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: that a reasonable employer would have found the plaintiff to be significantly better qualified for the job, but this employer did not, the factfinder can legitimately infer that the employer consciously selected a less-qualified candidate — something that employers do not usually do, unless some other strong consideration, such as discrimination, enters into the picture.” 156 F.3d at 1294. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reached a similar conclusion, recognizing that “facts may exist from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the employer’s ‘business decision’ was so lacking in merit as to call into question its genuineness.” Dister v. Cont’l Group, Inc., 859 F.2d 1108, 1116 (2d Cir.1988); see also Ryther v. KARE 11, 108 F.3d 832, 840 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Loeb v. Textron, Inc., 600 F.2d 1003, 1012 n. Options: A. holding that factfinder was allowed to consider whether the basis purportedly relied upon by defendant in its decision to fire plaintiff was actually a sound as opposed to pretextual basis upon which to make employment decisions B. holding that damage to building and personal property as a result of fire negligently caused by defendant was to be measured by reasonable cash market value of the property at the time it was destroyed by the fire or if it was not totally destroyed by the diminution in its fair market value before and after the fire C. holding that the district court must make findings on the record as to the basis for its conclusion about the amount of actual loss 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 an allegation sufficient under rule 9b that the plan and the participants acting on behalf of the plan relied upon and are presumed to have relied upon defendants representations and nondisclosures to their detriment

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that factfinder was allowed to consider whether the basis purportedly relied upon by defendant in its decision to fire plaintiff was actually a sound as opposed to pretextual basis upon which to make employment decisions
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 Lessee makes the representations and warranties in Section 7.1(a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) to the Buyer as of the Lease Closing Date, as of the Amendment Closing Date and as of each Upgrade Date and makes the agreements in Section 7.1(b) and (f) from the Lease Closing Date to the Final Settlement Date.

assistant: Representations
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. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). 40 . Id. at 678, 105 S.Ct. 3375.' 41 . Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). 42 . R. at 2459-64. 43 . R. at 2459. 44 . R. at 2456 (emphasis in original). 45 . Ind. at 46. 46 . Burton's Form 302 at 4-5. 47 . Burton’s Form 302 at 7. 48 . Burton’s Interview Notes at 2. 49 . Burton’s Interview Notes at 6-7. 50 . Ind. at 46. 51 . Burton's Form 302 at 8. 52 . Burton's Interview Notes at 7. 53 . Ind. at 46. 54 . Burton's Form 302 at 9. 55 . Burton’s Interview Notes at 8. 56 . Ind. at 46. 57 . Burton's Form 302 at 9. 58 . Burton's Form 302 at 10. 59 . Burton's Interview Notes at 9. 60 . Burton’s Interview Notes at 9. 61 . See United States v. Martin, 565 F.2d 362, 364 (5th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). 62 . Ind. at 46. 63 . Burton's Form 302 at Options: A. holding that an fbi agents notes were not a witness statement within the act because there was no evidence that the witness adopted or approved what was recorded B. holding that an fbi agents rough notes of an interview of the defendant were not brady material because there was no independent showing that they contained evidence that was material to the defendants guilt or innocence C. holding that agents rough notes were not statements under the jencks act where notes were scattered and all the information contained in them was available to the defendant in other forms D. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the fbi informants file contained no brady material not already provided to the defendant in a summary E. holding that an appellants due process rights were not violated when he did not receive brady material before his transfer hearing because he will be able to make effective use of any brady material at trial

