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: sanction do conflict with Federal Rule 68 in cases where Rule 68 allows for recovery of costs — namely, when a plaintiff obtains a judgment, but the judgment “is not more favorable than the unaccepted offer.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 68(d). This is so even when the state rule provides for recovery of costs, fees or sanctions that are not available under Federal Rule 68. Gil de Rebollo v. Miami Heat Assoc., 137 F.3d 56, 66 (1st Cir.1998) (“[Puerto Rico] Rule 35.1 and [Federal] Rule 68 both ostensibly apply to this case and would result in a different award. The two rules are in ‘direct collision’ despite the fact that they are not ‘perfectly coextensive’ because Rule 68 is ‘sufficiently broad to cover the point in dispute.’ ”); cf. Aceves v. Allstate Ins. Co., 68 F.3d 1160, 1167-68 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). However, none of the cases cited above Options: A. recognizing privilege under federal rules B. holding that the burden is upon the state under the applicable federal rules of evidence C. holding that pleading rules are substantive D. holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery E. holding that the federal rules of civil procedure apply in diversity eases where they are on point unless they both directly conflict with state law and are invalid under the constitution or the rules enabling act

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery
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: Moreover, the evidence shows that solicitation of the towers was part of that effort and that, “but for” the RICO conspiracy, Cianci and Corrente would not have acquired any interest in the $250,000 collected from the towers. Consequently, their interests in that sum are subject to forfeiture under subsection (a)(1). B. Forfeiture Under § 1968(a)(2) Subsection (a)(2) provides for forfeiture of a defendant’s “interest in ... any enterprise” that the defendant “established, operated, controlled, conducted, or participated in the conduct of, in violation of section 1962.” 18 U.S.C. § 1963(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added). The forfeiture provision of (a)(2)(A) is especially severe because it makes a defendant’s entire interest in an enterprise subject to forfeiture. Angiulo, 897 F.2d at 1211-12 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, unlike (a)(1), it does not Options: A. holding that fourteenth amendment only applies to state action B. holding that the fourteenth amendment only applies to state action C. holding that the rule applies for purposes of habeas corpus under section 2254 D. holding that rule of proportionality applies only under a1 and what is now a2d E. holding that by its terms rule 50 applies only to jury trials

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that rule of proportionality applies only under a1 and what is now a2d
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 them has changed, and they are not entitled to re-characterize their theory or ground for relief once a final judgment on the merits has been entered on the first claim. Stadium Bank, 589 S.W.2d at 342. The only remaining issue is whether a final judgment on the merits was entered in the first matter. It was. Summary judgment is always a judgment on the merits. St Louis Univ. v. Hesselberg Drug Co., 35 S.W.3d 451, 455 (Mo.App. E.D.2000) (“[C]ourts have held that a summary judgment is a determination on the merits for collateral estoppel purposes.”); Williams v. Rape, 990 S.W.2d 55, 56 (Mo.App. W.D.1999) (“Since summary judgment is a determination on the merits, res judicata principles do apply to bar [the plaintiffs’] claims.”); Meyer v. Enoch, 807 S.W.2d 156, 159 (Mo.App. E.D.1991) (<HOLDING>); Restatement (Second) of Judgments, § 19 Options: A. holding that a summary judgment is a determination on the merits for res judicata and collateral estoppel purposes B. holding that an unappealed order is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes C. holding that res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to arbitration award D. holding that a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata E. holding that an unappealed contempt order by a bankruptcy court is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a summary judgment is a determination on the merits for res judicata and collateral estoppel purposes
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company and each Subsidiary: (a) is duly incorporated or otherwise organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the jurisdiction of its formation, (b) is duly qualified to do business as a foreign entity and is in good standing in each jurisdiction where the nature of the property owned or leased by it or the nature of the business conducted by it makes such qualification necessary, except where the failure to be so qualified would not have a Material Adverse Effect, and (c) has all requisite corporate power and authority to own or lease and operate its assets and carry on its business as presently being conducted as disclosed in the SEC Reports.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 357 U.S. 568 78 S.Ct. 1380 2 L.Ed.2d 1546 FIRST METHODIST CHURCH OF SAN LEANDRO and First Unitarian Church of Berkeley, appellants,v.Russell C. HORSTMANN, as Assessor of the County of Alameda, California; Edwin Meese, Jr., as Tax Collector of the County of Alameda, California, et al. No. 485. Supreme Court of the United States June 30, 1958 Messrs.Stanley A. Weigel, Lawrence Speiser and Frank B. Frederick, for appellants. Mr. J. F. Coakley, for appellees. Mr. Arthur M. Carden, for appellee City of San Leandro. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is reversed. First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. County of Los Angeles et al., (Valley Unitarian-Universalist Church, Inc., v. County of Los Angeles et al.), 357 U.S. 545, 78 S.Ct. 1350; Speiser v. Randall (Prince v. City and County of San Francisco), 357 U.S. 513, 78 S.Ct. 1332, decided this day. 2 Mr. Justice CLARK dissents for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinions in 357 U.S. 545, 78 S.Ct. 1350, decided this day. 3 The CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

