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 following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 389 U.S. 24 88 S.Ct. 4 19 L.Ed.2d 25 Alexander David JONESv.GEORGIA. No. 174, Misc. Oct. 16, 1967. Wilbur D. Owens, Jr., for petitioner. Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen. of Georgia, G. Ernest Tidwell, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., and Marion O. Gordon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. 2 Petitioner appealed his conviction for murder to the Georgia Supreme Court where he sought reversal on the ground, among others, that the evidence relevant to his claim of systematic exclusion of Negroes from the grand and petit juries drawn in the county established a prima facie case of the denial of equal protection within our decision in Whitus v. State of Georgia, 385 U.S. 545, 87 S.Ct. 643, 17 L.Ed.2d 599.* The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the conviction stating that Whitus was distinguishable because 'public officers are presumed to have discharged their sworn official duties. * * * Under the testimony in this case we cannot assume that the jury commissioners did not eliminate prospective jurors on the basis of their competency to serve, rather than because of racial discrimination.' 223 Ga. 157, 162, 154 S.E.2d 228, 232. 3 We hold that the burden upon the State to explain 'the disparity between the percentage of Negroes on the tax digest and those on the venires,' Whitus, supra, 385 U.S. at 552, 87 S.Ct. at 647, was not met by the Georgia Supreme Court's reliance on the stated presumptions. See Arnold v. North Carolina, 376 U.S. 773, 84 S.Ct. 1032, 12 L.Ed.2d 77; Eubanks v. State of Louisiana, 356 U.S. 584, 78 S.Ct. 970, 2 L.Ed.2d 991; Williams v. State of Georgia, 349 U.S. 375, 75 S.Ct. 814, 99 L.Ed. 1161; Avery v. State of Georgia, 345 U.S. 559, 73 S.Ct. 891, 97 L.Ed. 1244; Cassell v. State of Texas, 339 U.S. 282, 70 S.Ct. 629, 94 L.Ed. 839; Norris v. State of Alabama, 294 U.S. 587, 55 S.Ct. 579, 79 L.Ed. 1074. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Georgia Supreme Court and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with our opinion. 4 It is so ordered. 5 Reversed and remanded. * The record supports the following comparison of the salient facts in Whitus and in petitioner's case: Whitus Petitioner's case Over 21 population 42.6% Negro men 30.7% Negro Jury Commissioners White (apparently) White Source of juror Tax Digests separated 3 Tax Digests, two of names and identified as to race which separated and identified as to race Taxpayers 27.1% Negro 197% Negro Negro jurors 9.1% grand jury venire 5.0% of jury list and box 7.8% petit jury venire (1 Negro was on the grand jury which indicted petitioner) Rebuttal evidence by State None None

assistant: 2
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: attack a claim of prejudice resulting from erroneous juiy instzuctions, where thei'e was "no substantial likelihood the erroneous . .. instructions prejudiced [the defendant’s] chances with the jury”). 13 . This formulation derives from the third prong of the plain error standard, which requires that the error "affec[t] substantial rights.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (quoting Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b)). The fourth prong of that standard requires that the error also "seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 736, 113 S.Ct. 1770; see Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997). Although the Supreme Court has not been explicit on 527 U.S. 1, 8-9, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (<HOLDING>). 16 . Cf. Neder, 527 U.S. at 19, 119 S.Ct. Options: A. holding that the denial of due process in a particular case is subject to harmless error analysis B. holding that failure to submit an element of the offense to the jury is subject to harmless error analysis C. holding trial errors are subject to a harmless error analysis D. holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis E. holding that the omission of an element is not a structural error subject to automatic reversal but rather where objected to is subject to harmless error analysis

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the omission of an element is not a structural error subject to automatic reversal but rather where objected to is subject to harmless error analysis
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any amendment to the Plan shall be deemed to be an amendment to this Agreement to the extent that the amendment is applicable hereto; provided , however , that no amendment shall adversely affect the rights of the Grantee with respect to the Awarded Shares without the Grantee’s consent.