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an fbi agents rough notes of an interview of the defendant were not brady material because there was no independent showing that they contained evidence that was material to the defendants guilt or innocence
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 Second Amendment, in conjunction with the License Agreement, constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties regarding the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior understandings, agreements or representations between the Parties, written or oral, relating to the subject matter hereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: On the Closing Date, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein, substantially concurrent with the execution and delivery of this Agreement by the parties hereto, the Company agrees to sell, and the Purchasers, severally and not jointly, agree to purchase, an aggregate of up to $3,432,000 of Shares and Warrants. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in the event that a Purchaser’s Subscription Amount would cause such Purchaser’s Beneficial Ownership to exceed 9.99% of the issued and outstanding shares of Common Stock, at the option of such Purchaser, in lieu of Shares in excess of such amount, such Purchaser shall be issued a Pre-Funded Warrant. Each Purchaser shall deliver to the account designated by the Company, immediately available funds equal to such Purchaser’s Subscription Amount as set forth on the signature page hereto executed by such Purchaser (it being understood that on Closing, such amount shall be reduced by, if applicable, the aggregate exercise price of the Pre-Funded Warrants issuable to such Purchaser). The Company and each Purchaser shall deliver the items set forth in Section 2.2 at the closing (“ Closing ”). Upon satisfaction of the covenants and conditions set forth in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, the Closing shall occur at the offices of the Placement Agent or such other location as the parties shall mutually agree. Unless otherwise directed by the Placement Agent, settlement of the Shares pursuant to Section 2.2(a) shall occur via “Delivery Versus Payment” (“ DVP ”) ( i.e. , on the Closing Date, the Company shall issue the Shares registered in the Purchasers’ names and addresses and released by the Transfer Agent directly to the account(s) at the Placement Agent identified by each Purchaser; upon receipt of such Shares, the Placement Agent shall promptly electronically deliver such Shares to the applicable Purchaser, and payment therefor shall be made by the Placement Agent (or its clearing firm) by wire transfer to the Company).

assistant: Closings
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: terms accident and accidental are incredibly elusive,” and that “few issues so confound courts as determining when deaths are to be considered accidents for purposes of insurance policies affording accidental death coverage”); Gary Schuman, “Dying Under the Influence: Drunk Driving and Accidental Death Insurance,” 44 Tort Trial & Ins. Prac. L.J. 1, 2 (Fall 2008) (noting that courts and insurance underwriters, for 150 years, “have attempted to answer th[e] apparently simply question” of “what is an ‘accidental bodily injury’ ”; further noting that “[tjhere probably is no ‘ordinary’ meaning of ‘accident’ upon which everyone can agree, at least in the context of accidental death insurance or benefit plans”). But cf. McLain v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 820 F.Supp. 169, 170-71, 176 (D.N.J.1993) (<HOLDING>). Because we are reviewing MetLife’s denial of Options: A. holding that an insureds personal belief that he was not liable for an accident provided no basis for submitting the question of the reasonableness of his delay in notification to a jury when the insured knew the day after the accident that it had been claimed that the cable he had installed had caused the accident B. holding that where the dispositive issue in an administrative proceeding was whether an accident occurred as the plaintiff alleged it did collateral estoppel did not bar litigation of whether the accident was workrelated because that issue had not yet been litigated C. holding that trial court erred in excluding from evidence the application for social security benefits that the plaintiff made eight months prior to the accident at issue in which he described in detail his inability to work which was probative in establishing the plaintiffs condition prior to the accident and stating that since the plaintiff was denied social security benefits there was no collateral source D. holding that an intended damages exclusion was in pari materia with language in the policy defining an occurrence under the policy as an accident E. holding in ease addressing whether acute reaction to cocaine was an accident for purposes of ad d benefits term accident as used in the ad d policy was not ambiguous

assistant: The best answer is E. holding in ease addressing whether acute reaction to cocaine was an accident for purposes of ad d benefits term accident as used in the ad d policy was not ambiguous
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 date hereof, the authorized capital stock of the Company on the date hereof is 20 billion; (b) the number of shares of capital stock issued and outstanding is 172,126,137; (c) the number of shares of capital stock issuable pursuant to the Company’s stock plans is 9,315; and (d) the number of shares of capital stock issuable and reserved for issuance pursuant to securities (other than the Securities) exercisable for, or convertible into or exchangeable for any shares of capital stock of the Company are 16,450,428,548. All of the issued and outstanding shares of the Company’s capital stock have been duly authorized and validly issued and are fully paid, nonassessable and free of pre-emptive rights. All of the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of each Subsidiary have been duly authorized and validly issued and are fully paid, nonassessable and free of pre-emptive rights, were issued in full compliance with applicable state and federal securities law and any rights of third parties and are owned by the Company, beneficially and of record, subject to no lien, encumbrance or other adverse claim. No Person is entitled to pre-emptive or similar statutory or contractual rights with respect to any securities of the Company. Other than described herein and in the Company’s periodic reports filed with the SEC, there are no outstanding warrants, options, convertible securities or other rights, agreements or arrangements of any character under which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is or may be obligated to issue any equity securities of any kind and except as contemplated by this Agreement, neither the Company nor any of its Subsidiaries is currently in negotiations for the issuance of any equity securities of any kind.

