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: unlawfully prescribed Schedule II controlled substances, namely methadone and morphine, by Defendant. Expert testimony established that at the time of death, Lindsey had a lethal amount of methadone in her system. Expert testimony further established that Brogan died as a result of the fatal combination of morphine and other drugs, all prescribed by Defendant. The record supports the jury’s finding, which was consistent with the language of the statute and the jury instructions, that Lindsey’s and Brogan’s deaths “resulted from” health care fraud. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a rational jury could have concluded that Lindsey’s and Brogan’s deaths were a natural and foreseeable result of Hancock’s criminal conduct. Cf Martinez, 588 F.3d at 319-23 (<HOLDING>). III. Conclusion For the reasons stated, we Options: A. holding that the decedents estate had standing because the traditional requirement that the plaintiff show an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the conduct of the defendant is met by the allegation in the complaint that the defendants actions resulted in the diminishment of the assets of the estate B. holding that notwithstanding defendants consent the verdict was a nullity where the trial court proceeded to verdict with a jury of eleven C. holding that the evidence supported the jury verdict that the defendants criminal conduct under 1347 resulted in the death of two patients D. holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict E. holding that under aspinwall when the trial court submits to the jury a good count one that is supported by the evidence and a bad count one that is not supported by the evidence and the jury returns a general verdict this court cannot presume that the verdict was returned on the good count in such a case a judgment entered upon the verdict must be reversed

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the evidence supported the jury verdict that the defendants criminal conduct under 1347 resulted in the death of two patients
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: or desire,” which might weigh in favor of construing a waiver narrowly, but rather by the “need to avoid inconsistency, anomaly, and unfairness,” which requires a general assessment of the equities associated with the state’s participation in the bankruptcy litigation. Lapides, 535 U.S. at 620, 122 S.Ct. 1640. As discussed above, the balance of these equities favors a construction of the Eleventh Amendment that would permit a debtor to assert a permissive counterclaim capped by a setoff limitation against a state that has filed a proof of claim. Second, the Supreme Court developed the “narrow construction” rule as a means of interpreting a state’s “unequivocal expression” of waiver in state statutes, state constitutions, and the like. Nordic Vill., 503 U.S. at 34, 112 S.Ct. 1011 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., Options: A. holding 2513 to be jurisdictional and therefore must be strictly construed B. holding that penal statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of the persons sought to be subjected to their operation C. holding that railroad immunity act should be strictly construed D. holding that a statute enacted in derogation of the common law must be strictly construed E. holding that a governments consent to be sued must be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a governments consent to be sued must be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign
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 for Base Rate Loans that are based upon the Prime Rate, in which case interest shall be computed on the basis of the actual number of days elapsed over a year of 365 or 366 days, as the case may be, all computations of interest and fees hereunder shall be made on the basis of the actual number of days elapsed over a year of 360 days. Interest shall accrue from and including the first date of Borrowing (or continuation or conversion) to but excluding the last day occurring in the period for which such interest is payable. Each determination by the Lender of an interest rate or fee hereunder shall be conclusive and binding for all purposes, absent manifest error.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of the Plan is held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, whether in whole or in part, such provision shall be deemed modified to the extent of such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability and the remaining provisions shall not be affected.

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: Neither Party will disparage the other Party or the Product or Services. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following actions shall not be considered disparaging: (i) the action taken is related to drug interactions with other prescription or over-the-counter drug products, (ii) the action taken is related to contraindications for such Product; (iii) the action taken involves displaying or communicating relative Patient costs or coverage, (iv) or as otherwise may be consistent with ESSDS’s independent exercise of the practice of pharmacy in accordance with all Applicable Law.