assistant: 3
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 399 U.S. 525 90 S.Ct. 2252 26 L.Ed.2d 783 Stanley Edward KELLEYv.ARIZONA. No. 1232, Misc. Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1969. June 29, 1970 On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona. For opinion after remand 480 P.2d 658. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Arizona for further consideration in light of Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419. 2 Mr. Justice HARLAN would vacate the judgment and remand the case to the Supreme Court of Arizona for the reasons stated in his separate opinion in Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 55, 90 S.Ct. 1983.

assistant: 1
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: ( the aaa provides a general demand for arbitration ) the arbitrator will be either a retired judge or an attorney licensed to practice law and will be selected by the parties from the aaa 's roster of arbitrators .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any legal action or proceeding with respect to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of the State of Colorado or of the United States of America for the District of Colorado. By execution and delivery of this Agreement, each of the parties hereto accepts for itself and in respect of its property, generally and unconditionally, the jurisdiction of the aforesaid courts.

assistant: Jurisdictions
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 case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal and unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth in the SEC Reports, the Company does not directly or indirectly own any capital stock or other securities of, or any beneficial ownership interest in, or hold any equity or similar interest, or have any investment in any corporation, limited liability company, partnership, limited partnership, joint venture or other company, person or other entity.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution, delivery and performance by the Company of this Agreement and the other Transaction Documents to which it is a party, the issuance and sale of the Securities and the consummation by it of the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby do not and will not: (i) conflict with or violate any provision of the Company’s or any Subsidiary’s certificate or articles of incorporation, bylaws or other organizational or charter documents, (ii) after obtaining the Required Approvals, conflict with, or constitute a default (or an event that with notice or lapse of time or both would become a default) under, result in the creation of any Lien upon any of the properties or assets of the Company or any Subsidiary, or give to others any rights of termination, amendment, acceleration or cancellation (with or without notice, lapse of time or both) of, any agreement, credit facility, debt or other instrument (evidencing a Company or Subsidiary debt or otherwise) or other understanding to which the Company or any Subsidiary is a party or by which any property or asset of the Company or any Subsidiary is bound or affected, or (iii) subject to the Required Approvals, conflict with or result in a violation of any law, rule, regulation, order, judgment, injunction, decree or other restriction of any court or governmental authority to which the Company or a Subsidiary is subject (including federal and state securities laws and regulations), or by which any property or asset of the Company or a Subsidiary is bound or affected; except in the case of each of clauses (ii) and (iii), such as could not have or reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: No Conflicts
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: comments and one arguably racial remark over the course of the plaintiffs eight years of employment did not constitute pervasive conduct.” Smith v. Northwest Fin. Acceptance, Inc., 129 F.3d 1408, 1414 (10th Cir.1997). By our count, Ms. Hernandez presented evidence of at least a dozen racially offensive comments and jokes over the fourteen months Mr. Lillis supervised her in food services. But “the word ‘pervasive’ is not a counting measure” and the “trier of fact utilizes a broader contextual analysis.” Herrera, 474 F.3d at 680 n. 3. Considering the frequency, content, and context of the derogatory statements, we conclude that Ms. Hernandez established a genuinely disputed issue of fact as to the pervasiveness of the harassment in her work environment. See Smith, 129 F.3d at 1415 (<HOLDING>). The district court, citing Ford v. West, 222 Options: A. holding that plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence to support a finding that a similar position existed after his termination B. holding evidence sufficient to support trial courts finding in aggravation that the offense was planned C. holding that the evidence presented at a factfinding hearing was sufficient to support the chins finding D. holding evidence of six sexually derogatory statements over twentythree months some repeated frequently sufficient to support a finding of pervasive harassment E. holding evidence insufficient to support finding of implied contract