assistant: Capitalization
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 Borrower and its Subsidiaries have conducted their businesses in material compliance with the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, the UK Bribery Act 2010, and other similar anti-corruption legislation in other jurisdictions and have instituted and maintained policies and procedures designed to promote and achieve compliance with such laws.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: was decided, Ohio had state-issued temporary tags, but had no law that governed how the tags had to be displayed. The officer who stopped Chatton justified his stop based on two grounds: the tag was not visibly displayed, and cars with temporary tags are often used in criminal activity. 15 . Id. at 1239-40. 16 . 242 Neb. 426, 495 N.W.2d 475 (1993). At the time Childs was decided, Nebraska issued "In Transit” stickers to newly acquired cars. The expiration date was not visible, however, without pulling the car over to examine the sticker. 17 . See State v. LaBarge, 275 S.C. 168, 268 S.E.2d 278 (1980) (noting that all presumptions of law are in favor of innocence until proven otherwise). 18 . S.C.Code Ann. § 56-3-2420 (1991). 19 . See United States v. Wilson, 205 F.3d 720 (4th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). 20 . See State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, Options: A. holding detention of passenger for warrant check violated fourth amendment absent reasonable suspicion B. holding that officers may consistent with the fourth amendment conduct a brief investigatory stop when they have a reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot C. holding that an officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct traffic stop even when his suspicion that a law has been violated is based on a reasonable mistake of law D. holding that absent probable cause to arrest a police officer may approach an individual to conduct a brief investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal conduct is afoot E. holding that absent an articulable reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct the fourth amendment forbids stopping a car simply because it has a temporary tag

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that absent an articulable reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct the fourth amendment forbids stopping a car simply because it has a temporary tag
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: final judgment had already been entered in favor of appellee, a request to remand the matter for consideration of sanctions based on appellant’s conduct was untimely); Louros v. Kreicas, 2003 WL 22353979 at *2 (S.D.N.Y.) (“[A]s plaintiff withdrew ... claims within the ‘safe harbor’ period provided for by Rule 11, sanctions with respect to those claims would be inappropriate”). E. Standing/Parties. Benun, although not formally a party to Fuji’s trustee motion, has applied to join in Jazz’s motion for sanctions; moreover, both Jazz and Benun seek sanctions against Fuji as well as its counsel. As to Benun’s efforts, no provision in Rule 9011 recognizes joinder in a sanctions motion filed by another party. See Wolf v. Kupetz (In re Wolf & Vine, Inc.), 118 B.R. 761 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1990) (<HOLDING>). Benun did not file a sanctions motion as is Options: A. holding that denial of joinder motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion B. holding that a motion for rule 11 sanctions is dispositive C. holding that joinder is not a substitute for the necessary sanctions motion D. holding that a motion for rule 37 sanctions is dispositive E. holding that a reviewing court is not to substitute its decision for that of the board

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that joinder is not a substitute for the necessary sanctions motion
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 either an accused or a police officer, relating to routine incidents of the custodial relationship, will not generally "initiate” a conversation in the sense in which that word was used in Edwards. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. at 1045, 103 S.Ct. 2830. However, the latter phrase from that sentence in Hutchins ("that may ... lead to further interrogation”) does not appear in this section of Bradshaw. 19 . We have been unable to find any Supreme Court case that references the Edwards rule and quotes the phrase "communication, exchanges, or conversations" without also linking that particular phrase to actions by the accused. See Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 407, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 176 L.Ed.2d 1098 (2010) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting); Shatzer, 559 U.S. at 104, 130 S.Ct. 1213 Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Comosona, 848 F.2d Options: A. holding that the plaintiff has set forth a cognizable claim that the officer violated his fourth amendment right when the officer knocked on the plaintiffs motel door and replied that he was maintenance and that he was there to fix the sink B. holding that following his invocation of counsel fbi agent handed mr comosona a business card and invited him to call collect if he wanted to talk about incident whereupon mr comosona stated that he wanted to continue the interview constituted initiation by mr comosona within the meaning of edwards C. holding the defendant lacked any expectation of privacy in his cell so the jailer had the right to inspect anything in his cell D. holding that following his invocation of counsel when mr mccree subsequently knocked on his cell door and stated he had something to say this constituted initiation under edwards E. holding police violated edwards when they continued questioning a defendant after his initial invocation of the right to counsel even though he responded to the subsequent questioning