assistant: Amendments
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: vis-á-vis a jointly tried co-defendant. 391 U.S. at 135, 88 S.Ct. 1620. A statement is powerfully incriminating only when it is inculpatory on its face. Richardson, 481 U.S. at 207, 107 S.Ct. 1702. The confession in Bruton fit that description because it identified both the declarant and his codefendant by name as the perpetrators of the crime. Bruton, 391 U.S. at 124, 88 S.Ct. 1620. Statements that are incriminating only when linked to other evidence in the case do not trigger application of Bruton’s preclusionary rule. Richardson, 481 U.S. at 208, 107 S.Ct. 1702. This criterion is easier to state than to apply; for example, it does not allow a prosecutor merely to delete a codefen-dant’s name. See, e.g., Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185, 192, 118 S.Ct. 1151, 140 L.Ed.2d 294 (1998) (<HOLDING>). In this case, Zuñiga and Vega challenge Options: A. holding that a codefendants sentence is not relevant to an appellants guilt innocence or punishment B. holding that simply replacing a codefendants name with a symbol or a blackedout space is insufficient to wrest an inculpatory statement from brutons precedential orbit C. holding recording of eyewitnesss inculpatory statement made in custodial interrogation testimonial in nature D. holding that a defendant was pot unduly surprised by the delayed disclosure of evidence showing that he made an inculpatory statement E. holding that where a defendants name is replaced with a neutral pronoun as long as identification of the defendant is clear or inculpatory only by reference to evidence other than the redacted confession and a limiting instruction is given to the jury there is no bruton violation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that simply replacing a codefendants name with a symbol or a blackedout space is insufficient to wrest an inculpatory statement from brutons precedential orbit
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: his marriage to Ms. Short, and that the loan therefore constitutes a separate property debt incurred by him prior to his marriage to Ms. Short. In the post-nuptial agreement, however, Mr. Short promised to repay his loan to Ms. Short “if the marriage lastfed] more than three years.” More significantly, the decree of dissolution of June 3, 1993, provided that Mr. Short “owed to [Ms. Short] $41,450” at 8.469% interest and that Mr. Short would “pay the sum of $600 per month to [Ms. Short] until such time as the loan [was] paid.” Mr. Short’s contention that his $50,000 loan from Ms. Short is not divorce-related, even though the terms of its repayment were expressly incorporated into the decree of dissolution, lacks merit. See, e.g., In re Crosswhite, 148 F.3d 879, 881-82 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Ill Mr. Short next argues that the bankruptcy Options: A. holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or B. holding nondischargeable a husbands debt to his wife where the husband had agreed to assume the debt under the terms of the couples divorce agreement and stating that 523a15 is intended to cover divorcerelated debts such as those in property settlement agreements C. holding that in the absence of a hold harmless agreement a former spouse has no claim against the debtor to pay a debt listed on the divorce agreement as belonging to the debtor because such a debt is not incurred in connection with the divorce but was incurred in connection with the debtors and former spouses original transaction with the creditor D. holding that the party challenging the dischargeability of a debt bears the burden of proving the debt nondischargeable by a preponderance of the evidence E. holding nondischargeable a debtors obligation to his former spouse under a divorce decree to assume liability for two joint debts to a third party and stating that 523a15 is intended to cover divorcerelated debts such as those in property settlement agreements

assistant: The best answer is B. holding nondischargeable a husbands debt to his wife where the husband had agreed to assume the debt under the terms of the couples divorce agreement and stating that 523a15 is intended to cover divorcerelated debts such as those in property settlement 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: This Stock Option Award Agreement may be amended, in whole or in part and in any manner not inconsistent with the provisions of the Plan, at any time and from time to time, by written agreement between the Company and the Option Holder. This Stock Option Award Agreement amends and supersedes any Stock Option Award Agreement bearing the same grant date.

assistant: Amendments
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: By accepting the Deferred Stock Units, the Employee acknowledges that he or she agrees to comply with applicable Brazilian laws and pay any and all applicable Tax-Related Items associated with the vesting of the Deferred Stock Units, the receipt of any dividends and the sale of shares of Common Stock acquired under the Plan.