assistant: Non-Disparagement
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 [Sjtate fails to produce evidence of the offense charged.” Id. When reviewing the denial of a directed verdict motion, an appellate court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the State. Id. LAW/ANALYSIS Minor contends the family court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict. He argues Eric’s prior inconsistent statement was admitted only for impeachment purposes and should not have been considered by the family court as substantive evidence in a directed verdict mo d 642, 644 (1990) (finding exclusion of victim’s prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence was harmless error when other evidence was cumulative of statement); State v. Crawford, 362 S.C. 627, 634, 608 S.E.2d 886, 890 (Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>); State v. Caulder, 287 S.C. 507, 513, 339 Options: A. holding that statement must be product of a startling event B. holding that a hearsay statement can itself be considered in first determining if a conspiracy existed when the statement was made C. holding that a statement from a conversation admitted under the stateofmind exception to the hearsay rule was nontestimonial because it was private not made under examination not contained in a formalized document such as an affidavit deposition or prior testimony transcript and not made under circumstances in which an objective person would reasonably believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial D. holding coconspirators later testimony did not obviate the efficacy of the first statement made closer in time to the event in question E. holding that in agency adjudications in which the government has not claimed privilege written reports made at the time of an event must be produced when the credibility of the witness on matters discussed in the report is in question

assistant: The best answer is D. holding coconspirators later testimony did not obviate the efficacy of the first statement made closer in time to the event in question
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: distribution award, we have noted the Husband’s argument as to his Social Security disability benefits. However, the Husband did not preserve the issue of whether federal law prohibits the treatment of Social Security disability benefits as marital assets because he did not make that specific argument in the trial court. See Naples v. Naples, 967 So.2d 944, 948 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (determining that because the husband failed to raise in the trial court the issue of whether federal law regarding the nonassignability of veterans’ benefits precluded enforcement of an alimony provision, the husband failed to preserve the issue for review), review denied, 981 So.2d 1200 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 246, 172 L.Ed.2d 186 (2008); Moss v. Moss, 939 So.2d 159, 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we do not reach the issue of the Options: A. holding that in order to preserve an issue for review a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial B. holding party must make timely and specific objection at trial to preserve issue for appellate review C. holding a general ruling by the trial court is insufficient to preserve a specific issue for appellate review D. recognizing that the specific argument regarding an issue must be made in the trial court to preserve that issue for appellate review E. holding that to preserve an issue for appellate review the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that the specific argument regarding an issue must be made in the trial court to preserve that issue for appellate review
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 unable to demonstrate that in fact he has no remedy. Nelson is effectively asking us to address a hypothetical situation, but we decline to do so. IV. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the superior court's decision that the Municipality is a project owner. We REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. FABE, Justice, not participating. 1 . Western Power was doing business as Yukon Equipment, Inc. at the time. 2 . Alaska R. Civ. P. 77(K)(4). 3 . Parker v. Tomera, 89 P.3d 761, 765 (Alaska 2004). 4 . Id. 5 . Moore v. Allstate Ins. Co., 995 P.2d 231, 233 (Alaska 2000). 6 . Grimm v. Wagoner, 77 P.3d 423, 427 (Alaska 2003) (citing Native Vill. of Elim v. State, 990 P.2d 1, 5 (Alaska 1999)). 7 . See State v. Am. Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, 204 P.3d 364, 368 (Alaska 2009) (<HOLDING>). 8 . Lowell v. Hayes, 117 P.3d 745, 758 n. 61 Options: A. holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review B. holding that review of ripeness decisions is de novo C. holding that review of the construction of a sentencing statute is de novo D. recognizing de novo standard of review E. holding that appellant was entitled to a de novo review however he was not entitled to a de novo review of an argument never raised