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that following his invocation of counsel when mr mccree subsequently knocked on his cell door and stated he had something to say this constituted initiation under edwards
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: Borrower and its Subsidiaries own, or possess, the right to use to the extent necessary in their respective businesses, all Intellectual Property, and no such Intellectual Property conflicts with the valid Intellectual Property of any other Person. Except as set forth in Schedule 5.9 , Borrower has not used any trade name, trade style or “dba” during the five year period ending on the Closing Date.

assistant: Intellectual 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: In his letter dated August 16, 1997 to the EEOC challenging the dismissal of his five complaints, plaintiff wrote, “my complaints/appeals to the EEOC,” (referring to the letters of complaint submitted in late 1996 and early 1997), “are ALREADY FORMAL COMPLAINTS.” (Compl. at Ex. 7) (emphasis in original). Much the same situation arose in Love v. Pullman Co., when the petitioner sent the EEOC a letter of complaint, alleging that his employer had violated Title VII. 404 U.S. at 522, 92 S.Ct. 616. The district court dismissed petitioner’s claim, because he had not formally filed a second grievance when the agency notified him of his right to do so. Id. at 523-24, 92 S.Ct. 616. The court of appeals affirmed. Love v. Pullman Co., 430 F.2d 49 (10th Cir.1969). The Supreme Court 992) (<HOLDING>), but see Hayes v. Shalala, 902 F.Supp. 259, Options: A. holding that three to five months is a short enough time lapse between eeo activity and reprisal to establish a causal connection B. holding that a three month interval between protected activity and adverse act is too long standing alone to establish an inference of retaliation C. holding that a threeyear gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was insufficient to support an inference of causation D. holding that a lengthy delay of approximately a year between plaintiffs reports and her termination does not support an inference she was fired because of the protected activity E. holding that almost a year between plaintiffs eeo activity and the adverse employment decision is too great a length of time to support an inference of reprisal

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that almost a year between plaintiffs eeo activity and the adverse employment decision is too great a length of time to support an inference of reprisal
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 could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, each of Holdings, Intermediate Parent, the Parent Borrower and each Restricted Subsidiary owns, licenses or possesses the right to use, all Intellectual Property that are reasonably necessary for the operation of its business as currently conducted, and, without conflict with the rights of any Person. No Intellectual Property, advertising, product, process, method, substance, part or other material used by Holdings, the Parent Borrower or any Restricted Subsidiary, and the operation of its business as currently conducted, infringes upon or violates any Intellectual Property rights held by any Person except for such infringements or violations, which could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. No claim or litigation regarding any of the Intellectual Property is pending or, to the knowledge of Holdings and the Parent Borrower, threatened in writing against Holdings, each Borrower or any Restricted Subsidiary, which could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. As of the Effective Date, the Intellectual Property owned by Restricted Subsidiaries organized under laws of Brazil or any state, province or territory thereof is not material to the business of Borrower and its Restricted Subsidiaries.

assistant: Intellectual 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: she has suffered adverse employment actions that violate retaliation laws. To establish a claim for retaliation, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) she engaged in a protected activity; (2) she suffered an adverse employment decision; and (3) there was a causal link between a plaintiffs activity and the employment decision. Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092, 1118 (9th Cir.2002). An adverse employment action is one that is reasonably likely to deter an employee from engaging in protected activity. Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1242-43 (9th Cir.2000). The Ninth Circuit defines adverse employment actions in a broad manner. Id. at 1240. For example, lateral transfers and schedule changes may constitute adverse employment actions, while mere offensive comments by co 731-32 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). The parties do not dispute that Watson Options: A. holding that although evidence that the alleged adverse action occurred shortly after the employer became aware of the protected activity is sufficient to make a prima facie causation case the opposite is equally true a lengthy time lapse between the employer becoming aware of the protected activity and the alleged adverse employment action negates any inference that a causal connection exists between the two B. holding that adverse employment activity that occurred 10 months and 17 months after protected activity was insufficient on its own to create a reasonable inference of causation C. holding that sufficient evidence of causation existed where adverse employment action occurred less than two months after protected activity D. holding that a threeyear gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was insufficient to support an inference of causation E. holding in a discrimination case that a close temporal proximity sufficient to survive summary judgment existed where the challenged employment action occurred one month after the protected activity

