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: injunctions at that time, which were likewise denied. 7 . Injunctive relief is specifically authorized by the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 502. 8 .It also bars Southeastern from distributing licensed Triad software in the course of selling used Triad computer systems and from performing any hardware upgrades on Triad computer systems that contain licensed software. 9 . "A copyright plaintiff who makes out a prima facie case of infringement is entitled to a preliminary injunction without a detailed showing of irreparable harm." Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240, 1254 (3d Cir.1983), cert. dismissed, 464 U.S. 1033, 104 S.Ct. 690, 79 L.Ed.2d 158 (1984); see also Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). 10 . The case most on point is Belushi v. Options: A. holding that loss of customers and resulting injury to goodwill can constitute irreparable harm that is not compensable by an award of money damages B. holding potential damage to reputation to constitute irreparable harm C. holding that intangible injuries such as damage to advertising efforts and goodwill can be irreparable harm for purpose of a preliminary injunction D. recognizing that irreparable harm is the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction E. holding that even though irreparable harm is not required it had been shown and weighed in favor of issuance of the preliminary injunction

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that intangible injuries such as damage to advertising efforts and goodwill can be irreparable harm for purpose of a preliminary injunction
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 dispute or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or breach thereof, between GP and Contractor, shall be submitted to a confidential and binding arbitration in Honolulu, Hawaii before a single neutral arbitrator selected from the Panel of Neutrals of Dispute Prevention & Resolution, Inc. (“DPRI”), in accordance with the Rules, Procedures, and Protocols for Arbitration of Disputes of DPRI, then in effect. The parties further agree that the award of the arbitrator is binding upon the parties and that judgment upon the award rendered may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction. The arbitrator shall not have the authority to award punitive damages.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: reason to search vehicle except at the suggestion of the police). While the agency relationship must be determined from the totality of the cireumstances, see P.E.A., 754 P.2d at 385, we have never held that an agency relationship exists where a defendant has not shown that the private actor lacked an independent motive to conduct the search or was affirmatively encouraged by the government. Applying similar factors, courts in other jurisdictions have routinely recognized that insurance investigators have a motive to investigate an accident seene that is entirely separate from law enforcement's aims. See United States v. Howard, 752 F.2d 220, 228-29 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1029, 105 S.Ct. 3506, 87 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985), vacated on other grounds, 770 F.2d 57 (6th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); State v. Smith, 40 Conn.App. 789, 673 A.2d Options: A. holding that the challenged practices were not consumeroriented under 349 because they were directed only at prospective insurance agents B. holding that the principal is liable for an agents acts committed within the scope of the agents employment C. holding that the sca violates the fourth amendment to the extent that it allows government agents to obtain the contents of emails without a warrant D. holding that insurance investigators were not agents of the government for fourth amendment purposes because they had an independent reason to investigate the scene E. holding that a canine sniff is a search for purposes of the fourth amendment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that insurance investigators were not agents of the government for fourth amendment purposes because they had an independent reason to investigate the scene
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK without regard to any conflict of laws principles thereof that would call for the application of the laws of any other jurisdiction.

assistant: Applicable 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: During the Employment Period, the Company will pay to Executive base salary at the rate of U.S. $700,000 per year (“ Base Salary ”), less normal withholdings, payable in approximately equal bi-weekly or other installments as are or become customary under the Company’s payroll practices for its employees from time to time. The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “ Board ”) shall review Executive’s Base Salary annually and may increase Executive’s Base Salary from year to year. Such adjusted salary then shall become Executive’s Base Salary for purposes of this Agreement.

assistant: Base Salary
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 Plan shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to principles of conflict of laws, and the rights and obligations created hereby shall be governed by the laws of the State of Delaware. The Participant’s sole remedy for any claim, liability or obligation of any nature, arising out of or relating to this Plan or an alleged breach of this Plan, or an Award (collectively, “ Claims ”) shall be against the Company, and no Participant shall have any claim or right of any nature against any Subsidiary or any owner or existing or former director, officer or Employee of the Company or any Subsidiary. The individuals and entities described above in this Section 7.5 (other than the Company) shall be third-party beneficiaries of this Plan for purposes of enforcing the terms of this Section 7.5 .