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that review of ripeness decisions is de novo
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Purchaser and Seller shall cooperate fully as and to the extent reasonably requested by the other Party, in connection with the filing of Tax Returns and any audit, litigation, or other proceeding (each a “ Tax Proceeding ”) with respect to Taxes imposed on or with respect to the assets, operations or activities of the Company or any Subsidiary. Such cooperation shall include the retention and (upon the other Party’s request) the provision of records and information which are reasonably relevant to any such Tax Return (including, for the avoidance of doubt, providing Purchaser with the U.S. federal income Tax Return of the Company, together with all supporting documentation and workpapers, for the Tax period ending on the Closing Date in order to provide Purchaser with the records and information reasonably necessary to prepare and file the Texas franchise Tax Return of the Company for the period beginning January 1, 2017, and ending on the Closing Date) or Tax Proceeding and making employees available on a mutually convenient basis to provide additional information and explanation of any material provided hereunder. Notwithstanding the above, the control and conduct of any Tax Proceeding that is a Third Party Claim shall be governed by Section 12.5 .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: In B.H. Bunn Co. v. AAA Replacement Parts Co., 451 F.2d 1254 (5th Cir. 1971), the defendant manufactured machine parts by dismantling the plaintiffs unpatented machines and copying those parts. See id. at 1263. The court stated, “[S]uch methodology is not unlawful. Unfair competition goes to the question of marketing, not to the question of manufacture. One may be perfectly within his legal rights in producing an item and yet well without them in his method of selling if he markets his own item- in such a way that there is likely confusion as to the source of manufacture.” See id. According to the court, despite the fact that the defendant could copy the plaintiffs product, it was liable for unfair competition because the defendant used merchandising techniques and 775, (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Summit Mach. Tool Manuf. Corp. v. Victor CNC Options: A. holding that attorneys fees and statutory damages were unavailable because the copyright was not registered at the time the alleged infringement occurred B. holding that while the computer program at issue was within the subject matter of copyright the right sought under state law pursuant to a license was not equivalent to the exclusive rights under copyright as such copyright preemption did not apply C. holding that lanham act claim was not prohibited due to fact that author had not registered copyright D. holding that the copyright act distinguishes between employees and independent contractors for copyright possession E. holding that a plaintiff may recover damages under both the lanham act and the copyright act provided the copyright damages serve a purpose other than compensation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that lanham act claim was not prohibited due to fact that author had not registered copyright
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 circuit court denied class certification. This court affirmed, holding that “this case presents numerous individual issues that go to the heart of the defendants’ conduct, causation, injury, and damages such that the defendants’ liability as to each plaintiff will have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis.” Baker, 338 Ark. at 249, 992 S.W.2d at 801. We further observed that the amount or combination of diet drugs a plaintiff took, combined with his or her personal medical history, might make the drugs dangerous for one party and not for another. We also commented that “the only thing the plaintiffs have in common is that they all took one or a combination of the diet drugs listed in the complaint.” Id.; see also Mittry v. Bancorpsouth Bank, 360 Ark. 249, 200 S.W.3d 869 (2005) (<HOLDING>). The common thread in Hernandez, Vickers, and Options: A. holding that rule 23b2 calls for injunction as to all class members or to none of them and does not authorize class certification when each class member would be entitled to an individualized award of monetary damages B. holding that individualized questions concerning the defendants responsibility for diminished sales prices of class members bonds predominated over any common questions rendering class certification inappropriate C. holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification D. holding that the mere existence of individualized factual questions with respect to the class representatives claim will not bar class certification E. holding that certification of ab3 class on the basis of an overarching dispute about the health consequences of asbestos alone was inappropriate given the greater number of questions peculiar to the individual class members

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that individualized questions concerning the defendants responsibility for diminished sales prices of class members bonds predominated over any common questions rendering class certification inappropriate
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: mask prior to the robbery. As the State points out, however, the court, in denying the motion for a new trial, relied on the fact that Kelly’s counsel was fully aware that defendant had worn the mask on at least one occasion prior to the time of the robbery. On a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the defen dant must show, by convincing evidence, the following: “(1) That the evidence is such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) that it has been discovered since the trial; (3) that it could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise o ) (same); State v. Gardiner, 636 A.2d 710, 714 (R.I.1994) (same); State v. Cotton, 99 N.C.App. 615, 394 S.E.2d 456, 460 (1990) (same); Dewberry v. State, 743 S.W.2d 260, 268 (Tex.Ct.App.1987) (<HOLDING>), rev’d on other grounds, 776 S.W.2d 589 Options: A. holding that it was an abuse of discretion to deny stay while matter was pending in neighboring state B. holding no abuse of discretion to deny a third chance to offer more details C. holding not an abuse of discretion to deny funds D. holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion E. holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife

