates St. Peter’s statement. See Abreen Corp., 709 F.2d at 756 (<HOLDING>). The evidence presented by plaintiff is not Options: A. holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted B. recognizing that union members interests are adequately represented by the union C. holding that a union officials comments may be used to infer the object of union activity D. holding that a rico action by union members was properly dismissed where any financial improprieties occurred with union funds and directly injured solely the union E. recognizing that the involvement of supervisory union members in union affairs conflicts with the need to assure the complete devotion of union negotiating teams to employee interests

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a union officials comments may be used to infer the object of union activity
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: claims regarding the disciplinary proceeding were not related to the same incident and did not involve common questions of fact or law as in his claims against Niak and Kimich. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Branum’s claims against Niak and Kimich for improper joinder. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 20; Arrington, 414 F.2d at 693. Branum’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). As such, his appeal is dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does the district court’s dismissal of the complaint. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 108 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996); Patton v. Jefferson Corr. Ctr., 136 F.3d 458, 464 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Branum has previously accumulated two Options: A. holding that the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations B. holding that an evidentiary hearing may be used to develop the factual basis of a prisoner complaint C. holding prisoner cannot avoid strike by improperly joining claims to complaint D. holding that a pro se prisoner complaint is deemed filed as of the date the prisoner gives the complaint to prison officials to be forwarded to the court E. holding that where plaintiffs claims are timely on the face of the allegations of the complaint a court should strike the affirmative defense of statute of limitations

assistant: The best answer is C. holding prisoner cannot avoid strike by improperly joining claims to complaint
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: by the general exclusionary rule, which prevents the introduction of collateral bad acts for the sole purpose of suggesting that the defendant is more likely to be guilty of the crime in question. The trial court far exceeded its discretion when it allowed the State to introduce the collateral-act evidence. Finally, we hold that the trial court’s errors cannot be considered harmless error under the circumstances of this case. Rule 45, Ala. RApp. P., provides, in relevant part, that no judgment may be reversed on the ground of the improper admission of evidence unless, after an examination of the entire cause, it appears to the reviewing court that the error has probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the parties. See, e.g., Ex parte Greathouse, 624 So.2d 208, 210 (Ala.1993) (<HOLDING>); Moore v. State, 49 So.3d 228 Options: A. holding that the relevant dispositive inquiry is whether it would be clear to a reasonable state official that his conduct was unlawful B. holding that the proper harmlesserror inquiry asks whether absent the improperly introduced evidence it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a guilty verdict C. holding that the trial judge correctly instructed the jury that in resolving whether the crime occurred in tennessee they must be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence introduced on that issue D. holding that the improper denial of a defendants opportunity to impeach for bias is subject to harmlesserror review in which the reviewing court must determine if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt E. holding that when determining prejudice under the objective test relevant considerations include 1 whether the extrinsic evidence was received by the jury and the manner in which it was received 2 whether it was available to the jury for a lengthy period of time 3 whether it was discussed and considered extensively by the jury 4 whether it was introduced before a jury verdict was reached and if so at what point during the deliberations and 5 whether it was reasonably likely to affect the verdict considering the strength of the governments case and whether the governments case outweighed any possible prejudice caused by the extrinsic evidence

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the proper harmlesserror inquiry asks whether absent the improperly introduced evidence it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a guilty verdict
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: v. Long Island R.R., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 521 N.Y.S.2d 653, 516 N.E.2d 190 (1987) (“The existence of a valid and enforceable written contract governing a particular subject matter ordinarily precludes recovery in quasi contract for events arising out of the same subject matter.”). Moreover, the claim, which is based on the contention that plaintiffs were not aware of the risks involved in the transaction so that when the baht was pulled from the currency basket, Morgan realized an unbargained-for windfall, cannot be sustained. As already discussed, the risk involved in the transaction was patent, and a claim for unjust enrichment cannot be premised on a known risk. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. 58 W. 72nd St. Realty Assocs., No. 91 Civ. 3299, 1992 WL 183741, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 1992) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs’ claims based on theories of Options: A. holding that a claim for unjust enrichment should not be dismissed because the court may find that the express contract was no longer in force B. holding that where a prior agreement fixed the salary of the plaintiff plaintiff could not seek to recover for his services on a theory of unjust enrichment C. holding a claim for unjust enrichment could not be sustained where known risk would merely prevent the partys business expenditures from generating the return on investment which had been hoped for D. holding that there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment E. holding that unjust enrichment claim could prevail contrary to the ucc priority system

assistant: The best answer is C. holding a claim for unjust enrichment could not be sustained where known risk would merely prevent the partys business expenditures from generating the return on investment which had been hoped for
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 Letter Agreement shall not be assignable, in whole or in part, by either party without the written consent of the other party, except that the Corporation may, without your written consent, assign its rights and obligations under this Letter Agreement to any corporation or other business entity (a) with which the Corporation may merge or consolidate, or (b) to which the Corporation may sell or transfer all or substantially all of its assets or capital stock.

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: the Attorney General intended to restrict the authority of the FBI to promise an informant immunity, he could and would have said so plainly. For example, on January 10, 1975, the Attorney General issued an Order, available to members of the public, that expressly stated that “Investigative Agents and Attorneys are not Authorized to make representations to witnesses regarding funding, protection, or relocation.” Department of Justice Order OBD 2110.2, P 7(d) (Jan. 10, 1975) (emphasis in original). The Order also provided that such promises could be made “by authorized representatives of the U.S. Marshals Service only.” Id. This legal limitation on the authority of prosecutors and investigators was recognized and respected by the courts. Doe v. Civiletti, 635 F.2d 88, 90 (2d Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, the United States Attorneys Manual Options: A. holding that plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on an oral representation that the atwill provision of his employment contract did not apply to him when he entered into the contract that expressly contradicted the oral representations B. holding that trial court properly barred certain questions about witness who was in federal witness protection program C. holding service of process defective when the receipt card was signed by someone who was not the registered agent D. holding that oral representations of a strike force attorney and dea agent did not commit the marshals service with regard to placing someone in the witness protection program E. holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that oral representations of a strike force attorney and dea agent did not commit the marshals service with regard to placing someone in the witness protection program