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that sufficient evidence of causation existed where adverse employment action occurred less than two months after protected 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: found on the allegedly counterfeit software or EULA, defendants argue that any infringement they committed was innocent. The summary judgment record does not support defendants’ argument. The record reveals that one of SWC’s own customers, Rosey Sun, found that the product she purchased from SWC appeared so suspicious that she contacted Microsoft. Microsoft’s website and helpline do not purport to provide an exhaustive list of characteristics of a counterfeit product. Defendants assert a right to ignore other indications that the products they deal in are counterfeit, which is not the law. A finding of willfulness does not require actual knowledge, but rather willful blindness. See Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corp. v. Concession Services, Inc., 955 F.2d 1143, 1148 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Defendants also dispute Microsoft’s assertion Options: A. recognizing that willful blindness is equivalent to actual knowledge under the lanham act B. holding that a knowing misappropriation may be established by evidence that clearly and convincingly demonstrates that respondent knew the invasion was a likely result of his conduct and that willful blindness satisfies the requirement of knowledge C. holding that the statute of limitations for all of plaintiffs eleven causes of action including those brought under lanham act 43a 15 usc 1125a and lanham act 43c 15 usc 1125c is four years D. holding that a laches defense is precluded under a section of the lanham act providing for cancellation at any time E. holding that knowledge of the patent is required for willful infringement

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that willful blindness is equivalent to actual knowledge under the lanham act
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: content or links to content that , in the sole judgment of tripadvisor , ( a ) violates the previous subsections herein , ( b ) is objectionable , ( c ) which restricts or inhibits any other person from using or enjoying the interactive areas or this website , or ( d ) which may expose tripadvisor or its affiliates or its users to any harm or liability of any type .

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: All notices, requests, demands, consents, instructions or other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and faxed, mailed or delivered to each party as follows: (i) if to Investor, at Investor’s address or facsimile number set forth on Exhibit B , or at such other address as Investor shall have furnished the Company in writing, or (ii) if to the Company, at 1633 Broadway, 22nd Floor, Suite C New York, NY 10019, Attn: Chief Executive Officer, or at such other address or facsimile number as the Company shall have furnished to the Investor in writing. All such notices and communications will be deemed effectively given the earlier of (i) when received, (ii) when delivered personally, (iii) one business day after being delivered by facsimile (with receipt of appropriate confirmation), (iv) one business day after being deposited with an overnight courier service of recognized standing or (v) four days after being deposited in the U.S. mail, first class with postage prepaid.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: examination. Cross-examination should always be allowed relative to the details of an event or transaction a portion only of which has been testified to on direct examination. As has been stated, cross-examination is not confined to the identical details testified to in chief, but extends to its entire subject matter, and to all matters that may modify, supplement, contradict, rebut or make clearer the facts testified to in chief.”) (quoting Coxwell v. State, 361 So.2d 148, 151 (Fla.1978)). We also note that although Ms. Levine did not acknowledge identifying Polite to the police in response to the State’s questions on direct, her acknowledgement was not necessary for admission of the evidence under section 90.801(2)(c). See, e.g., Brown v. State, 413 So.2d 414, 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (<HOLDING>); A.T. v. State, 448 So.2d 613, 614 (Fla. 3d Options: A. holding that prior identification is not hearsay when the declarant is available at trial for crossexamination and that it makes no difference whether the witness admits or denies or fails to recall making the prior identification B. holding that trial court erred when it admitted outofcourt identification of defendant when the witness who made the identification was never asked about defendants identity at trial C. holding that where the opportunity for positive identification is good and not weakened by prior failure to identify and the witness is positive in his identification even after crossexamination identification need not be received with caution D. holding that the admission of testimonial statements against a defendant is unconstitutional when the declarant does not appear at trial unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for crossexamination E. holding that admission of a witness prior identification statement where the witness could not remember the basis for the identification did not violate the confrontation clause or fedrevid 802