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: the Millers, for a home. Herman’s separate purchase of the windows was incidental to that transaction — it did not stand alone. Although Miller technically paid for the windows by supplying Herman with the funds, and may have influenced (or dictated, as Miller asserted at oral argument) Herman’s decision to purchase Pella-manufactured windows, when he received the windows they were “integrated into the structure of a dwelling” and could not be “practically distinguished from realty.” 16 C.F.R. § 700.1(e). Miller contracted for the windows in connection with the construction of a new home, not in connection with the “improvement, repair, or modification” of an existing home as contemplated by subsection 700.1(e). See Muchisky v. Frederic Roofing Co., 838 S.W.2d 74, 78 (Mo.Ct.App.1992) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, we agree with the appellees that 16 Options: A. holding that the question of whether an existing constitutional right is infringed is strictly a question of law B. holding a common question in a consumer class action brought under the gbl is whether a products manufacturer defrauded purchasers by making a specific claim on the products label C. holding that the corresponding structure is a controller D. holding that it is not E. holding that the shingles used to reroof an existing home were consumer products and noting that it appears that as to products which are becoming a part of realty the distinction drawn is whether the product is being added to an already existing structure or whether it is being utilized to create the structure

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the shingles used to reroof an existing home were consumer products and noting that it appears that as to products which are becoming a part of realty the distinction drawn is whether the product is being added to an already existing structure or whether it is being utilized to create the structure
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 the security interests granted to the Canadian Collateral Agent for the benefit of the Secured Parties pursuant to this Agreement and the other Liens permitted to exist on such Grantor’s Collateral by the Credit Agreement (including, without limitation, Section 8.3 thereof), such Grantor owns each item of such Grantor’s Collateral free and clear of any and all Liens. Except as set forth on Schedule 3 , no currently effective financing statement or other similar public notice with respect to any Lien securing Indebtedness on all or any part of such Grantor’s Security Collateral is on file or of record in any public office in Canada, any province, territory or other political subdivision thereof, except such as have been filed in favour of the Collateral Agent or the Canadian Collateral Agent for the benefit of the Secured Parties pursuant to this Agreement or any predecessor thereof or as relate to Liens permitted by the Credit Agreement (including without limitation Section 8.3 thereof) or any other Loan Document or for which financing change statements or discharges will be delivered on the Closing Date.

assistant: Titles
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: No ERISA Event has occurred or is reasonably expected to occur that, when taken together with all other such ERISA Events for which liability is reasonably expected to occur, would result in a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Erisa
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 is governed by Maryland law, without regard to the principles of conflicts of laws. If a dispute arises under this Agreement, any Lawsuit must be brought exclusively in the courts for Montgomery County, Maryland. Employee and Choice voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction and venue of said court.

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: This Agreement embodies the entire and final agreement of the parties hereto on the subject matter stated in this Agreement. No amendment or modification of this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon the Employer or the Executive unless made in writing and signed by both of them. All prior understandings and agreements relating to the subject matter of this Agreement are hereby expressly terminated.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Prior versions of the children’s code statutorily established the very low standard of “reasonable grounds to believe” that the enumerated crime was com mitted and required simple consideration of whether the child was amenable to treatment as a juvenile. See State v. Doe, 103 N.M. 233, 238^0, 704 P.2d 1109, 1114-16 (Ct.App. 1985). Under the current statute, the trial court must make a specific finding that the child is not amenable. Whatever the current standard of proof is for the trial court to make this specific finding, whether it is preponderance of the evidence as advocated by the State or something higher, we review the trial court’s decision for substantial evidence, see In re Ernesto M., Jr., 1996-NMCA-039, ¶ 15, 121 N.M. 562, 915 P.2d 318, or abuse of discretion 1111 (1983) (<HOLDING>); In re Ernesto M., Jr., 121 N.M. 562, 915 P.2d Options: A. holding statute which required consideration rather than a finding of amenability was constitutional B. holding requirement of additional consideration and presumption of atwill employment are both rules of construction rather than substance and implied contract needs no additional consideration where intention of parties is clear C. holding after consideration of a single significance factor that an eis was required D. holding that a charge for the use of a public wharf was a user fee rather than a tax for constitutional purposes E. holding that more than notice to a defendant is required

assistant: The best answer is A. holding statute which required consideration rather than a finding of amenability was constitutional
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: please note that gifting codes can not be redeemed if the recipient has already purchased a subscription through the apple itunes store or our iphone application , or the google play store or our android application .