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: All representations and warranties of the Loan Parties contained herein or made in connection herewith shall survive the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the completion of the transactions hereunder and Payment In Full. All covenants and agreements of the Borrower contained herein relating to the payment of principal, interest, premiums, additional compensation or expenses and indemnification, including those set forth in the Notes, Article 5 [Payments] and Section 11.3 [Expenses; Indemnity; Damage Waiver], shall survive Payment In Full. All other covenants and agreements of the Loan Parties shall continue in full force and effect from and after the date hereof and until Payment In Full.

assistant: Survival
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: Upon the occurrence of one or more Events of Default, the Holder, at its option and without further notice, demand or presentment for payment to the Company or others, may declare the then outstanding principal balance of this Debenture, together with all other sums due under the Debenture, immediately due and payable, together with all accrued and unpaid interest thereon and thereafter all such sums shall bear interest at the Default Rate, together with all reasonable attorneys’ fees, paralegals’ fees and costs and expenses incurred by the Holder in collecting or enforcing payment thereof (whether such reasonable fees, costs or expenses are incurred in negotiations, all trial and appellate levels, administrative proceedings, bankruptcy proceedings or otherwise), and all other sums due by the Company hereunder, all without any relief whatsoever from any valuation or appraisement laws and payment thereof may be enforced and recovered in whole or in part at any time by one or more of the remedies provided to the Holder at law, in equity, or under this Debenture.

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: because it failed to secure a ruling as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1. The language of Rule 120a is specific that any affidavits “shall be served at least seven days before the hearing.” See Tex.R. Civ. P. 120a(3). Imlay and the law firm did not file their second affidavit until after the hearing. The rule provides that, when it appears from the affidavits of a party opposing the special appearance that he is unable to present by “facts essential to justify his opposition,” the trial judge may “order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.” See id. (emphasis added); see also Potkovick v. Reg’l Ventures, Inc., 904 S.W.2d 846, 850 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1995, no writ) (<HOLDING>). This part of the rule appears to permit the Options: A. holding that after stem bankruptcy judges have the authority to enter interlocutory orders in noncore proceedings and in core proceedings as to which the bankruptcy court may not enter final orders or judgment consistent with article iii absent consent B. holding that orders that deny some rule 3850 claims but dismiss others with leave to amend under spera are not final appealable orders C. recognizing that orders denying motions to reopen are treated as final orders of removal D. holding that there are two standards in review of orders on motions to vacate defaults simple abuse of discretion for orders denying relief and gross abuse of discretion for orders granting relief E. holding that trial court does have some discretion under rule 120a to enter other orders as are just

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that trial court does have some discretion under rule 120a to enter other orders as are just
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: needless anxiety. Mudd v. Nosker Lumber, Inc., 443 Pa.Super. 483, 662 A.2d 660, 663 (1995). Here, appellants have offered no compelling reason that would warrant our reducing by any amount the period of inactivity on the docket. The period of docket inactivity in this case was over five years, and prejudice must be presumed. Thus, the prejudice prong of the non pros test is met. Accord ingly, assuming arguendo that appellants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice, it would not be a bar to the entry of a judgment of non pros in this ease. Pine Township Water Company v. Felmont Oil, 425 Pa.Super. 473, 625 A.2d 703 (1993) (because there was no docket activity for period exceeding two years, prejudice was presumed and need not be averred or proven by the movant); Pennridge Electric, supra (<HOLDING>). However, appellants argue that pursuant to Options: A. holding that the fourth prong of a prima facie age discrimination case was satisfied where plaintiff was replaced by two individuals one who was four years younger than plaintiff and the other who was ten years younger B. holding that a reason cannot be proved to be a pretext for discrimination unless it is shown both that the reason was false and that discrimination was the real reason C. holding that where the period of docket inactivity was four years and no compelling reason was provided for the inactivity prejudice was presumed D. holding that prejudice can be presumed where claimants are deprived of the use of their property by the government without justifiable cause for a period of twentythree months E. holding that there is no prejudice where the racial reference was for purposes of identification