assistant: The best answer is C. holding not an abuse of discretion to deny funds
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: properly abandoned as prescribed by statute.... ” Tucker v. Watkins, 251 Cal.App.2d 327, 59 Cal.Rptr. 453 (1967); Western Aggregates, Inc. v. County of Yuba, 101 Cal.App.4th 278, 130 Cal.Rptr .2d 436, 458 (2002); San Diego Cnty. v. California Water and Tel. Co., 30 Cal.2d 817, 186 P.2d 124 (Cal. 1947);West’s Ann.Cal.Str. & H.Code § 901. If Hazel Green could assert a claim against the United States, whether the County owned or abandoned the road would be established as a fact over the course of the litigation. The fact that Hazel Green needs the County to assert its ownership of the roads in order to preserve its easement claim against the United States, only confirms that its interest is not sufficient to be asserted under the Quiet Title Act. See, e.g., Staley, 168 F.Supp.2d at 1214 Options: A. holding there is no statute of limitations on action to quiet title by landowner who was in continuous possession of property under claim of ownership B. holding that only courts in the county where property was situated had jurisdiction to hear an action concerning the property C. holding that right of landowner abutting county road was not sufficient interest to assert a claim under the quiet title act and noting that ujnless plaintiffs can convince the county of boulder to join as a coplaintiff in this action the court lacks jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs claims D. holding that city may by ordinance require abutting landowner to repair sidewalk but that the abutting landowner is not liable in an action in tort for injuries E. holding a county and a road district had standing to sue state highway commission and county tax collector based on their interest in and control over the public roads of the county

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that right of landowner abutting county road was not sufficient interest to assert a claim under the quiet title act and noting that ujnless plaintiffs can convince the county of boulder to join as a coplaintiff in this action the court lacks jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs claims
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: decision is not an unreasonable application of Witt. In Witt, the Supreme Court upheld that trial court’s excusal for cause of a juror after she stated that her personal beliefs against the death penalty would interfere with judging the defendant’s guilt or innocence. See Witt, 469 U.S. at 416, 105 S.Ct. 844. Similarly, in this case, the record reflects that both witnesses stated that they would be unable to sign a death verdict, regardless of the verdict. The district court’s independent review of the state court record confirms the state courts’ assessment that the jurors’ views on the death penalty would substantially impair their performance. For these reasons, the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling is not contrary to Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980) (<HOLDING>), and Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 Options: A. holding that if undisclosed evidence might have affected the disposition of the summary judgment motion the plaintiffs chose not to disclose the basis of their claim and they did so at their own risk B. holding that certain veniremen had been improperly excluded because they acknowledged that their views of the death penalty might affect their deliberations but only to the extent that they would view their task with greater gravity C. holding that shareholders had failed to maintain their status as shareholders by selling their shares after they had filed their complaint and therefore had lost standing to maintain a derivative suit D. holding in a similar situation that statements from unidentified ex ecutives were admissible because evidence established that though their precise identity was unknown they were all westinghouse executives who had authority to make personnel decisions and thus were actfing within the scope of their employment in stating their views on the state of their workforce E. holding that prospective jurors should have been excused for cause because they did not affirmatively state that their bias against the plaintiffs would not affect their ability to render an impartial verdict

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that certain veniremen had been improperly excluded because they acknowledged that their views of the death penalty might affect their deliberations but only to the extent that they would view their task with greater gravity
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 Agent and each Lender shall hold all nonpublic information obtained pursuant to the requirements of this Agreement in accordance with such Agent’s and such Lender’s customary procedures for handling confidential information of this nature and in accordance with safe and sound banking practices and in any event may make disclosure reasonably required by a prospective participant or assignee in connection with the contemplated participation or assignment or as required or requested by any Governmental Authority or representative thereof or pursuant to legal process and shall require any such participant or assignee to agree to comply with this Section 13.14 .