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: THE COMPANY AND EACH OTHER LOAN PARTY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY AGREES THAT IT WILL NOT COMMENCE ANY ACTION, LITIGATION OR PROCEEDING OF ANY KIND OR DESCRIPTION, WHETHER IN LAW OR EQUITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT OR IN TORT OR OTHERWISE, AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT, ANY LENDER, ANY L/C ISSUER, OR ANY RELATED PARTY OF THE FOREGOING IN ANY WAY RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING HERETO OR THERETO, IN ANY FORUM OTHER THAN THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK SITTING IN NEW YORK COUNTY AND OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, AND ANY APPELLATE COURT FROM ANY THEREOF, AND EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF SUCH COURTS AND AGREES THAT ALL CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH ACTION, LITIGATION 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, LITIGATION 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 AGREEMENT OR IN ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT SHALL AFFECT ANY RIGHT THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT, ANY LENDER OR THE L/C ISSUERS MAY OTHERWISE HAVE TO BRING ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT AGAINST THE COMPANY 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: (BIA 1992). Its construction of ambiguous statutory provisions — like the term “crime involving moral turpitude” — is entitled to Chevron deference. Ruiz-Lopez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 513, 516 (6th Cir.2012). Consequently, this court “must uphold the BIA’s construction [of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)® ] unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” Kellermann v. Holder, 592 F.3d 700, 702 (6th Cir.2010) (quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843-44, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our circuit has held— along with a number of other circuits— that the BIA’s interpretation of “crime involving moral turpitude” is reasonable. Novatchinski v. Holder, 516 Fed.Appx. 526, 530-31 (6th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>); Ghani v. Holder, 557 F.3d 836, 841 n. 3 (7th Options: A. holding the bias interpretation reasonable and listing cases reaching the same conclusion B. holding that the ninth circuit erred by failing to defer to the bias reasonable interpretation of the ina C. holding that bias interpretation of immigration law is entitled to deference except where the interpretation is clearly contrary to the plain and sensible meaning of the statute D. holding that a court should afford deference to the bias interpretation if reasonable of the phrase aggravated felony set forth in the ina but the court should review de novo the bias determination of whether the elements of a statelaw conviction met that interpretation E. holding same and citing cases

assistant: The best answer is A. holding the bias interpretation reasonable and listing cases reaching the same conclusion
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 386 U.S. 16 87 S.Ct. 848 17 L.Ed.2d 697 William Kirvin BARLOWv.TEXAS. No. 109. Supreme Court of the United States February 13, 1967 Alto B. Cervin, for appellant. Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Asst. Atty. Gen., T. B. Wright, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., and Howard M. Fender and Charles B. Swanner, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. 2 THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr., Justice DOUGLAS, and Mr. Justice FORTAS would reverse the judgment of the court below for the reasons stated in the opinion of The Chief Justice in Spencer v. State of Texas, 385 U.S. 554, 569, 87 S.Ct. 648, 656.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Company shall and shall cause any of its Subsidiaries to promptly pay and discharge all taxes, assessments and other governmental charges imposed upon Company or any Subsidiary or upon the income, profits, or Property or other assets of Company or any Subsidiary and all claims for labor, material or supplies which, if unpaid, might by law become a lien or charge upon the property of Company or any Subsidiary. Notwithstanding the foregoing, none of Company or any other Subsidiary shall be required to pay any such tax, assessment, charge or claim, so long as the validity thereof shall be contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings, and appropriate reserves therefor shall be maintained on the books of Company and such other Subsidiary.