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that where the period of docket inactivity was four years and no compelling reason was provided for the inactivity prejudice was presumed
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: v. Kwong Wah Restaurant, 83 F.3d 498, 505 (1st Cir.1996); Gooding v. Warner-Lambert Co., 744 F.2d 354, 358 (3d Cir.1984)). Courts in this circuit have found that a “plaintiff who commences a Title VII action before receiving a right-to-sue letter may nonetheless maintain the action upon subsequent receipt of the letter.” Civil Serv. Employees Ass’n, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. New York State Dept. of Parks, Recreation & Historic Pres., 689 F.Supp.2d 267, 276 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (finding that “while this practice is discouraged,” the plaintiff subsequently obtained a right-to-sue letter which “cured the defect caused by its failure to receive notice of its right to sue prior to filing this action”); Blanke v. Rochester Telephone Corp., 36 F.Supp.2d 589, 592 n. 1 (W.D.N.Y.1999) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff indicated the he obtained a release Options: A. holding that plaintiff complied with plain language of the notice requirement when notice was mailed within statutory period although it was not received until after B. holding notice of balance due satisfies notice and demand requirements C. holding that although it was not clear why plaintiff apparently filed the complaint in this action prior to his receipt of the righttosue notice since issuance of a righttosue notice is not a jurisdictional requirement however the eeocs subsequent issuance of the notice satisfies the statutory requirements in this case D. holding that upon receipt of the important notice a conclusive presumption of notice was established E. holding that issuance of an order to show cause satisfied this requirement

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that although it was not clear why plaintiff apparently filed the complaint in this action prior to his receipt of the righttosue notice since issuance of a righttosue notice is not a jurisdictional requirement however the eeocs subsequent issuance of the notice satisfies the statutory requirements in this case
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Participant shall be required to pay to the Employer, or make other arrangements satisfactory to the Employer to provide for the payment of, any federal, state, local or other taxes that the Employer is required to withhold with respect to the grant, vesting and redemption of the Restricted Stock Units and payment of dividend equivalents. Any tax withholding obligation of the Employer with respect to the redemption of the Restricted Stock Units may, at the Committee’s discretion, be satisfied by having shares of Company Stock withheld, up to an amount that does not exceed the minimum applicable withholding tax rate for federal (including FICA), state, local and other tax liabilities.

assistant: Withholdings
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: you will not remove , alter or conceal any copyright , trademark , service mark or other proprietary rights notices incorporated in or accompanying the instagram content and you will not reproduce , modify , adapt , prepare derivative works based on , perform , display , publish , distribute , transmit , broadcast , sell , license or otherwise exploit the instagram content .

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: None of Holdings or any of its Subsidiaries will directly or indirectly enter into any agreement or arrangement providing for the sale or transfer by it of any property (now owned or hereafter acquired) to a Person and the subsequent lease or rental of such property or other similar property from such Person.

assistant: Sales
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: facts of the case. Although Leone reviews state court decisions in determining the privilege’s reach, Leone is still persuasive authority as federal common law. While precedent is scant, federal common law simply has not extended the client-representative privilege as far as California law has. Nor did Leone or the bankruptcy court likely err in considering Hendrick v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 944 F.Supp. 187 (W.D.N.Y.1996), Gerheiser v. Stephens, 712 So.2d 1252 (Fla.Ct.App. 1998), or Grubbs v. K-Mart Corp., 161 Mich.App. 584, 411 N.W.2d 477 (1987), all of which relied on state privilege law. Where federal authority is wanting, federal courts may look to authoritative state court decisions and statutes when deciding whether to recognize a new privilege or amend , 793 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Second, where Appellants seek to import a Options: A. holding that documents that are created in the ordinary course of business or would have been created irrespective of litigation are not protected by the work product doctrine B. holding that arguments that are not raised or that are not accompanied by factual and legal support are deemed waived C. recognizing that this created a cooperative scheme D. recognizing that prior decisions created confusion on this point E. recognizing that evidentiary privileges are not lightly created