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: Grantee understands, acknowledges, agrees and hereby stipulates that any and all actual, threatened or attempted violations of any and all covenants in this Agreement (including, without limitation, covenants in this Section 5), may cause the Company irreparable harm, which may not be compensated for by monetary damages alone.

assistant: Remedies
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 no moment. See id. (“[T]he fact that White’s drug charges were tried together is irrelevant to the determination of whether his actions constituted two criminal transactions.”). What matters is that Moody’s crimes were “committed sequentially, against different victims, at different times, and at different locations.” Ressler, 54 F.3d at 260; see also id. (describing criminal transactions as sequential where defendant had the choice to “cease and desist from further criminal activity” but instead chose to “initiate a new course of action and commit a separate offense”). Compare United States v. Godinez, 998 F.2d 471, 472 (7th Cir.1993) (“Ordering six poker players at the same game to empty their pockets is one criminal episode.”); United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Hudspeth, 42 F.3d at 1023 (7th Cir.1994) (en Options: A. holding that a conviction for florida armed robbery is a crime of violence under the armed career criminal act B. holding that defendants conviction for six counts of armed robbery based on his simultaneous robbery of six individuals at a restaurant should be counted as a single conviction C. holding that the defendants sentence for robbery was not inappropriate D. holding that violence is synonymous with force in affirming armed robbery conviction E. holding that a juvenile adjudication should not be counted as a prior conviction for apprendi purposes

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that defendants conviction for six counts of armed robbery based on his simultaneous robbery of six individuals at a restaurant should be counted as a single conviction
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 such Purchaser of this Agreement and the consummation by such Purchaser of the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby will not (i) result in a violation of the organizational documents of such Purchaser, (ii) conflict with, or constitute a default (or an event which with notice or lapse of time or both would become a default) under, or give to others any rights of termination, amendment, acceleration or cancellation of, any agreement, indenture or instrument to which such Purchaser is a party, or (iii) result in a violation of any law, rule, regulation, order, judgment or decree (including federal and state securities laws) applicable to such Purchaser, except in the case of clauses (ii) and (iii) above, for such conflicts, defaults, rights or violations which would not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on the ability of such Purchaser to perform its obligations hereunder.

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: to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his claim, we are without jurisdiction to review it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d); Claudio v. Holder, 601 F.3d 316, 318 (5th Cir.2010); Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318-23 (5th Cir.2009). Alternatively, we conclude that Vincente-Mas has abandoned his claim by failing to sufficiently brief it. Pursuant to Rule 28(a)(9)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, an appellant’s argument must contain the reasons for the requested relief with citation to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record upon which he relies. Vincente-Mas’s brief fails to meet this standard as it contains self-serving, conclusional assertions unsupported by legal authority or record citations. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Vincente-Mas has also abandoned his claim Options: A. holding that arguments not briefed are abandoned B. holding that issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned C. holding that issues not briefed are deemed abandoned D. recognizing that arguments not briefed on appeal are waived E. holding issues not adequately briefed on appeal are abandoned