assistant: The best answer is D. holding evidence of six sexually derogatory statements over twentythree months some repeated frequently sufficient to support a finding of pervasive harassment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the Effective Date, set forth in Schedule 3.12 is a complete and correct list of all of the Subsidiaries together with, for each such Subsidiary, (i) the full and correct legal name, (ii) the type of organization, (iii) the jurisdiction of organization, (iv) if applicable, whether it is a Subsidiary Guarantor on the Effective Date and (v) each Person holding ownership interests in such Subsidiary and the percentage of ownership of such Subsidiary and voting rights with respect thereto represented by such ownership interest.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: is “common knowledge” that Superintendent Rounds is racist. Zamora points to: (1) comments al legedly made by Superintendent Rounds that New Mexico’s Governor (an Hispanic woman) is inept; (2) Rounds’ hiring a man who had authorized a social experiment at a New Mexico high school that gave the appearance of race discrimination; (3) the reassignment of Zamora’s duties in 2007 and 2008 to Caucasians; and (4) comments made by two co-workers in conversations surreptitiously recorded by Zamora following his termination in which they opined that Superintendent Rounds had engaged in racially discriminatory practices. To establish pretext from such comments or actions, Zamora must tie them to his termination, which he has not done. See Johnson v. Weld Cnty., 594 F.3d 1202, 1218 (10th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Ill The judgment of the district court is Options: A. holding 2254d authorizes federal court to review state courts decision only and not explanation of decision B. holding that without any meaningful connection in either time or topic to the employment decision the alleged comments and actions cannot give rise to an inference that the defendants explanation for that decision is pretextual C. holding that an employer in an employment discrimination case may not justify its conduct based on evidence that did not motivate it at the time of the employment decision D. holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision E. holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that without any meaningful connection in either time or topic to the employment decision the alleged comments and actions cannot give rise to an inference that the defendants explanation for that decision is pretextual
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 (including by telecopy), and all of such counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument. A set of the copies of this Agreement signed by all the parties shall be delivered to the Borrower 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: pending in that court, and her instigation of a separate action in Russell Circuit Court runs afoul of § 6-5-440. The former husband has met the requirements for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, including demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief he seeks; therefore, we grant his petition. The Russell Circuit Court is directed to enter an order dismissing the former wife’s contempt petition. PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. PITTMAN, MOORE, and DONALDSON, JJ., concur. THOMPSON, P.J., concurs in the result, without writing. 1 . In her answer to the former husband’s petition for the writ of mandamus, the former wife does not refute the factual assertions in the former husband’s petition, so we accept those assertions as true. See Ex parte Turner, 840 So.2d 132, 134-35 (Ala.2002) Options: A. holding a petition unexhausted because the petition provides no citation of any case that might have alerted the court to the alleged federal nature of the claim and the petition does not contain a factual description supporting the claim citations omitted B. holding that appellate courts can review the denial of a rule 60b motion by appeal even if the appellant mistakenly files a petition for a writ of mandamus C. recognizing in the context of a petition for a writ of mandamus that although the district court retained jurisdiction over the case following the governments mandamus petition the district court justifiably could defer trial until resolution of the appellate proceedings had the government prevailed on the merits of the mandamus petition the trial strategies of the government as well as the defense would surely have been altered D. holding that when a respondent fails to challenge factual allegations contained in a petition for the writ of mandamus the appellate court accepts as true the factual statements in the petition E. recognizing the right to petition for writ of certiorari as a form of appellate review