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that prior identification is not hearsay when the declarant is available at trial for crossexamination and that it makes no difference whether the witness admits or denies or fails to recall making the prior identification
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 second suit is unnecessary and consequently vexatious. The rule against splitting causes of action is closely related to the doctrine of res judicata in this respect. Id. at 500-01 (citation omitted). The right which AMEC had to institute a judicial proceeding was to sue on the one cause of action it had, the breach of an indivisible contract for the entire project. In both the initial action and the present case, the “thing sued” for was money damages allegedly sustained by AMEC as a result of the Department’s breach of the indivisible contract. The declaratory judgment count does not alter this overriding fact. Accordingly, there is identity of the “thing sued for.” Compare Inter-Active Servs., Inc. v. Heathrow Master Ass’n, Inc., 809 So.2d 900, 902-03 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (<HOLDING>). AMEC relies on the decision in U.S. Project Options: A. holding subsequent action not barred by res judicata because the thing sued for in the initial action was an injunction against heathrows threatened breach of contract while the thing sued for in the subsequent action was money damages allegedly sustained as a result of heathrows actual breach of contract where the damages alleged in the subsequent action unlike the damages alleged here arose after trial of the initial action B. holding damages for emotional distress are not recoverable in an action for breach of contract whether express or implied in the absence of a showing that the parties contemplated such damages at the time the contract was made C. holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach D. holding that res judicata did not preclude the subsequent filing of an action which was a permissive claim in a prior action E. holding that a subsequent action was not barred because the initial court did not have jurisdiction over the claim

assistant: The best answer is A. holding subsequent action not barred by res judicata because the thing sued for in the initial action was an injunction against heathrows threatened breach of contract while the thing sued for in the subsequent action was money damages allegedly sustained as a result of heathrows actual breach of contract where the damages alleged in the subsequent action unlike the damages alleged here arose after trial of the initial action
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: in the alleged scheme; the use of policies purportedly issued by Lloyd’s, which had representatives in New York; the placement of telephone calls or transmission of facsimiles into New York in furtherance of the scheme; and an attempt to conceal evidence from a grand jury in New York. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18). Third, the Government has represented that it will be able to prove at trial additional facts not specifically asserted in the indictment that also support the conclusion that venue is proper in this District. (See Gov’t Mem. at 9-11). Finally, in the context of this case, all three crimes alleged are continuing offenses that involved conduct in New York and elsewhere. Wire fraud clearly is a continuing offense. See, e.g., United States v. Kim, 246 F.3d at 192 (<HOLDING>). The crime of engaging in the insurance Options: A. holding that the southern district of new york had significant transportation advantages over the southern district of indiana particularly in terms of daily flights to and from the forum B. holding that venue was not proper in the southern district of new york where the plaintiff resided because the allegedly erroneous advice to file a case in new york that could result in a finding of civil contempt against the plaintiff originated from the defendants office in california C. holding that telephone calls and telexes to and from southern district of new york were sufficient to support venue for wire fraud even though defendant did not personally send them D. holding that two meet ings in new york and numerous telephone calls and correspondence to new york were not sufficient to confer jurisdiction E. holding that judge in southern district of new york could authorize wiretap in maryland

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that telephone calls and telexes to and from southern district of new york were sufficient to support venue for wire fraud even though defendant did not personally send them
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All questions concerning the construction, validity, enforcement and interpretation of this Agreement shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the internal laws of the State of New York, without regard to the principles of conflicts of law thereof. Each party agrees that all Actions concerning the interpretations, enforcement and defense of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and any other Transaction Documents (whether brought against a party hereto or its respective Affiliates, employees or agents) shall be commenced exclusively in the New York Courts. Each party hereto hereby irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the New York Courts for the adjudication of any dispute hereunder or in connection herewith or with any transaction contemplated hereby or discussed herein (including with respect to the enforcement of any of the Transaction Documents), and hereby irrevocably waives, and agrees not to assert in any Action, any claim that it is not personally subject to the jurisdiction of any such New York Court, or that such Action has been commenced in an improper or inconvenient forum. Each party hereto hereby irrevocably waives personal service of process and consents to process being served in any such Action by mailing a copy thereof via registered or certified mail or overnight delivery (with evidence of delivery) to such party at the address in effect for notices to it under this Agreement and agrees that such service shall constitute good and sufficient service of process and notice thereof. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to limit in any way any right to serve process in any manner permitted by law. EACH PARTY HERETO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ANY AND ALL RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY. If either party shall commence a Action to endorse any provisions of a Transaction Document, then the prevailing party in such Action shall be reimbursed by the other party for its reasonable attorney’s fees and other reasonable costs and expenses incurred with the investigation preparation and prosecution of such Action.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: court to interpret the holding in Energy Management I characterizes it as, "the EMC case pertains to a mineral lessee challenging the validity of a Shreveport city ordinance relating to drilling within 1,000 feet of Cross Lake." Holland v. Questar Exploration & Prod. Co., No. 03-2087, 2006 WL 461127, *3 n. 3 (W.D.La. February, 23, 2006) (emphasis added). 4 . In fact, in order to fully address whether EMC had standing, the Energy Management /panel withdrew its previous opinion in its entirety, Energy Mgmt. Corp. v. City of Shreveport, 03-30677, 2004 WL 2192376 (5th Cir. Oct 15, 2004), and substituted the opinion referred to infra as Energy Management /. 5 . Energy Mgmt. I, 397 F.3d at 303 (citing Greater New Orleans Expressway Comm’n v. Traver Oil Co., 494 So.2d 1204 (La.Ct.App.1986) (<HOLDING>)). 6 . Energy Mgmt. I, 397 F.3d at 303 (citing Options: A. holding that the language of the statute is mandatory and the commission must act within 180 days B. holding that broker whose contract called for commission on sale of property was not entitled to commission on transfer of property to partnership in which owner had an interest and that because broker was not entitled to commission under terms of his contract he also could not recover against a third person on theory of tortious interference with that contract C. holding that contract providing commission was to be paid within 72 hours of closing did not condition the payment of commission on the closing D. holding that even when there is a conflict of evidence before the commission and the evidence was such that the commission could have reasonably reached a contrary decision the commissions decision was not arbitrary and capricious E. holding that the commission could not restrict drilling within one mile of the new orleans causeway bridge contrary to authorization of loc and corps of engineers