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that arguments not briefed are abandoned
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: Cas. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 207 Mont. 409, 673 P.2d 1277, 1280-81 (1984) (giving a criminal conviction preclusive effect against a third party because the third party’s rights derived from the convicted insured’s insurance and because of an identity of interest at the time of the criminal trial); New Jersey Manufacturers Ins. Co. v. Brower, 161 N.J.Super. 293, 391 A.2d 923, 926 (App.Div.1978) (finding privity in part because the victim “stood in the shoes” of the insured for the purposes of recovering proceeds); In the Matter of Nassau Ins. Co., 78 N.Y.2d 888, 573 N.Y.S.2d 447, 577 N.E.2d 1039, 1040 (1991) (following D’Arata’s holding that criminal convictions bar third parties from claiming insurance proceeds); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Reuter, 299 Or. 155, 700 P.2d 236, 241 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Decisions to the contrary are both less Options: A. holding victim waived physicianpatient privilege by authorizing her doctor to release her medical records to the department of criminal investigation because the information contained in her medical records was no longer confidential between herself and her physician B. holding that the thirteenyearold victims twomonth delay in reporting her rape is explained by and completely consistent with the all too common circumstances surrounding sexual assault on minors fear of disbelief by others and threat of further harm from the assailant C. holding evidence of sexual assault relevant to show defendants motive in kidnapping victim D. holding that the victim of a sexual assault was in privity with her assailant because of her status as a claimant and potential judgment creditor of the convicted insured E. holding that against her will in the rape statute means without her consent and that the fact that the victim was under the age of consent was sufficient to establish that element

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the victim of a sexual assault was in privity with her assailant because of her status as a claimant and potential judgment creditor of the convicted insured
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 the number of outstanding Shares is changed by an extraordinary cash dividend, a stock dividend, recapitalization, spin-off, stock split, reverse stock split, subdivision, combination, reclassification or similar change in the capital structure of the Company, without consideration, then the Exercise Price of and number of Shares subject to this Option, to the extent then-outstanding, shall be proportionately adjusted, subject to any required action by the Board or the stockholders of the Company and in compliance with applicable securities laws; provided that fractions of a Share will not be issued but will either be replaced by a cash payment equal to the Fair Market Value of such fraction of a Share or will be rounded up to the nearest whole Share, as determined by the Committee; and provided further that the Exercise Price of any Option may not be decreased to below the par value of the Shares.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to the rights of the holders, if any, of any shares of the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock or Series B Preferred Stock, the Holders shall, as holders of Series B1 Preferred Stock, be entitled to such dividends paid and Distributions made to the holders of Common Stock to the same extent as if such Holders had converted the Series B1 Preferred Stock into Common Stock (without regard to any limitations on conversion herein or elsewhere) and had held such shares of Common Stock on the record date for such dividends and Distributions. Payments under the preceding sentence shall be made concurrently with the dividend or Distribution to the holders of Common Stock. Following the occurrence of a Liquidation Event (as hereinafter defined) and the payment in full to a Holder of its applicable Liquidation Preference, such Holder shall cease to have any rights hereunder to participate in any future dividends or distributions made to the holders of Common Stock. No Distributions shall be made with respect to the Common Stock until all past due, if any, and/or declared Dividends on the Series B1 Preferred Stock have been paid or set aside for payment to the Holders. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Holders shall have no right of participation in connection with dividends or Distributions made to the Common Stock shareholders consisting solely of shares of Common Stock.

