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: and to show that Aranda knowingly and purposefully participated in this conspiracy .... to establish a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.”); United States v. Evans, 8th Cir., 697 F.2d 240, 248 n. 8 (1983) ("Contrary to Evans’ assertion the government is entitled to put this evidence on in anticipation of a defense of lack of intent.”); Foy v. State, Tex. Crim.App., 593 S.W.2d 707, 709 (1980) ("[W]e hold that evidence of prior extraneous offenses committed against the victim of the offense charged, and indicating the existence of ill will or hostility toward the victim, is admissible as part of the State's case in chief as circumstantial evidence of the existence of a motive for committing the offense charged.”); Thompson v. United States, D.C. Ct.App., 546 A.2d 414, 423-24 & n. 16 (1988) (<HOLDING>). 16 . See Getz, 538 A.2d at 732. 17 . Id. at Options: A. holding that the government may not be permitted to introduce other crimes evidence in its case in chief to prove intent unless the defense disputes intent during opening statements B. holding that when a defendant charged with conspiracy enters a not guilty plea he makes intent a material issue in the case and imposes a substantial burden on the government thus the government may introduce extrinsic offenses which qualify under 404b to prove defendants state of mind unless defendant takes affirmative steps to remove the issue of intent from the case C. holding that the rule 404b evidence admitted to prove intent was clearly relevant because intent was at issue in the trial D. holding intoxication is only a defense to specific intent crimes and not general intent crimes E. holding that diminished capacity is a defense only to specific intent crimes

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the government may not be permitted to introduce other crimes evidence in its case in chief to prove intent unless the defense disputes intent during opening statements
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the internal laws of the State of New York, without reference to principles of conflicts of laws. Any action or proceeding brought for the purpose of enforcement of any term or provision of this Agreement shall be brought only in the Federal or state courts sitting in the State of New York and the parties hereby waive any and all rights to trial by jury.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: days after it filed its original answer in the suit in 1999, and thus the motion was untimely under section 11.051. See id. § 11.051(1) (allowing defendant to move trial court to declare plaintiff vexatious litigant if motion filed on or before ninetieth day after defendant files original answer or makes special appearance). Even if Transportation’s motion—which was úndisputedly filéd more than ninety days after its original answer but was filed within the same instrument as its response to Akinwamide’s 2014 motion to set aside the 2000 judgment—is considered untimely, this Court has held that a trjal court may make a vexatious litigant declaration on its own motion, if it provides the plaintiff with notice and the opportunity for a hearing. See In re Douglas, 333 S.W.3d at 284-87 (<HOLDING>); see also Tex. Civ. PRAC. & Rem.Code ANN. § Options: A. holding summary judgment may only be entered for one who has filed a motion asking that relief and only after notice and hearing on that motion B. holding that appellate court may judicially notice its own records C. holding that section 11101 permits trial court to make vexatious litigant determination on its own motion after notice and hearing as provided by subchapter b sections 11051057 D. holding trial court abused its discretion by refusing to conduct hearing and render decision on motion E. holding that a motion for a preliminary injunction and a hearing on that motion were insufficient to prevent the plaintiff from dismissing by notice

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that section 11101 permits trial court to make vexatious litigant determination on its own motion after notice and hearing as provided by subchapter b sections 11051057
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Lessee makes the representations and warranties in Section 7.1(a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) to the Buyer as of the Lease Closing Date and as of the Amendment Closing Date and makes the agreements in Section 7.1(b) and (f) from the Lease Closing Date to the Final Settlement Date.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Lenders party hereto constituting the Required Lenders hereby waive any Default or Event of Default arising from the Borrower’s failure to enter into a control agreement with respect to the Borrower’s deposit account, with account number 4093206506, established at Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (the “ Subject Account ”), pursuant to Section 8.17 of the TGC Credit Agreement.