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that evidentiary privileges are not lightly created
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: mechanisms of the Remedy Order. B. Scope The parties seek to have their Stipulation and Proposed Order “govern and control all further action and progress” and render “[a]U prior rulings and orders ... rescinded, repealed or modified as needed to be in compliance with this Order.” (Stip. [Doc. # 153] at 2 ¶1.) Having supervised this case for ten years, the Court is well aware that many circumstances have changed since the Remedy Order was issued in 1983, due at times to the ameliorative compromises and negotiations among the parties. However, the Court also recognizes its responsibility to “provide an orderly means for withdrawing control” that will ensure continuation of the progress already made. See Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 489-90, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (1992) (<HOLDING>). To this end, the Court recently issued its Options: A. holding that professionals who advised the plan were not fiduciaries because they had no decision making authority over the plan or plan assets also noting that the power to act for the plan is essential to status as a fiduciary B. holding that the district court had authority to gradually relinquish supervision over a school district that had attained requisite compliance with a desegregation plan C. holding district court lacked authority to order placement at a school not approved by the state D. holding that the district court had discretion to order an incremental or partial withdrawal of its supervision and control E. holding that the superior court had no jurisdiction over the division of marital property when the district court had properly invoked jurisdiction over the property

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the district court had authority to gradually relinquish supervision over a school district that had attained requisite compliance with a desegregation plan
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 provision of this Agreement which is held to be prohibited or unenforceable in any jurisdiction shall, as to such jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or unenforceability, without invalidating the remaining provisions hereof or affecting the validity or enforceability of such provision in any other jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed by one or more of the parties to this Agreement on any number of separate counterparts, and all of said counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed signature page of this Agreement by facsimile transmission shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof. A set of the copies of this Agreement signed by all the parties shall be lodged with the Borrower and the Lender.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that any one or more of the provisions contained herein shall for any reason be held to be unenforceable in any respect under applicable law, such unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such unenforceable provision or provisions had never been contained herein.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and shall continue until December 31, [***] (the “Initial Term”). Following the Initial Term, this Agreement shall automatically renew year to year commencing January 1, [***] (each, a “Renewal Term”), unless terminated by written notice provided by either party to the other party at least [***] ([***]) [***] before the applicable expiration date of the Initial Term or any Renewal Term thereof. The Initial Term and all Renewal Terms or any portion thereof shall be referred to as the “Term”.

assistant: Terms
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 rights and remedies provided in this Agreement and all other rights and remedies available to either Party at law or in equity are, to the extent permitted by law, cumulative and not exclusive of any other right or remedy now or hereafter available at law or in equity. Neither asserting a right nor employing a remedy shall preclude the concurrent assertion of any other right or employment of any other remedy, nor shall the failure to assert any right or remedy constitute a waiver of that right or remedy.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The benefits in Section 4.2 are conditioned upon the Participant executing and not rescinding within the time permitted under applicable law, a release of claims as provided in a form substantially similar to that provided in Exhibit A (the “Release”). The Release will be presented to the Participant no later than five days after the Participant’s Date of Termination.

assistant: Releases
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 filing Party shall (a) regularly provide the other Party with copies of all patent applications filed hereunder and other material submissions and correspondence with the patent offices, in sufficient time to allow for review and comment by the other Party and (b) provide the other Party and its patent counsel with an opportunity to consult with the filing Party and its patent counsel regarding the filing and contents of any such application, amendment, submission or response. The filing Party hereby agrees that the advice and suggestions of the other Party and its patent counsel shall be taken into reasonable consideration by the filing Party and its patent counsel in connection with each filing. Each Party shall, upon request from the filing Party and at the filing Party’s sole cost, reasonably cooperate with the filing Party in connection with such patent filing activities.