assistant: Taxes
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 is insured by insurers of recognized financial responsibility against such losses and risks and in such amounts as management of the Company believes to be prudent and customary in the businesses in which the Company is engaged. The Company has not been refused any insurance coverage sought or applied for and the Company has no reason to believe that it will not be able to renew its existing insurance coverage as and when such coverage expires or to obtain similar coverage from similar insurers as may be necessary to continue its business at a cost that would not materially and adversely affect the financial condition of the Company.

assistant: Insurances
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 Obligor shall keep accurate and complete records, in all material respects, of its Equipment, including kind, quality, quantity, cost, acquisitions and dispositions thereof, and shall submit to Administrative Agent, on such periodic basis as Administrative Agent may reasonably request, a current schedule thereof, in form reasonably satisfactory to Administrative Agent. Promptly upon request, Obligors shall deliver to Administrative Agent evidence of their ownership or interests in any Equipment.

assistant: Records
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: Co. (In re Dillard Ford, Inc.), 940 F.2d 1507, 1513 (11th Cir.1991) (“the archetypal situation is the case where a debtor has a preexisting obligation to the creditor, and, in the months prior to debtor’s filing for bankruptcy, the debtor pays back the creditor by ‘loaning’ him money. Later the parties notice the two debts and engage in setoff, canceling both of them. In this archetypal situation, the creditor obtains the debt only to engage in setoff, thus this ‘loan’ is disfavored by the setoff rules”); In re United Scis. of Am., Inc., 893 F.2d 720, 725 (5th Cir.1990) (Section 553(a)(3) “is designed to prevent a bank from undertaking a build-up of the debtor’s account in order to secure a preference,”); DuVoisin v. Foster (In re S. Indus. Banking Corp.), 809 F.2d 329 (6th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). “For purposes of § 553(a)(3), the debt that Options: A. holding that the guarantor of debtors loan is a creditor by virtue of his right to reimbursement from debtor B. holding that a creditor could not set off a debt owed on a loan that he took out a month before the bankruptcy against the value he paid for investment certificates from the debtorbank a year earlier in order to improve his position as a creditor based on the timing of the loan C. holding that creditor did not have actual knowledge of the bankruptcy filing where the debtor informed creditor of the possibility that a bankruptcy case would be filed D. holding that a creditor did not incur debt for the purpose of set off where it stopped payment to the debtor E. holding that where parties to an oral loan agreed that the loan would be repaid on demand the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the date plaintiff demanded repayment of the loan

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a creditor could not set off a debt owed on a loan that he took out a month before the bankruptcy against the value he paid for investment certificates from the debtorbank a year earlier in order to improve his position as a creditor based on the timing of the loan
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 “the use of a drug-sniffing dog in the course of a traffic stop does not constitute a search, and therefore does not in itself violate the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Taylor, 596 F.3d 373, 377 (7th Cir. 2010). However, a canine sniff “may impact the determination of whether a search is reasonable if the use of the dog causes a delay.” Id. There is no clear-cut rule for determining a reasonably allowable delay pursuant to a traffic stop. See United States v. Garrett, 139 Fed.Appx. 720, 723 (7th Cir. 2005) (stating that if a dog alerted within five to ten minutes of the initial stop, that would likely be a reasonable amount of time, while fifteen or nineteen might be unreasonable); but see United States v. Richardson, 700 F.Supp.2d 1040, 1045, 1047-48 (N.D. Ind. 2010) (<HOLDING>). Arnold has not presented any facts from which Options: A. holding that a traffic stop which lasted 105 minutes from the time of the initial stop until the defendant was arrested on drugrelated charges was unreasonable because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop for purposes of conducting a drug dog sniff because there was insufficient evidence that the defendant was engaged in drugrelated activity B. holding that dismissal of indictment was abuse of discretion when delay attributable to the government was twelve months C. holding that a citation process that lasted around thirty minutes and during which the officer asked the defendant three questions about narcotics and weapons did not exceed the scope of the traffic stop D. holding that a twominute delay beyond the conclusion of a traffic stop which itself lasted twelve to thirteen minutes was not unreasonable E. holding duration of stop was reasonable as it lasted under thirty minutes