assistant: Waivers
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: From the date hereof and continuing after the Participant’s last date of employment, and except as otherwise required by law, the Participant shall not disclose or make accessible to any business, person or entity, or make use of (other than in the course of the business of AB) any trade secrets, proprietary knowledge or confidential information that the Participant shall have obtained during his or her employment by AB and that shall not be generally known to or recognized by the general public. All information regarding or relating to any aspect of the business of AB, including but not limited to existing or contemplated business plans, activities or procedures, current or prospective clients, current or prospective contracts or other business arrangements, current or prospective products, facilities and methods, manuals, intellectual property, price lists, financial information (including the revenues, costs, or profits associated with any of the products or services of AB), or any other information acquired because of the Participant’s employment by AB, shall be conclusively presumed to be confidential; provided, however, that confidential information shall not include any information known generally to the public (other than as a result of unauthorized disclosure by the Participant). The Participant’s obligations under this Section 5(c) shall be in addition to any other confidentiality or nondisclosure obligations the Participant has to AB at law or under any other of AB’s policies or agreements.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a “short and plain state ment of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The first sentence of the sixth cause of action incorporates by reference all prior allegations of the First Amended Complaint. These allegations include the following: that Regal Stone and Fleet Management are the owner and operator of the COSCO BUSAN, that the COSCO BUSAN hit the Bay Bridge, that this allision resulted in an oil spill, and that this incident was caused by the “acts, omissions, strict liability, fault, [and] negligence ... by the ... Defendants.” First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 20-28. These allegations satisfy the pleading standard of Rule 8(2)(a) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, — U.S. —, —, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Defendants also allege that “the United Options: A. holding that a complaint must contain only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face B. holding that a complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face C. holding that dismissal pursuant to rule 12b6 is appropriate if the plaintiff is unable to articulate enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face D. recognizing that a rule 12b6 motion is an appropriate vehicle on which to seek dismissal of a claim barred by a prescription statute E. recognizing that to survive dismissal a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter accepted as true to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face internal quotation marks omitted

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that dismissal pursuant to rule 12b6 is appropriate if the plaintiff is unable to articulate enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face
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: Time is of the essence of the Loan Documents. The Loan Documents, and any separate letter agreements with respect to fees payable to the Agent or the Issuing Banks, embody the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter thereof and supersede all prior understandings regarding the same subject matter.

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: in confinement.” 864 So.2d at 1121. See also Moore. We have held that a trial court does not have jurisdiction to split a 20-year sentence so that the defendant serves less than the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. The State has established the prerequisites for the issuance of this writ of mandamus. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is due to be, and is hereby, granted. Judge McCormick is directed to resen-tence Gaines. As this Court ordered in Austin: “Because the 20-year sentence was valid, the circuit court may not change it. See Wood [v. State, 602 So.2d 1195 (Ala.Crim.App.1992)]. However, the court may split the sentence in compliance with § 15-18-8, i.e., with no more than 5 years in confinement, see, e.g., Soles v. State, 820 So.2d 163, 165 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) (<HOLDING>), or, it if determines that splitting the Options: A. holding that the newly amended 15188 allows a trial judge to suspend a sentence imposed upon application of the schoolhousing enhancements despite the prohibition against probation in 13a12250 and 13a12270 B. holding that probation is not a sentence C. holding that upon revocation of probation a court must grant credit for time served on probation and community control towards any newly imposed term of imprisonment and probation so that the total period of control probation and imprisonment does not exceed the statutory maximum D. holding that where original sentencing judge imposed a guidelines sentence defendant could not be sentenced as a habitual offender upon violation of probation E. holding that judge found sentence enhancements mandatorily imposed under the guidelines that result in a sentence greater than that authorized by the jury verdict or facts admitted by the defendant violate the sixth amendments guarantee of the right to trial by jury

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the newly amended 15188 allows a trial judge to suspend a sentence imposed upon application of the schoolhousing enhancements despite the prohibition against probation in 13a12250 and 13a12270
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 common stock of the Company consists of 500,000,000 authorized shares of Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share, of which 38,832,573 shares are issued and outstanding; and 1,834,615 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.