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that when a respondent fails to challenge factual allegations contained in a petition for the writ of mandamus the appellate court accepts as true the factual statements in 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that prejudgment interest is potentially available made such determinations irrelevant. 491 F.Supp.2d at 308. At the parties’ request, the Court now addresses these issues, which have been fully briefed. As described above, the Court found that prejudgment interest was available against USPS because such an award is a normal incident to an award of damages for breach of contract. However, punitive damages differ from prejudgment interest in that “punitive damages, unlike compensatory damages and injunction, are generally not available for breach of contract.” Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 187, 122 S.Ct. 2097, 153 L.Ed.2d 230 (2002). See also U.S. for Use and Benefit of Evergreen Pipeline Const. Co., Inc. v. Merritt Meridian Const. Corp. (“Evergreen”), 95 F.3d 153, 160 (2d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Durham Industries, Inc. v. North River Ins. Options: A. holding that punitive damages are available in an intentional discrimination action even if the jury does not assess compensatory damages B. holding punitive damages available for retaliatory claim under flsa C. holding that punitive damages are not fines D. holding that generally punitive damages are not available for a breach of contract E. recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that generally punitive damages are not available for a breach of contract
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 may be satisfied by “a closed period of repeated conduct,” or “past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition.” Id. Whereas predicate acts that extend over a few weeks or months and threaten no future criminal conduct do not satisfy this requirement, “[a] party alleging a RICO violation may demonstrate continuity over a closed period by proving a series of related predicates extending over a substantial period of time.” Id. In this case, the indictment identifies fourteen predicate acts that occurred between 2000 and October of 2008, several of which allegedly spanned a multi-year period. Consequently, closed-end continuity is sufficiently charged in the indictment. See Lovin, supra, 2007 WL 167454, at *3, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4914, at *8 (<HOLDING>); see also Walk v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 890 Options: A. holding that the striking similarity between the acts alleged in the indictment and the prior incidents rendered incidents that occurred fifteen years prior to the acts alleged in the indictment relevant and admissible under rule 404b B. holding that the indictment was sufficient to satisfy the continuity requirement since it alleged that the defendants conduct occurred over a period of eight years C. holding that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate retaliation for activities that occurred two years prior to the termination D. holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense E. recognizing the prejudice of an extension to a defendant who would be required to litigate events that occurred more than eight years earlier

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the indictment was sufficient to satisfy the continuity requirement since it alleged that the defendants conduct occurred over a period of eight years
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: accident insurance” as a collateral source. Id. Respondent argues that UIM benefits are akin to payments from the tortfeasor’s liability insurance, which do not constitute collateral sources. Respondent relies on Do, a case in which the supreme court held that “a payment made by a tortfeasor’s automobile insurer is not a collateral source” under section 548.251. 779 N.W.2d at 855. The supreme court observed that the ordinary meaning of “collateral source” refers to a source “wholly independent of’ and unconnected with the tortfeasor, and held that payments made to an injured claimant by the tortfeasor’s liability insurer constitute a direct rather than a collateral source because they derive directly from the tortfeasor’s insurance. See id. at 859-60; see also Dean, 535 N.W.2d at 345 (<HOLDING>). As a result, they do not constitute Options: A. holding that violence that does not stem from particularized animosity but rather from a financial incentive does not constitute persecution B. holding hospital could not enforce ben directly against tortfeasors insurer because patient had no right to directly sue insurer C. holding that an insurer can be estopped from denying coverage for failure to make payments where that insurer has established a course of conduct of accepting late payments D. holding that payments from a tortfeasors insurer are not from a collateral source because they stem directly from the tortfeasor E. holding that recovery from the tortfeasors insurer is a condition precedent to a claim for uim benefits

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that payments from a tortfeasors insurer are not from a collateral source because they stem directly from the tortfeasor
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: was not to consider the fingerprints as evidence of guilt. Id. In the case at bar, defendant’s request did not go to the proper consideration of the evidence; rather, defendant’s requested instruction would have required the jury to return a verdict of not guilty if it found the fingerprint evidence to be unreliable. That instruction is simply not a correct statement of law where there was additional evidence, albeit contradicted by further testimony, that defendant was present on the night of the robbery. Had defendant requested an instruction, such as that seen in Moore, which pertained to the consideration of the evidence, the trial court would have been required to give that instruction in substance, but that is not the case here. See Bradley, 65 N.C. App. at 363, 309 S.E.2d at 513 (<HOLDING>). In sum, because the requested instruction was Options: A. holding that the trial court committed prejudicial error by failing to give a requested instruction on the probative value of fingerprint evidence where the state relied primarily on that evidence B. holding probative value of evidence must be balanced against any prejudicial effect C. holding that the district court committed plain error by admitting evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment where the error did affect a substantial right of the defendants and the admission of evidence which should have been excluded did have a prejudicial impact on the jury D. holding that the trial court committed prejudicial error when it excluded expert testimony on false confessions E. holding refusal to give pretext instruction was error but not prejudicial