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a twominute delay beyond the conclusion of a traffic stop which itself lasted twelve to thirteen minutes was not unreasonable
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: a section 2 — 622 report and affidavit are filed — any examination of the reasonableness or unreasonableness of an injured party’s assertion that he did not know his injury was wrongfully caused. I respectfully submit that a section 2 — 622 investigation should not serve as a substitute for making a factual determination whether an injured party reasonably should have known his injury was wrongfully caused. There is nothing magical about a section 2 — 622 investigation. Its validity, accuracy, and comprehensiveness may be affected by numerous factors completely beyond the control of the injured party. Among these factors are (1) the misconduct by defendants delaying the discovery of the wrongful cause of injury or death (see Neade v. Engel, 277 Ill. App. 3d 1004, 1005-06, 1009 (1996) (<HOLDING>)); (2) the negligent maintenance or preparation 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 where the plaintiff presented evidence which demonstrates that the terms alleged by the defendants to be indefinite were in fact sufficiently well delineated to all parties the entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendants was inappropriate despite the fact that the defendants contested the plaintiffs evidence concerning the manner in which the relevant contractual language should be construed C. holding that the oneyear limit under the act was tolled until the plaintiff learned despite the defendants contrary representations that the defendants storm drain was the cause of damage D. holding that the statute of limitations did not commence despite the filing of a prior complaint against another physician until the defendants deposition made the plaintiff aware of the defendants involvement in the decedents death where the plaintiff failed to discover the defendants involvement because of the defendants misstatement concealment or fraud E. recognizing that where a plaintiff failed to perform because of the defendants breach the plaintiff could recover damages caused by the defendants breach

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the statute of limitations did not commence despite the filing of a prior complaint against another physician until the defendants deposition made the plaintiff aware of the defendants involvement in the decedents death where the plaintiff failed to discover the defendants involvement because of the defendants misstatement concealment or fraud
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Judge Miller conducted a thorough review of all objections and responses made by Pinkston to the magistrate judge's recommendation. See Goffman, 59 F.3d at 671 (stating that "if following a review of the record the district court is satisfied with the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations it may in its discretion treat those findings and recommendations as its own"); see also United States v. Larson, 760 F.2d 852, 857 (8th Cir.1985); Andrews v. Deland, 943 F.2d 1162, 1170-71 (10th Cir.1991). It is clear that Pinkston’s argument in this regard is nothing more than a collateral attack on the magistrate’s reasoning, masquerading as an assault on the district court’s entirely acceptable decision to adopt the magistrate’s opinion instead of conducting an evidentiary Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). To do otherwise would be contrary to our very Options: A. holding that by blindly adopting the magistrate judges findings apparently without ever having received a report and recommendation the district court violated 636b1 B. holding that failure to object to magistrate judges recommendation waived issue on appeal C. holding that district courts adoption of the magistrate judges report and recommendation one day after issuance did not constitute reversible error where district court conducted a meaningful review of the report and recommendation D. holding that magistrate judge could without consent of parties hold a pretrial hearing and issue a report and recommendation based on the findings made E. holding that by adopting the presentence report the district court made the requisite finding under the guidelines