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: wholly independent right the resolution of which demands the exercise of a judicial power substantially different in scope than the power to decide a particular claimant’s entitlement to compensation under the Vaccine Act. What petitioners seek is a declaratory-judgment respecting the constitutional legitimacy of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-14(c) — the statute that authorizes the Secretary to promulgate regulations modifying the Vaccine Injury Table. That relief raises an issue that is intimately tied to the power to review the Secretary’s regulations and, as such, it is an issue appropriate for consideration by a United States court of appeals pursuant to Section 300aa-32 of the Vaccine Act. See Oklahoma v. Civil Service Comm’n, 330 U.S. 127, 138-139, 67 S.Ct. 544, 551-552, 91 L.Ed. 794 (1947) (<HOLDING>) The issue lies beyond our jurisdiction to hear Options: A. holding that the improper appointment of a judge to a case deprived the court of jurisdiction to rule on any motions pending before that judge the orders entered by that judge were entered without jurisdiction of the court and were thus void B. holding that remand orders are also appealable orders under 28 usc 1291 C. recognizing that a court granted jurisdiction by statute to review the legality of administrative orders is also empowered to examine the constitutionality of the statute by virtue of which such orders were entered D. holding that court of appeals statutory jurisdiction over final orders of removal extends to reinstatement orders E. holding that the court had jurisdiction to decide issues relating to the fsp conveyance orders and an agreement entered pursuant to the conveyance orders

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that a court granted jurisdiction by statute to review the legality of administrative orders is also empowered to examine the constitutionality of the statute by virtue of which such orders were entered
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to cases such as this. 18 . When federal actions contain no statute of limitations, courts ordinarily look to analogous provisions of state law as a source for the federal limitations period. See Doe v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 753 F.2d 1092, 1114 (D.C.Cir.1985). And, here this Court will look to the relevant personal injury statute of limitations. See Delgado-Brunet v. Clark, 93 F.3d 339, 342 (7th Cir.1996) (considering Bivens actions as governed by the personal injury statute of limitations and tolling laws in the state where the alleged injury occurred); see also Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 272-75, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985), superceded by statute as recognized by Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369, 377-81, 124 S.Ct. 1836, 158 L.Ed.2d 645 (2004) (<HOLDING>). The personal injury statute of limitations is Options: A. holding that claims under 42 usc 1983 are not personal injury tort claims B. holding that federal courts apply the forum states personal injury statute of limitations for section 1983 claims C. holding that civil rights claims under 42 usc 1981 and 1982 are personal injury tort claims D. holding that civil rights claims at least those arising under 42 usc 1983 were subject to the applicable states personal injury statute of limitations E. holding that in actions brought under 42 usc 1983 federal courts apply the states statute of limitation for personal injury

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that civil rights claims at least those arising under 42 usc 1983 were subject to the applicable states personal injury statute of limitations
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No Loan Party nor any of its Subsidiaries is in default in the performance, observance or fulfillment of any of the obligations, covenants or conditions contained in any agreement, instrument or other undertaking to which such Person is a party or by which it or any of its property is bound in any respect that could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. No Default has occurred and is continuing.

assistant: No Defaults
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: With respect to each Plan, the Borrower and all ERISA Affiliates have paid all required minimum contributions and installments on or before the due dates provided under Section 430(j) of the Code and could not reasonably be subject to a lien under Section 430(k) of the Code or Title IV of ERISA. Neither the Borrower nor any ERISA Affiliate has filed, pursuant to Section 412(c) of the Code or Section 302(c) of ERISA, an application for a waiver of the minimum funding standard. 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, could reasonably be expected to result in material liability.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and held that compensatory damages were available for violations of IDEA. The court reasoned that; absent a clear direction to the contrary by Congress, federal courts are empowered to award any appropriate relief in a cognizable cause of action brought pursuant to a federal statute. Emma C., 985 F.Supp. at 945. In Mrs. W. v. Tirozzi, the Second Circuit held that parents are entitled to bring a section 1983 action based on alleged violations of IDEA or the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. 832 F.2d at 755. Other courts have also recognized that a section 1983 action for statutory violation of IDEA should proceed. See also Cappil-lino v. Hyde Park Cent. Sch. Dist., 40 F.Supp.2d 513, 515, 516 (S.D.N.Y.1999). Walker v. D.C., 969 F.Supp. 794 (D.D.C. 1997) (<HOLDING>). In W.B. v. Matula, 67 F.3d 484 (3d Cir.1995), Options: A. holding that a plaintiff cannot bring an action under 42 usc 1983 against a state official in her individual capacity to vindicate rights created by title ii of the ada or section 504 of the rehabilitation act B. holding that plaintiffs may bring a section 1983 claim for damages to vindicate their rights under idea C. holding that damages are not relief that is available under the idea D. holding that the plaintiff tribe was not a person who could sue under section 1983 to vindicate sovereign rights namely a claimed immunity from the state court process E. holding that bjecause idea provides a comprehensive remedial scheme for violations of its own requirements parties may not sue under section 1983 for an idea violation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that plaintiffs may bring a section 1983 claim for damages to vindicate their rights under idea
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 in one or more counterparts, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same Agreement, and electronically transmitted signatures shall be valid.