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: are still the “law-abiding, responsible citizens” entitled to full Second Amendment rights, because the construction regulations do not come close to implicating the core of their rights, intermediate scrutiny is appropriate. See id. (“the [City] must show at least that the statute directly advances a substantial governmental interest and that the measure is drawn to achieve that interest”). The City satisfies intermediate scrutiny if its “legislative conclusion was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence in the rec ord.” See Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. F.C.C., 520 U.S. 180, 211, 117 S.Ct. 1174, 137 L.Ed.2d 369 (1997). Substantial evidence is found not only in the form of hard data. See Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 555, 121 S.Ct. 2404, 150 L.Ed.2d 532 (2001) (<HOLDING>). The City fares better in justifying its Options: A. holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category B. holding that unconstitutional government action can only be challenged by a person directly affected it cannot be challenged by one invoicing the rights of third parties C. holding that common knowledge and common sense of one skilled in the art must be considered in determining obviousness D. holding that facially valid indictment may not be challenged on the ground that it is based on inadequate evidence E. holding that challenged ordinances can be justified based on history consensus and simple common sense

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that challenged ordinances can be justified based on history consensus and simple common sense
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: Id. (citing State v. Futch, 715 So.2d 992, 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) and Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983)); see also Jones v. State, 648 So.2d 669, 678 (Fla.1994)(“imme-diately apparent” means that “at the time police view the object to be seized, they must have probable cause to believe that the object is contraband or evidence of a crime”). In this case, appellant does not dispute the validity of the arrest, the lawfulness of the officers’ entry into the apartment, or the fact that the shotgun was in plain view. His sole argument is that it was unlawful for the officers to seize the weapon because it was not immediately apparent to the officers that the gun was contraband. We agree. See generally Whiting v. State, 595 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)(<HOLDING>). At the suppression hearing, there was no Options: A. holding that mere possession of a dangerous weapon is insufficient to support a charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon B. holding that the texas offense of possession of a prohibited weapon could only qualify as a crime of violence under the residual clause of 4b12a2 C. holding that use of deadly weapon extends as well to any employment of a deadly weapon even its simple possession if such possession facilitates the associated felony D. holding evidence insufficient to support conviction of attempted possession of a prohibited weapon E. holding that possession of a weapon is not in an of itself a crime

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that possession of a weapon is not in an of itself a crime
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: Irving’s contention has merit. First, we note that it does not appear that this issue was raised below; thus, we review only for plain error. Second, the overt act requirement is not a part of the “corpus delicti” of conspiracy. The term, “corpus delicti,” refers to the “body, substance or foundation of the crime.” Black’s Law DICTIONARY 344 (6th ed.1990). The substance of the crime of conspiracy is knowing participation in an agreement to accomplish an unlawful act; the requirement of an overt act is merely an evidentiary prophylactic. See D.C. Code § 22-105a (1989) (providing for punishment of persons who “conspire” in subsection (a), but, in subsection (b), prohibiting conviction unless an overt act is alleged and proved); Bellanger v. United States, 548 A.2d 501, 502-03 (D.C. 1988) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the rule in Opper has no application Options: A. holding criminal conspiracy is sustained where the commonwealth establishes the defendant entered into an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another person with a shared criminal intent and an overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy a coconspirator may commit the overt act and conspirators are liable for acts of the coconspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy B. holding proof of an overt act is not required to establish a violation of 846 C. holding that proof of overt act is not required to support admission of evidence of statement of coconspirator during course of conspiracy D. holding that proof of an overt act is not required in a 846 conspiracy E. holding that an 18 usc 1956h conspiracy does not require proof of an overt act