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the trial court committed prejudicial error by failing to give a requested instruction on the probative value of fingerprint evidence where the state relied primarily on that evidence
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: corollary application of the no-fault threshold to be dependent upon a claimant’s right to vote or his domicile or citizenship in Florida. Although this statutorily mandated insurance is not a government program, a more provincial definition would raise other questions of a constitutional dimension. See Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 374, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 29 L.Ed.2d 534 (1971) (finding welfare laws conditioning benefits on citizenship and imposing durational residency requirement on aliens violative of equal protection clause); see also Del Taco v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 79 Cal.App.4th 1437, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 825 (2000) (finding workers’ immigration status did not affect entitlement to temporary disability payments); Gene’s Harvesting v. Rodriguez, 421 So.2d 701(Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (<HOLDING>). Essentially, Florida is attempting to limit Options: A. holding that the board properly placed the burden of proving entitlement to benefits on the applicant B. holding a claimants injury report to a fellow employee did not satisfy the act because the claimants supervisor did not learn of the injury until six months later C. holding that whether children are legitimate for purposes of entitlement to insurance benefits is determined by state law D. holding that a plaintiff in an erisa denial of benefits case bears the burden of proving her entitlement to contractual benefits E. holding claimants status as illegal alien did not preclude entitlement to benefits for workrelated injury

assistant: The best answer is E. holding claimants status as illegal alien did not preclude entitlement to benefits for workrelated injury
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: Joe’s],” and lacks “a factual basis upon which to base a Declaratory Judgment.” Id. at 74. The district court entered the order, allowing Banana Joe’s to withdraw its answer and granting Nautilus a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Banana Joe’s. Bayouth and Hastings appeal. Discussion The Declaratory Judgment Act provides, in relevant part: In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, ... any court of the Cir.1974) (concluding that res judicata did not bar the litigation of coverage issues between the insurer, the “omnibus insured,” and the injured party where the insurer had previously litigated those issues to a default judgment against the “named insured”), and Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co. v. Schulte, 302 F.2d 174, 177 (7th Cir.1962) (<HOLDING>). We will not indulge such an assumption for Options: A. holding that the insurers declaratory relief action presented a justiciable controversy for the injured parties even though the insured tortfeasor had suffered a default judgment B. holding that an injured party in an underlying tort action was not a necessary party in an action by an insurer for declaratory judgment of nonliability where the injured person had not obtained judgment against the insured C. holding that the district court erred in dismissing the injured party from the insureds declaratory relief action based on a default judgment entered against the insured and the insureds tortfeasor son D. holding assignable to injured party insureds claim against insurer for judgment in excess of policy limits E. holding that insurance company could sue in insureds name following assignment of insureds interest against tortfeasor

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the district court erred in dismissing the injured party from the insureds declaratory relief action based on a default judgment entered against the insured and the insureds tortfeasor son
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: based on the lack of any evidence that the defendant copied an entire category of the plaintiffs directory, but explaining that a finding of infringement would succeed if the defendant had exactly duplicated a substantial designated portion of the plaintiffs directory such as all of the listings of professionals such as medical doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, and architects). To the extent that Wiggs’s analysis of the directories was misleading, it is an elementary rule on summary judgment that the burden shifted to Donnelley to produce its own comparative analysis of the published directories in order to rebut the undisputed evidence of substantial similarity in Wiggs’s affidavit. See United States v. Four Parcels of Real Property, 941 F.2d 1428, 1438 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). As a non-moving party Options: A. holding that to survive a motion for summary judgment a party must make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that partys case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial B. holding that the moving party for summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial C. recognizing that the burden on summary judgment shifts to the nonmoving party once the moving party has met its initial responsibility of showing the absence of a triable issue of fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case D. holding the moving party must meet its burden by showing that is pointing out to the trial court that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving partys case E. holding that once the moving party meets its burden the nonmoving party is obliged to produce evidence in response