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: This Article XI is a continuing guaranty and shall (a) remain in full force and effect until the later of the cash payment in full of the Guaranteed Obligations (other than Contingent Indemnity Obligations) and all other amounts payable under this Article XI and the Final Maturity Date, (b) be binding upon each Guarantor, its successors and assigns and (c) inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Secured Parties and their successors, pledgees, transferees and assigns. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing clause (c), any Lender may pledge, assign or otherwise transfer all or any portion of its rights and obligations under this Agreement (including, without limitation, all or any portion of its Commitments, its Loans owing to it) to any other Person, and such other Person shall thereupon become vested with all the benefits in respect thereof granted such Lender herein or otherwise, in each case as provided in Section 12.07.

assistant: Assignments
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 addition to such other rights of indemnification as they may have as members of the Board or the Committee or as officers or employees of the Participating Company Group, members of the Board or the Committee and any officers or employees of the Participating Company Group to whom authority to act for the Board, the Committee or the Company is delegated shall be indemnified by the Company against all reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, actually and necessarily incurred in connection with the defense of any action, suit or proceeding, or in connection with any appeal therein, to which they or any of them may be a party by reason of any action taken or failure to act under or in connection with the Plan, or any right granted hereunder, and against all amounts paid by them in settlement thereof (provided such settlement is approved by independent legal counsel selected by the Company) or paid by them in satisfaction of a judgment in any such action, suit or proceeding, except in relation to matters as to which it shall be adjudged in such action, suit or proceeding that such person is liable for gross negligence, bad faith or intentional misconduct in duties; provided, however, that within sixty (60) days after the institution of such action, suit or proceeding, such person shall offer to the Company, in writing, the opportunity at its own expense to handle and defend the same.

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: This Agreement supersedes any statements, representations or agreements of the Corporation with respect to the grant of the Option, any other equity-based awards or any related rights, and the Participant hereby waives any rights or claims related to any such statements, representations or agreements. This Agreement does not supersede or amend any confidentiality agreement, non-solicitation agreement, non-competition agreement, employment agreement or any other similar agreement between the Participant and the Corporation, including, but not limited to, any restrictive covenants contained in such agreements. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective executors, administrators, heirs, successors and assigns.