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the commission could not restrict drilling within one mile of the new orleans causeway bridge contrary to authorization of loc and corps of engineers
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any clause or provision of this Agreement is illegal, invalid or unenforceable under applicable present or future laws, it is the intention of the parties that the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected, and in lieu of any such clause or provision, there be added as a part hereof a substitute clause or provision as similar in terms and effect to such illegal, invalid or unenforceable clause or provision as may be possible.

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: If any one or more of the provisions of the Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall be unimpaired, and the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision shall be replaced by a mutually acceptable provision, which, being valid, legal, and enforceable, comes closest to the intention of the parties underlying the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision. To the extent permitted by applicable law, the parties hereby waive any provision of law, which renders any provision of this Agreement prohibited or unenforceable in any respect.

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: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. All disputes or claims shall be brought in the state or federal courts located in Suffolk County Massachusetts and each party waives its jurisdictional rights to other venues and to any defenses based on jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company agrees to employ the Executive, and the Executive agrees to render his services to the Company, as the Senior Vice President, Acting Chief Operating Officer, during the Term (as defined below). In the event the Executive is not selected as the Company’s permanent Chief Operating Officer and an alternative successor is named to the role of Chief Operating Officer, the Executive shall serve as an officer in another capacity of Operations at the direction of the Chief Operating Officer for the remaining term of the Agreement and such diminishment of title, authority, duty or responsibility shall not be considered grounds for Termination for Good Reason by the Executive pursuant to Section 4(e). In connection with his employment, the Executive shall serve without additional payment or compensation of any kind as an officer of any other direct or indirect subsidiary or affiliate of the Company designated by the Company’s Chief Executive Officer (collectively, the “Subsidiaries”). The Executive shall render his services at the direction of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer at the Company’s offices in Indianapolis, Indiana. The Executive agrees to use his best efforts to promote and further the business, reputation and good name of the Company and the Subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company Group”) and the Executive shall promptly and faithfully comply with all instructions, directions, requests, rules and regulations made or issued from time to time by the Company.

assistant: Employment
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 claim, dispute, or controversy arises with respect to this Agreement, related agreements, or any other agreement or business relationship whether or not related to the subject matter of this Agreement (all of the foregoing, a “ Dispute ”), and only if a jury trial waiver is not permitted by applicable law or ruling by a court, either party may require that the Dispute be resolved by binding arbitration before a single arbitrator. By agreeing to arbitrate a Dispute, each party gives up any right that party may have to a jury trial, as well as other rights that party would have in court that are not available or are more limited in arbitration, such as the rights to discovery and to appeal.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any Article, Section or provision of this Eighth Amendment shall be determined to be null and void, voidable or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, then for such period that the same is void or invalid, it shall be deemed to be deleted from this Eighth Amendment and the remaining portions of this Eighth Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.

assistant: Severability