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that by blindly adopting the magistrate judges findings apparently without ever having received a report and recommendation the district court violated 636b1
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agreement shall automatically terminate on the earlier of: (a) the date of termination of the Merger Agreement in accordance with its terms; (b) the date, if any, on which the Company publicly discloses that the board of directors of the Company (the “ Company Board ”) has withdrawn, qualified or adversely modified its recommendation to the stockholders of the Company that the Company’s stockholders vote in favor of the approval or adoption of the Merger Agreement, in each case because the Company Board has determined in good faith, after consultation with outside counsel, that the taking of such action is reasonably necessary for it to comply with its fiduciary duties under applicable law; (c) the completion of the Merger; or (d) the second anniversary of the date hereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Parent has full corporate power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement. The execution and delivery of this Agreement have been duly and validly approved by the Board of Directors of Parent and no other corporate proceedings on the part of Parent are necessary to approve this Agreement. This Agreement has been duly and validly executed and delivered by Parent and (assuming due authorization, execution and delivery by the Stockholder) this Agreement constitutes a valid and binding obligation of Parent, enforceable against Parent in accordance with its terms except that such enforceability (i) may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, moratorium or other similar laws affecting or relating to the enforcement of creditors’ rights generally and (ii) is subject to general principles of equity and the discretion of the court before which any proceedings seeking injunctive relief or specific performance may be brought. Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement by Parent, nor the consummation by Parent of the transactions contemplated hereby, nor compliance by Parent with any of the terms or provisions hereof, will (x) violate any provision of the governing documents of Parent or the certificate of incorporation, by-laws or similar governing documents of any of Parent’s Subsidiaries, (y) violate any statute, code, ordinance, rule, regulation, judgment, order, writ, decree or injunction applicable to the Parent or any of Parent’s Subsidiaries, or any of their respective properties or assets, or (z) violate, conflict with, result in a breach of any provision of or the loss of any benefit under, constitute a default (or an event which, with notice or lapse of time, or both, would constitute a default) under, result in the termination of or a right of termination or cancellation under, accelerate the performance required by, or result in the creation of any Lien upon any of the respective properties or assets of Parent or any of Parent’s Subsidiaries under, any of the terms, conditions or provisions of any note, bond, mortgage, indenture, deed of trust, license, lease, agreement or other instrument or obligation to which Parent or any of Parent’s Subsidiaries is a party, or by which they or any of their respective properties or assets may be bound or affected.

assistant: Authority
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: Section headings have been inserted in this Agreement as a matter of convenience for reference only and it is agreed that such paragraph headings are not a part of this Agreement and shall not be used in the interpretation of any provision of this Agreement.

assistant: Headings
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 STX and the Borrower will not, and will not permit any of its subsidiaries to, sell, lease or otherwise transfer any property or assets to, or purchase, lease or otherwise acquire any property or assets from, or otherwise engage in any other transactions with, any of its Affiliates, in excess of $15,000,000 except (a) transactions that are at prices and on terms and conditions not less favorable to STX, the Borrower or such Subsidiary than could be obtained on an arm’s-length basis from unrelated third parties, (b) transactions between or among STX, the Borrower and the Subsidiary Loan Parties (and, if the applicable transaction is a transaction in the ordinary course of business of STX, the Borrower and the applicable Subsidiary, any other Subsidiary (other than a SPE Subsidiary)) not involving any other Affiliate, (c) any issuance of securities, or other payments, awards or grants in cash, securities or otherwise pursuant to, or the funding of, employment arrangements, stock options and stock ownership plans approved by the board of directors of STX, the Borrower or any Subsidiary, (d) the grant of stock options or similar rights to officers, employees, consultants and directors of STX, the Borrower or any Subsidiary pursuant to plans approved by the board of directors of STX, the Borrower or, in the case of any such grant to an officer, employee, consultant or director of any Subsidiary, such Subsidiary and the payment of amounts or the issuance of securities pursuant thereto and (e) transactions otherwise permitted under this Agreement.

assistant: Transactions With Affiliates
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 procedure, fairness in administration, the elimination of unnecessary delay and expense, and to protect the fundamental rights of the individual while preserving the public welfare.” In our opinion, our construction of Rule 15.7 to permit a restitution-ary monetary sanction supports each of these objectives and especially the elimination of unnecessary delay and expense. ¶41 We have recognized that the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, as the trial court found and defense counsel acknowledged, made a good faith effort to meet its discovery obligations in this case. Yet, as we have also recognized, a law enforcement agency participating in a criminal investigation operates as an arm of the prosecutor in matters of discovery. See supra ¶ 21; see also Thompson, 803 P.2d at 976 (<HOLDING>). When such an agency is recalcitrant, Options: A. holding that state court could regulate the practice of law in federal courts located in the state B. holding that proof that the person has dominion over the premises where the firearm is located is sufficient to establish constructive possession citation omitted C. recognizing that missing data were located in a laboratory within the constructive control of the state D. holding that a marijuana greenhouse located in an openly accessible shared area of property was not sufficient to support constructive possession absent additional evidence of intent to possess or control E. recognizing theory of constructive possession