assistant: Binding Effects
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: consolidation of CitX and PRSI and [creation of] an [sic] constructive trust for the benefit of the creditors of CitX.” Id. ¶ (h). Reading counts V through VII together, I conclude that the trustee does not seek to equitably subordinate — ie., reduce the priority of — the receiver’s allowed claim in this bankruptcy case. Instead, he is directly challenging the receiver’s control over PRSI property — as authorized by the state court of Florida — by maintaining that PRSI and CitX should be treated as one entity, presumably with the assets of that consolidated entity under the control of this court — given 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e), which provides the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all property of the debtor. See, e.g., In re Simon, 153 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied sub nom. Hong Kong and Shanghai Options: A. holding that a party cannot waive in rem jurisdiction under florida law and a court proceeding pursuant to in rem jurisdiction must actually possess in rem jurisdiction over the property that is the subject of the matter B. holding that the basis of in rem jurisdiction is the presence of the subject property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum state C. holding that where prior state court had in rem jurisdiction district court could maintain in personam jurisdiction and simply deny requests for conflicting in rem relief because district court is fully capable of preventing inappropriate conversion of the suit to a proceeding truly in rem D. recognizing that 28 usc 1334e provides exclusive in rem jurisdiction over all property of the bankruptcy estate E. holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that 28 usc 1334e provides exclusive in rem jurisdiction over all property of the bankruptcy estate
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: Schneckloth. 412 U.S. at 248, 93 S.Ct. 2041. Whether a consent is voluntary is to be determined from all the circumstances. Id. at 248-49, 93 S.Ct. 2041. In this case there are few facts bearing on the voluntariness of the consent: (1) the bail bond was signed by Ullring and in it he stated that he agreed to obey the random search condition; and (2) he was in custody when he signed the bond on December 10. [¶ 11] Ullring suggests that a defendant who is in custody and who is required to sign a bail bond with conditions before being released is signing the bond under coercion. The mere fact that Ullring was in custody at the time the consent was given does not demonstrate that the consent was coerced. See United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 424-25, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Ullring’s written statement that he agreed to Options: A. holding consent not voluntary where police threatened to arrest defendants girlfriend if he refused to sign consent form B. holding that a detained defendants consent to search his car was voluntary even though the police did not tell him he was free to leave C. holding that defendants consent to search his person while on board an interstate bus was voluntary even though the police did not tell the defendant of his right to refuse consent D. holding that the defendants consent to search was voluntary although he had been served with a subpoena E. holding that warrantless search of defendants vehicle was legal because defendants consent was voluntary even through he was in police custody at the time of giving consent

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that warrantless search of defendants vehicle was legal because defendants consent was voluntary even through he was in police custody at the time of giving consent
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 option is granted under and subject to the terms of the Plan, which is incorporated herein by this reference. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan and/or the Notice.

assistant: Defined 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of facts, as discussed in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340, 348, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991). Plaintiffs, however do not apply this analysis to the contents of the works in question nor do they in any way demonstrate that it is original, copyrightable work created by Garcia Goy-co himself, as opposed to all of the other contributors. Not all works can be copyrighted. Merely because the works were deposited in the Copyright Office and have certificates of registration, does not mean that they were copyrightable subject matter. Expression in the public domain may not be monopolized by mere copyright registration. See e.g., Tufenkian Import/Export Ventures, Inc. v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc., 237 F.Supp.2d 376, 384 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (“Tufenkian ”) (<HOLDING>); Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d805 (9th Options: A. holding as a matter of law that adaptations of subject matter or expressions in the public domain cannot support a finding of copyright infringement B. holding that it may be decided as a matter of law C. holding that while the computer program at issue was within the subject matter of copyright the right sought under state law pursuant to a license was not equivalent to the exclusive rights under copyright as such copyright preemption did not apply D. holding that where some radio scripts from aradio show had entered the public domain and others were protected by copyright plaintiff was entitled to use the public domain material without a license E. holding that divergent expressions of unprotected ideas does not violate copyright law

assistant: The best answer is A. holding as a matter of law that adaptations of subject matter or expressions in the public domain cannot support a finding of copyright infringement
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Borrower has been duly organized and is validly existing and in good standing with requisite power and authority to own the Collateral and to transact the businesses in which it is now engaged. Borrower is duly qualified to do business and is in good standing in each jurisdiction where it is required to be so qualified in connection with its businesses and operations. Borrower possesses all rights, licenses, permits and authorizations, governmental or otherwise, necessary to entitle it to own the Collateral and to transact the businesses in which it is now engaged (except to the extent that the failure to possess such rights, licenses and permits would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect), and the sole business of Borrower is the ownership of the Collateral. The ownership interests in Borrower are as set forth on the organizational chart attached hereto as Schedule III .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: was stopped), kept the same books, undercapitalized Expert HR, or even represented to LM that the Expert HR defendants were significantly involved in the insurance contract at issue. Further, like LM’s alter ego claim against Dalrada, LM has not shown that the Expert HR defendants must be treated as an alter ego of SOG in order to avoid fraud or injustice. Here, it would seem to actually allow an injustice to force the Expert HR defendants to answer for the activities of SOG since LM acknowledges that the representations of the SOG employees, including those purportedly on behalf of the Expert HR defendants, were made without the knowledge of the Expert HR defendants’ management. See Koch Refining v. Farmers Union Cent. Exch., Inc., 831 F.2d 1339, 1345 (7th Cir.1987) (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>). For this reason, I grant summary judgment for Options: A. recognizing that the alter ego doctrine is an equitable doctrine which should be used to prevent inequitable results B. recognizing that the corporate entity is disregarded to prevent fraud or an injustice not to inflict an obligation on an innocent corporation and that the fraud or inequity sought to be eliminated must be that of the party against whom the alter ego doctrine is invoked C. recognizing doctrine D. holding that alter ego is shown from the total dealings of the corporation E. holding an alter ego action could be brought by the debtor corporation under texas law