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that proof of overt act is not required to support admission of evidence of statement of coconspirator during course of conspiracy
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: S.Ct. 1544 — is equally applicable whether the reversal occurs in the defendant’s own appeal or in someone else’s appeal, so long as it occurs before the decision in the defendant’s appeal is rendered. If the appellate court’s opinion determines the law and finds error, the error by definition is plain “at the time of appellate consideration,” id., and clear “under current law.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770. (Emphases added.) It would be anomalous and arbitrary to hold otherwise, for as soon as the opinion were to issue, it would be precedent that would establish both “error” and “plainness” in all other pending direct appeals by similarly situated appellants raising the same plain error claim. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the Crawford error in this Options: A. holding newly announced rules of constitutional criminal procedure must apply retroactively to all cases state or federal pending on direct review or not yet final with no exception B. holding that all newly declared rules must be applied retroactively to all criminal eases pending on direct review C. holding that a new rule for conducting criminal prosecutions should be applied to all cases pending on direct review or not yet final D. holding that a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases pending on direct review with no exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a clear break with the past E. holding that batson does apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases pending on direct review with no exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a clear break with the past
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 Amendment may be executed and delivered (including by .pdf, email or facsimile transmission) in one or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement and shall become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the Parties and delivered to the other Parties, it being understood that all Parties need not sign the same counterpart.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Although we recognize that to some extent the characteristics of the devices as charged had to be established by the government, we do not believe that the government was constrained to prove the specific hyper-technical details of each. Mr. Johnson was charged with unlawful possession of two firearms, "specifically, destructive devices consisting of plastic pipe, war end caps, flash (firecracker) powder and cannon/hobby fuse, and containing an assortment of nails." We think that the government was required to provide proof substantially consistent with that description. However, we do not think minor differences in the nuances of the description of the devices can support a claim that the government did not prove its case. Cf. United States v. Jungles, 903 F.2d 468, 476 (7th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). We think the description of "flash Options: A. recognizing double jeopardy bar is inapplicable where a variance between indictment and proof necessitated prosecution under a new indictment B. holding that technical difference of partys status as independent contractor instead of an employee as charged in the indictment was a matter of semantics and was not a variance from the indictment C. holding that where the date of the offense is not an element of the charge a variance between the indictment date and the proof at trial is not fatal so long as the acts charged were committed within the statute of limitations period and prior to the return date of the indictment D. holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense E. holding that an allegation as to the time of the offense is not an essential element of the offense charged in the indictment and within reasonable time limits proof of any date before the return of the indictment and within the statute of limitations is sufficient

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that technical difference of partys status as independent contractor instead of an employee as charged in the indictment was a matter of semantics and was not a variance from the indictment
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: had discriminated against him as a result of a handicap when it terminated him in March 1995. The Commission took no action during the next 180 days. As he was entitled to do, Mr. Ross withdrew this complaint and the Commission issued a notice of dismissal on December 11, 1996. Mr. Ross did not file his lawsuit against Jim Adams Ford until July 21, 2000. His complaint contained two counts. In count II, he alleged that he had been terminated in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim. See § 440.205, Fla. Stat. (1993). The trial court dismissed this count because it was filed more than four years after Mr. Ross’s termination and was barred by the statute of limitations provided for statutory claims in section 95.11(8)(f). See Scott v. Otis Elevator, 524 So.2d 642 (Fla.1988) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Ross does not challenge this ruling on Options: A. holding that for purposes of determining the appropriate limitations period section 14a actions are treated identically to actions under section 10b B. holding fouryear period for statutory actions applies to section 440205 claims C. holding fouryear statute of limitations in section 95113f applies to claims under florida civil rights act when commission on human relations fails to make reasonable cause determination within 180 days D. recognizing a fouryear statute of limitation for fraud claims E. holding that either a fouryear or a twoyear limitations period applies to claims under the idea in ohio for tuition reimbursement either way the claims were timebarred

assistant: The best answer is B. holding fouryear period for statutory actions applies to section 440205 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: offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Apprendi, 120 S.Ct. at 2366; In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). By contrast, whatever right a child may have to be treated as a child within the juvenile justice system is a statutory, not a constitutional, right. See Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 547-48, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966). The United States Supreme Court has drawn a clear line between the process due during an adjudication of delinquency or guilt and the lesser process due during an amenability hearing. Compare In re Winship, 397 U.S. at 365, 90 S.Ct. 1068 (“The same considerations that demand extreme caution in fact-finding to protect the innocent adult apply as well to the innocent child.”), with Kent, 383 U.S. at 562, 86 S.Ct. 1045 (<HOLDING>), and Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 537, 95 Options: A. holding failure to raise issue of improper measure of damages in trial court waived review of complaints that proper measure of damages was not submitted to jury and that plaintiff failed to present evidence on the proper measure B. holding that the facts did not measure up to the standard expressed for determining procedural due process C. holding that consistent with due process telephone hearings may be conducted to resolve interstate unemployment compensation claims because abolition of such hearings would not materially reduce the risk of erroneous deprivations and such hearings are a reasonable means of conserving fiscal and administrative resources D. holding that a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process E. holding that amenability hearings must measure up to the essentials of due process and fair treatment