assistant: Participations
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 Borrower and each Operator shall comply with all applicable requirements (including applicable Laws) of any Governmental Authority having jurisdiction over such Borrower, Operator or any applicable Project where such failure to comply would result in a Material Adverse Change.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of a statute). Nevertheless, we hold that Congress intended that the CSRA would operate to the exclusion of all other statutory remedies' for claims arising out of the federal employment relationship. Because “Congress clearly intended the CSRA to be the exclusive remedy for federal employees,” the comprehensive grievance procedures of the CSRA implicitly repealed all other then-existing statutory rights of federal employees regarding personnel decisions. Pinar v. Dole, 747 F.2d 899, 913 (4th Cir.1984); see Petrini v. Howard, 918 F.2d 1482, 1484-85 (10th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (explaining that the CSRA preempted state law challenges to federal personnel decisions because the CSRA “was intended to provide the exclusive procedure for challenging” such decisions); Spagnola, 809 F.2d at 30 (<HOLDING>). Hall maintains that her claim should not be Options: A. holding that federal employee was precluded from bringing 19851 claim because the csra is the exclusive remedy for aggrieved federal employees advancing nonconstitutional claims B. holding that plaintiffs claims were precluded by csra because actions complained of arose from federal employment relationship even though many of the alleged violations occurred after the employment relationship was terminated C. recognizing that the csra did not explicitly limit federal court jurisdiction to enjoin unconstitutional personnel actions by federal agencies D. holding that plaintiffs were not released from the exclusive remedial framework of the csra when their claims arose from their federal employment even though the csra provided plaintiffs with no remedy E. holding that title vii provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that federal employee was precluded from bringing 19851 claim because the csra is the exclusive remedy for aggrieved federal employees advancing nonconstitutional claims
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: goal of homogeneity. Id. at 340. Other federal case law from this and other circuits involving the Copyright Act and other federal statutes further supports this Court’s holding. See, e.g., Pipkin v. United States Postal Serv., 951 F.2d 272, 274-75 (10th Cir.1991) (refusing to apply state tolling provision to Federal Tort Claims Act, stating that “Congress has expressly stated the applicable limitation period for FTCA claims and reference to state law is therefore inappropriate.”); Swarthout v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 504 F.2d 748, 749.(6th Cir.1974) (rejecting attempted application of Michigan fraudulent concealment statute to toll Federal Communications Act statute of limitations because it “would defeat the national uniformity Congress intended.”); Bergman, 930 F.Supp. at 879 (<HOLDING>); Jones v. United States, 126 F.Supp. 10, 12 Options: A. holding that duress toll to statute of limitations under state law had no application to federal rico statute of limitations B. holding that a notice requirement in a new york statute conflicted with the copyright acts statute of limitations and stating that the state has no power to resist congresss determina tion of fairness as embodied in the federal statute of limitations C. holding that new york statute of limitations for 1983 actions was three years D. holding statute that extended statute of limitations for certain criminal sexual conduct could not be applied retroactively to a prosecution commenced after the limitations statute in effect at the time of the alleged offense had expired E. holding that trial court erred by granting a directed verdict on statute of limitations defense and remanding for a new trial on the statute of limitations only

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a notice requirement in a new york statute conflicted with the copyright acts statute of limitations and stating that the state has no power to resist congresss determina tion of fairness as embodied in the federal statute of limitations
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 of the Loan Parties shall not, and shall not permit any of its respective Subsidiaries, other than WebBank, to, at any time create, incur, assume or suffer to exist any Lien on any of its property or assets, tangible or intangible, now owned or hereafter acquired, or agree or become liable to do so, except Permitted Liens.

assistant: Liens
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 each other Loan Party irrevocably and unconditionally submits, for itself and its property, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York sitting in New York County and of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and any appellate court from any thereof, in any action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Credit Agreement or any other Loan Document, or for recognition or enforcement of any judgment, and each of the parties hereto irrevocably and unconditionally agrees that all claims in respect of any such action or proceeding may be heard and determined in such New York State court or, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, in such Federal court. Each of the parties hereto agrees that a final judgment in any such action or proceeding shall be conclusive and may be enforced in other jurisdictions by suit on the judgment or in any other manner provided by law. Nothing in this Credit Agreement or in any other Loan Document shall affect any right that any Credit Party may otherwise have to bring any action or proceeding relating to this Credit Agreement or any other Loan Document against the Borrower or any other Loan Party or its properties in the courts of any jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: somewhat implausible. It puts the cart before the horse. The question presented is whether the statutes in question confer standing. If the answer is that they do not — which appears to be the case — the court and the parties should never reach the merits of a particular decision, particularly where the determination of the nature of that decision requires the development of a record. Plaintiff's claim also ignores the fact that prudential standing is determined on a wholesale basis, with the court called upon to determine whether categories of claimants were intended to be conferred rights under a particular statute. 22 . Indeed, this principle of prudential standing was relied upon by at least three circuits in denying government employees the right t 51 Fed.Cl. 667, 672-73 (2001) (<HOLDING>). 24 . One looking for evidence of the Options: A. holding that the court lacked jurisdiction under the bid protest provisions of section 1491 to enjoin a contracting agencys termination of a contract B. holding that where an oral contract was removed from the statute of frauds by clear and convincing evidence under arkansas law the defendant could not terminate the contract at its will only a contract of indefinite duration may be so terminated C. holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract D. holding that the awardee of a contract may not challenge the decision to terminate that contract by invoking the courts bid protest jurisdiction E. holding that a denial of a bid protest without holding a hearing did not deprive a disappointed bidder of any property rights because there is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a government contract unless the contract actually is awarded