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that the alter ego doctrine is an equitable doctrine which should be used to prevent inequitable results
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: matter how impractical or visionary the venture may be” is no defense to a charge of fraud. United States v. Stull, 743 F.2d 439, 446 (6th Cir.1984). At the very least, a rational juror could have found that K. Kennedy’s material misstatements to victims regarding the existence of an inheritance purportedly due his wife were reckless. He had never seen any document evidencing such an inheritance, and he knew that his wife had been sued in the past for making false representations regarding an alleged inheritance. The government met the mail- and wire-fraud statutes’ intent requirements through proof that K. Kennedy was reckless in his disregard for the truth of the statements that he made to victims to obtain their money. See United States v. DeSantis, 134 F.3d 760, 764 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Turner, 22 Options: A. holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud B. holding that the first element of mail fraud knowing participation in a scheme to defraud can extend beyond the specific mailing and that the loss calculation for a mail fraud conviction may include any loss from the fraudulent scheme that the mailing furthered C. holding that in a criminal mail fraud prosecution under 18 usc 1341 where proof of specific intent is required it may be found from a material misstatement of fact made with reckless disregard for truth D. holding that the prosecution may establish the intent element of mail fraud by proving that the defendant was reckless E. holding that to satisfy the element of specific intent to defraud needed to convict for mail fraud the government must show that the defendant knowingly made a material misrepresentation or knowingly omitted a material fact for the purpose of inducing the victim of the fraud to part with property or undertake some action that he would not otherwise do absent the misrepresentation or omission

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the prosecution may establish the intent element of mail fraud by proving that the defendant was reckless
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: verdict if, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781 (emphasis in original). “This familiar standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Id. “ ‘Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction and such evidence need not remove every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.’” Leary, 422 Fed.Appx. at 506 (quoting United States v. Fortson, 194 F.3d 730, 735 (6th Cir.1999)); United States v. Stone, 748 F.2d 361, 363 (6th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). “In Mackey, we interpreted the ‘in Options: A. holding a determination regarding eligibility for asylum is conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole B. holding our court on appeal will reverse a judgment for insufficiency of evidence only if this judgment is not supported by substantial and competent evidence upon the record as a whole and this rule applies whether the evidence is direct or wholly circumstantial C. holding that a factfinders rulings will be upheld if supported by reasonable substantial and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole D. holding that when competent substantial evidence supports the trial courts ruling this court will not secondguess the trial court on this matter E. holding law court will not overturn conclusions supported by competent and substantial evidence