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that amenability hearings must measure up to the essentials of due process and fair treatment
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: with cases cited by plaintiffs finding that, in light of the California legislature’s decision to create statutory damages for each violation of CIPA, no separate showing of injury aside from a violation of the privacy rights protected'by CIPA is required. See, e.g., In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., No. 13-MD-02430-LHK, 2013 WL 5423918, at *17-18, 2013 U.S. Dist.' LEXIS 172784, at *65-67 (N.D.Cal. Sep. 26, 2013) (rejecting an argument that § 632.7 requires independent injury aside from an invasion of statutory CIPA rights); Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc., 110 Cal.App.4th 156, 167, 1 Cal. Rptr.3d 536 (2003) (“[A]n actionable violation of section 632 occurs the moment the surreptitious recording is made.”); Friddle v. Epstein, 16 Cal.App.4th 1649, 1661, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 85 (1993) (<HOLDING>). This finding is bolstered by the fact that § Options: A. holding that the occurrence of damages determines when a medical malpractice action accrues B. holding that a cause of action accrues the moment the right to commence the action comes into existence C. holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach D. 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 E. holding that the right to recover statutory damages accrues at the moment the privacy act was violated

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the right to recover statutory damages accrues at the moment the privacy act was violated
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: § 952(a) and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2. 2 . Compare United States v. Long, 900 F.2d 1270, 1276 (8th Cir.1990) (excluding from speedy trial clock all time from district court’s grant of stay to obtain permission to file an interlocutory appeal through the date “the [appellate court's] mandate was received by the district court”) and Tyler, 878 F.2d at 759 (excluding from speedy trial clock "the 140 days that elapsed between the filing of the mandamus petition and the notification to the district court of the disposition of that petition”) and Speedy Trial Guidelines, infra pp. 1231-1232 (providing that delays due to extraordinary writs are excluded until the ”[d]ate the mandate of the court of appeals is filed in the district court”) with United States v. Felton, 811 F.2d 190, 198 (3d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). 3 . We do not comment on whether the time Options: A. holding that the date of sale for an installment contract was the date of contract formation not the date of the last payment due B. holding that the excludable period for an interlocutory appeal ends upon the date of issuance of the appellate courts mandate and expressly rejecting extending the exclusion until the date the district court receives the mandate C. holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act D. holding that where the date of the offense is not an element of the charge a variance between the indictment date and the proof at trial is not fatal so long as the acts charged were committed within the statute of limitations period and prior to the return date of the indictment E. holding that the statute does not begin to run until at least a demand has been made upon the government but determining that the facts of that case made it unnecessary to choose between the date of demand and the date of actual payment as the triggering date for the running of the statute of limitations

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the excludable period for an interlocutory appeal ends upon the date of issuance of the appellate courts mandate and expressly rejecting extending the exclusion until the date the district court receives the mandate
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 tax-rate cap has been in effect for decades. See W. Orange-Cove I, 107 S.W.3d at 564. 95 . Texas Mun. League, 74 S.W.3d at 381. 96 . 829 S.W.2d 712, 718-20 (Tex.1991). 97 . Id. at 718-19. 98 . The trial judge also cited evidence that less than all students passed TAKS tests or met college-readiness standards as evidence that every district had to spend more. Even assuming the Constitution requires schools to spend money until 100 percent of their students graduate and go to college, there was no evidence indicating how much each district would have to spend or how much each district might save from other operations to meet this standard. 99 . See W. Orange-Cove I, 107 S.W.3d at 578-79. 100 . Southwestern Refining Co., Inc. v. Bernal, 22 S.W.3d 425, 435 (Tex.2000). 101 . See id. (<HOLDING>). 102 . See FM Properties, 22 S.W.3d at 888 Options: A. holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent B. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to certify class action when claims were so individualized that certification was improper C. holding that in certifying a class action we reject this approach of certify now and worry later D. holding that the court cannot examine the underlying merits of the claims in determining whether to certify a class E. holding where plaintiffs stake in controversy disappears before there has been effort to certify class action the action must be dismissed

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that in certifying a class action we reject this approach of certify now and worry later