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that missing data were located in a laboratory within the constructive control of the state
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: During the Executive’s employment with the Company and thereafter, the Company shall indemnify, defend and hold the Executive harmless to the fullest extent permissible under and pursuant to: (i) Articles Seventh and Eighth of the Certificate of Incorporation of the Company, as may be amended or amended and restated from time to time, and (ii) the terms and conditions of a Directors Indemnification Agreement between the Executive and the Company, if any, as the same may be amended or amended and restated from time to time.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the date hereof, the authorized capital stock of the Company consists of: (i) 500,000,000 shares of Common Stock, of which approximately 44,807,673 shares are issued and outstanding; and (ii) 100,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $0.001 per share, of which approximately 599,859 are issued and outstanding. Except as disclosed in the SEC Documents, no shares are reserved for issuance pursuant to the Company’s stock option plans, no shares are reserved for issuance pursuant to securities (other than the Note and any other convertible promissory note issued to the Buyer) exercisable for, or convertible into or exchangeable for shares of Common Stock and 14,800,995 shares are reserved for issuance upon conversion of the Note. All of such outstanding shares of capital stock are, or upon issuance will be, duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable. No shares of capital stock of the Company are subject to preemptive rights or any other similar rights of the shareholders of the Company or any liens or encumbrances imposed through the actions or failure to act of the Company. Except as disclosed in the SEC Documents, as of the effective date of this Agreement, (i) there are no outstanding options, warrants, scrip, rights to subscribe for, puts, calls, rights of first refusal, agreements, understandings, claims or other commitments or rights of any character whatsoever relating to, or securities or rights convertible into or exchangeable for any shares of capital stock of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, or arrangements by which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is or may become bound to issue additional shares of capital stock of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, (ii) there are no agreements or arrangements under which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is obligated to register the sale of any of its or their securities under the 1933 Act and (iii) there are no anti-dilution or price adjustment provisions contained in any security issued by the Company (or in any agreement providing rights to security holders) that will be triggered by the issuance of the Note or the Conversion Shares. The Company has filed in its SEC Documents true and correct copies of the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation as in effect on the date hereof (“Certificate of Incorporation”), the Company’s By-laws, as in effect on the date hereof (the “By-laws”), and the terms of all securities convertible into or exercisable for Common Stock of the Company and the material rights of the holders thereof in respect thereto. The Company shall provide the Buyer with a written update of this representation signed by the Company’s Chief Executive on behalf of the Company as of the Closing Date.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: court nevertheless dismissed these claims in their entirety, concluding that “Section 1981 is not a substitute for an employment discrimination claim.” We have previously noted our “puzzlement” with this conclusion, Leung v. New York Univ., 495 Fed.Appx. 124,125 n. 1 (2d Cir.2012), and we now hold that it was error. Congress “intended § 1981 to apply to employment discrimination” and Section 1981 “provid[es] a vehicle for every employee to remedy racial discrimination in the workplace.” Lauture v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., 216 F.3d 258, 263, 264 (2d Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, despite the district court’s concerns, plaintiffs’ failure to point to a specific written contract outside of their employment relationship is not fatal to their claim. See id. at 260 (<HOLDING>). In addition, “42 U.S.C. § 1981 encompasses Options: A. holding that an atwill employee may not recover for discriminatory discharge under section 1981 because the atwill relationship was not sufficiently contractual under tennessee law B. holding that an atwill employee may bring a cause of action under section 1981 C. holding that an atwill employee may not be discharged for refusal to violate the law D. holding that an atwill employee may sue under 1981 for racially discriminatory termination E. holding that an atwill employment relationship is contractual and may serve as a predicate contract for a 1981 claim

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an atwill employee may sue under 1981 for racially discriminatory termination