assistant: The best answer is B. holding our court on appeal will reverse a judgment for insufficiency of evidence only if this judgment is not supported by substantial and competent evidence upon the record as a whole and this rule applies whether the evidence is direct or wholly circumstantial
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision or clause of this Agreement, or portion thereof shall be held by any court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable in such jurisdiction, the remainder of such provision shall not be thereby affected and shall be given full effect, without regard to the invalid portion.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Comm’n, 360 Mich. 578, 104 N.W.2d 395, 401-02 (1960); Bird v. State, 154 Miss. 493, 122 So. 539, 540 (1929); In re Oak St., 308 Mo. 494, 273 S.W. 105, 109 (1925); Prescott v. Hayes, 42 N.H. 56, 58-59 (1860); State ex rel. Newman v. Jacobs, 17 Ohio 143, 152-53 (1848); Franks v. Ponca City, 170 Okla. 134, 38 P.2d 912, 913 (1934); Graham v. Sch. Dist. No. 69, 33 Or. 263, 54 P. 185, 187 (1898); Dove v. Kirkland, 92 S.C. 313, 75 S.E. 503, 507 (1912); Roche v. Jones, 87 Va. 484, 12 S.E. 965, 966 (1891); Green Mountain Sch. Dist. No. 103 v. Durkee, 56 Wash.2d 154, 351 P.2d 525, 528 (1960); State ex rel. Schneider v. Darby, 179 Wis. 147, 190 N.W. 994, 998 (1922); Crawford v. City of Sheridan, 392 P.2d 519, 520 (Wyo.1964). But see Omdorff v. Potter, 125 W.Va. 785, 25 S.E.2d 911, 912 (1943) (<HOLDING>). In the final analysis, the practical nature Options: A. holding that when a judicial office is created by legislative act or municipal ordinance the office is regarded as a de facto office until the act or ordinance is declared invalid B. holding office exempt where the rest of the residence was not C. recognizing a nonresident who receives the most votes for elected office does not hold the office but not discussing the de facto officer doctrine D. holding that an employee had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his office even though the papers seized from the office were not the property of the employee E. recognizing that a prosecutors office is an entity and that information in the possession of one attorney in the office must be attributed to the office as a whole

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing a nonresident who receives the most votes for elected office does not hold the office but not discussing the de facto officer doctrine
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: at 1186. In United States v. Reeves, 524 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir.2008), the Tenth Circuit established that “[o]pening the door to one’s home is not voluntary if ordered to. do so under color of authority.” 524 F.3d at 1167. The Tenth Circuit has repeatedly held that, absent exigent circumstances, officials acting under the color of authority and without a warrant may not seize a person inside their home, or effect a seizure by ordering a person inside a home to come to the door. See United States v. Maez, 872 F.2d 1444, 1446 (10th Cir.1989) (recognizing a seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment when police surrounded an .individual’s house for three hours and ordered the individual out of his home under drawn firearms); United States v. Flowers, 336 F.3d 1222, 1225-27 (10th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). In United States v. Reeves, police-officers Options: A. holding that police orders to openthe door which led to an arrest inside the home represented an unconstitutional seizure B. holding that arrest took place inside home even though officers did not physically enter residence to place suspect in custody C. holding that an unconstitutional seizure occurred when police officers discovered that a suspect illegally sold alcohol from his home and ordered him to open the door involuntarily to be arrested inside his home D. holding that arrest by the back door of defendants house was unlawful E. holding that if a residents decision to open his door to police is made involuntarily a seizure within his home has occurred

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that police orders to openthe door which led to an arrest inside the home represented an unconstitutional seizure
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 constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior or contemporaneous agreements or understandings, negotiations or correspondence between the Parties, written or oral, concerning the subject matter hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: homicide was admissible as similar fact evidence. Id. at 628. In that case, the defendant was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and sexual battery for the strangulation murders of three women. Id. at 619. The defendant admitted to killing all three victims, but his defense was that “the killings ‘just happened’ when he ‘lost it’ during consensual sex.” Id. at 628. This Court concluded that the third, similar homicide was relevant to the issues of lack of consent, premeditation, intent, and absence of mistake, which that evidence that twenty-three days before the murder, defendant had beaten the victim, with whom he was living, to the point that she became unconscious was “proper as evidence of premeditation”); see also Dennis v. State, 817 So.2d 741, 761 (Fla.2002) (<HOLDING>). However, trial courts should be cautious and Options: A. holding evidence of prior drug use admissible to show motive and the nature of the defendants relationship with coconspirators B. holding evidence of sexual assault relevant to show defendants motive in kidnapping victim C. holding that evidence of uncharged incest with the same victim is admissible to illustrate the relationship existing between the defendant and the victim D. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the state to introduce direct evidence of the controlling nature of defendants relationship with the victim E. holding that evidence that the defendant had stalked threatened and assaulted the victim his exgirlfriend was evidence as to the nature of the defendants relationship with the victim and that it was relevant to establish motive

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that evidence that the defendant had stalked threatened and assaulted the victim his exgirlfriend was evidence as to the nature of the defendants relationship with the victim and that it was relevant to establish motive