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that the burden on summary judgment shifts to the nonmoving party once the moving party has met its initial responsibility of showing the absence of a triable issue of fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case
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, had received the full procedural due process to which he was entitled for the 1996 events to which the court was referring. The events, in fact, culminated in a decision and order of the Lincoln County Appeal Board calling for Pratt’s reinstatement. Defendants, therefore, are entitled to a summary judgment on this issue. Furthermore, because the LCPO has been dissolved, the issue of Pratt’s employment status, particularly after he was reinstated, is now moot. B. Constitutionally Protectable Property Interest Neither Exists In Pratt’s Job Duties Nor In Pratt’s Suspension When Such Suspension Is With Pay. [¶ 19] Pratt argues the defendants are not entitled to a qualified immunity because the defendants obstructed the reinstatement order of the Appeal Board -42 (4th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Fields v. Durham, 909 F.2d 94, 98 (4th Options: A. holding that under article i section 9 a person has no constitutionally protected privacy interest in abandoned property B. holding inmates possess a constitutionally cognizable property interest in the interest earned on money held in their prison accounts C. holding that sovereign immunity does not protect the state from claims for statutory employment benefits that constitute a protected property interest D. holding that constitutionally protected property interest in employment does not extend to right to possess and retain particular job or to perform particular services E. holding parental rights are constitutionally protected fundamental interest

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that constitutionally protected property interest in employment does not extend to right to possess and retain particular job or to perform particular services
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 described in the SEC Reports, or as set forth on Schedule 3.1(n) , there is no Proceeding pending or, to the Knowledge of the Company, threatened against or affecting the Company or its properties before or by any court, arbitrator, Governmental Authority, administrative agency or regulatory authority (federal, state, county, local or foreign) which (i) adversely affects or challenges the legality, validity or enforceability of any of the Transaction Documents or the Shares or (ii) could, if there were an unfavorable decision, have or reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. Neither the Company nor any director or officer thereof, is or has been the subject of a Proceeding involving a claim of violation of or liability under federal or state securities laws or a claim of breach of fiduciary duty. There has not been, and to the Knowledge of the Company, there is not pending or contemplated, any investigation by the Commission or other Governmental Authority involving the Company or any current or former director, officer or stockholder of the Company. The Commission has not issued any stop order or other order suspending the effectiveness of any registration statement filed by the Company under the Exchange Act or the Securities Act.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: dictates how cases against the Engle defendants should proceed. If the Majority mean to suggest that Douglas III instituted an "unorthodox” and "novel notion of res judicata,” Ante at 1183, 1184— 85, our duty as a recognizing court, under Florida law and the U.S. Constitution, would shift to evaluating whether the newly created law “eliminate[s] the basic common law protection against an arbitrary deprivation of property.” Douglas III, 110 So.3d at 431 (citing Oberg, 512 U.S. at 432, 114 S.Ct. at 2339). Does it, for example, allow plaintiffs to preclude the Engle defendants from litigating matters—such as whether their tortious conduct caused an individual plaintiff's injuries— on which they have never had an opportunity to be heard? Douglas III leaves no doubt. See 110 So.3d at 429 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the law to which the Majority hint Options: A. holding a person commits aggravated dui when his or her driving under the influence was a proximate cause of the injuries citation not the sole and immediate cause of the victims injuries emphasis omitted B. holding the plaintiff must show that the defendants departure from such generally recognized practices and procedures was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages C. holding that the injury was inflicted by the defendant when it occurred as a result of the defendants combative conduct D. holding that when a plaintiff proves that addiction to the engle defendants cigarettes containing nicotine was a legal cause of the injuries alleged injury as a result of the engle defendants conduct is assumed emphasis added E. recognizing the phase i trial was conducted for the explicit purpose of determining issues related to the engle defendants conduct which were common to the entire class meaning they had every reason to litigate each potential theory of liability to the fullest extent possible