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the awardee of a contract may not challenge the decision to terminate that contract by invoking the courts bid protest jurisdiction
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the term of the renting). “ ‘Habitability’ is a term of art, and an apartment need not be literally uninhabitable to be in violation of the implied warranty. The ... Sanitary Code ... draws a distinction between a condition, which makes a unit ‘unfit for human habitation (defined as a condition justifying condemnation), 105 Code Mass. Regs. §410.022 (1978), and a condition which ‘may endanger or materially impair the health or safety and well-being of an occupant’ (defined as a condition which may expose those interests to harm), 105 Code Mass. Regs. §410.023 (1978). The latter condition is sufficient to violate the warranty of habitability.” Altschuler v. Boston Rent Board, 12 Mass.App.Ct. 452, 457 (1981) citing, Boston Housing Authy. v. Hemingway, 363 Mass. 184, 200 n.15 (1973) (<HOLDING>). Id. at 200 n.16. A rented dwelling need not Options: A. holding that proof that code violations exist which may endanger or materially impair would constitute evidence of a material breach B. holding that after jury findings of dual breach unchallenged finding that defendants breach was not excused based on prior material breach of plaintiff constituted implicit finding that there was no material breach by plaintiff C. holding that ijnadmissible evidence may be material if the evidence would have led to admissible evidence D. holding that mere delay in payment for a while would not be a material breach E. holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that proof that code violations exist which may endanger or materially impair would constitute evidence of a material breach
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: matter jurisdiction was lacking. The deputy dismissed the petition. Allen filed an administrative appeal. His appeal was consolidated with Annett Holdings’s earlier appeal from the original arbitration decision. In a final decision, the workers’ compensation commissioner concluded subject matter jurisdiction attached under Iowa Code section 85.71. Proceeding to the merits, the commissioner affirmed the arbitration decision in favor of Allen. On judicial review, the district court affirmed the commissioner. Annett Holdings appeals. II. Standards of Review The Iowa Supreme Court has stated we must review the commissioner’s interpretation of Iowa Code section 85.71 under the “erroneous” standard of Iowa Code section 17A.19(10)(c). Mycogen Seeds v. Sands, 686 N.W.2d 457, 464 (Iowa 2004) (<HOLDING>). Review of the commissioner’s application of Options: A. holding that the coemployee immunity provision in workers compensation law was constitutional B. holding that determining what care is reasonable under iowa code section 8527 is a question of fact C. holding that claims for the breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing against workers compensation insurance carrier did not arise under the state workers compensation statutes but are at most related to those statutes and thus do not come within the ambit of the nonremovability provision of 1445c good faith and fair dealing claims were created by texas common law not by the compensation statute D. holding interpretation of workers compensation statutes not clearly vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the agency triggering review under iowa code section 17a1910c E. holding that notwithstanding similar provision code of iowa 50223 1962 defendants could not because of their inexperience in the field of security sales claim immunity because of ignorance of the statutes

assistant: The best answer is D. holding interpretation of workers compensation statutes not clearly vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the agency triggering review under iowa code section 17a1910c