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that when a plaintiff proves that addiction to the engle defendants cigarettes containing nicotine was a legal cause of the injuries alleged injury as a result of the engle defendants conduct is assumed emphasis added
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH LOAN PARTY AND LENDER HEREBY WAIVES ANY RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE OR DEFEND ANY RIGHTS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, ANY NOTE, ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT AND ANY AMENDMENT, INSTRUMENT, DOCUMENT OR AGREEMENT DELIVERED OR WHICH MAY IN THE FUTURE BE DELIVERED IN CONNECTION HEREWITH OR THEREWITH OR ARISING FROM ANY LENDING RELATIONSHIP EXISTING IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OF THE FOREGOING, AND AGREES THAT ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE TRIED BEFORE A COURT AND NOT BEFORE A JURY.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 385 U.S. 491 87 S.Ct. 583 17 L.Ed.2d 536 Helen Maxine Levi TRAVIS, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 67. Argued Nov. 15 and 16, 1966. Decided Jan. 10, 1967. John T. McTernan, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Nathan Lewin, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Mr. Justice FORTAS delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 This is a companion case to No. 176, United States v. Laub, 385 U.S. 475, 87 S.Ct. 574, 17 L.Ed.2d 526. Petitioner was tried on a stipulation of facts, under an indictment which alleged that on two occasions she 'did unlawfully, knowingly and willfully depart from the United States without bearing a valid passport, for the Republic of Cuba, via Mexico, the Republic of Cuba being a place outside the United States for which a valid passport is required' in violation of § 215(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 190, 8 U.S.C. § 1185(b). The parties stipulated that 'At no time pertinent or material herein did defendant, Helen Maxine Levi Travis, bear a valid United States passport specifically endorsed for travel to the Republic of Cuba * * *.' This stipulation is all that the record in this case reveals as to petitioner's possession of a valid passport. Petitioner was convicted, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted certiorari in light of the important questions raised by petitioner, and the apparent conflict with the decision of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York in the Laub case, supra, which we affirm today. 2 As our decision in Laub determines, if petitioner in fact had a valid passport, and the gravamen of the Government's accusation under § 215(b) were that her passport was not valid for travel to Cuba, this conviction could not stand. We have today held that area restrictions upon the use of an otherwise valid passport are not criminally enforceable under § 215(b). Because the Government did not allege, and introduced no proof, that petitioner did not bear a valid passport on each of the occasions on which she departed for Cuba, via Mexico, our decision in Laub, supra, requires that her conviction be reversed. 3 Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. 4 Reversed.

assistant: 3
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If a Change in Control occurs during the Performance Period and while Grantee remains employed, then the number of Performance Units earned (each, a “CIC Earned Unit”) shall be the greater of (A) the number of Performance Units that would have been earned based on actual performance as of the effective date of the Change in Control, as determined by the Committee, or (B) the Target Award. Fifty percent (50%) of any CIC Earned Units will be converted to actual unrestricted shares (one share per CIC Earned Unit) on the effective date of the Change in Control. The remaining fifty percent (50%) of any CIC Earned Units will be converted to service-based Restricted Stock (one share of Restricted Stock per CIC Earned Unit) on the effective date of the Change in Control. Such Restricted Stock will be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in a Restricted Stock Award Certificate in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Executive acknowledges and agrees that he/she shall maintain the confidentiality of this Agreement and shall not disclose it to any other employee of the Company or other person; provided , however , he/she may disclose it to his/her spouse and/or legal counsel or as required by law and he/she may disclose or discuss any items of this Agreement which the Company has disclosed in its annual proxy statement filed in accordance with the Exchange Act or other applicable regulation.

assistant: Confidentiality
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 Lenders agree to indemnify each Agent and each Other Representative in its capacity as such (to the extent not reimbursed by the Borrower and without limiting the obligation of the Borrower to do so), ratably according to their respective Aggregate Exposure Percentages in effect on the date on which indemnification is sought under this Section (or, if indemnification is sought after the date upon which the Commitments shall have terminated and the Loans shall have been paid in full, ratably in accordance with such Aggregate Exposure Percentages immediately prior to such date), from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, actions, judgments, suits, costs, expenses or disbursements of any kind whatsoever that may at any time (whether before or after the payment of the Loans) be imposed on, incurred by or asserted against such Agent or Other Representative in any way relating to or arising out of, the Commitments, this Agreement, any of the other Loan Documents, any Specified Hedge Agreements or any documents contemplated by or referred to herein or therein or the transactions contemplated hereby or thereby or any action taken or omitted by such Agent or Other Representative under or in connection with any of the foregoing; provided, that no Lender shall be liable for the payment of any portion of such liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, actions, judgments, suits, costs, expenses or disbursements that are found by a final and nonappealable decision of a court of competent jurisdiction to have resulted from such Agent’s or such Other Representative’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. The agreements in this Section 10.7 shall survive the payment of the Loans and all other amounts payable hereunder.

assistant: Indemnifications
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 execution, delivery and performance by the Company of this Agreement and the Notes (collectively, the “ Loan Documents ”) and the consummation of the transactions contemplated thereby (i) are within the power of the Company and (ii) have been duly authorized by all necessary actions on the part of the Company.

assistant: Authority