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: recast their simple breach of contract claim into a tort claim to avoid the reality that the statute of limitations has run on their contract claim. But the allegations are for a simple breach of an oral contract — Figaro-la borrowed $25,000 from the Walkers which he promised to repay within three weeks, and the loan remains unpaid. The complaint thus alleges a failure to comply with the terms of the contract. The Walkers had four years to bring a breach of contract action against Figarola, but they failed to do so. They cannot now seek a remedy in tort for a debt which could have been discharged by the payment of money by simply alleging that Figarola never intended to keep his promise to repay the debt. See Hotels of Key Largo v. RHI Hotels, Inc., 694 So.2d 74, 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (<HOLDING>). Options: A. holding that misrepresentations relating to the breaching partys performance of a contract do not give rise to an independent cause of action in tort B. holding that the failure to act in good faith does not amount to an independent tort the breach of the implied duty under the ucc gives rise only to a cause of action for breach of contract C. holding that negligent breach of a duty assumed in a contract does not give rise to a separate tort claim D. holding that failure to record an assignment does not give rise to a cause of action E. holding that the first amendment does not by itself give rise to a cause of action for damages

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that misrepresentations relating to the breaching partys performance of a contract do not give rise to an independent cause of action in tort
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 issuance and sale of the Shares have been duly authorized by the Company and the Shares, when issued, delivered and paid for in the manner set forth in this Agreement, will be validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable, and will conform in all material respects to the description thereof set forth in the 2013 Registration Statement. No preemptive rights, commitments, rights of first offer or refusal, anti-dilution rights, rights of participation or any other rights to subscribe for or purchase any shares of Common Stock of the Company exist with respect to the issuance and sale of the Shares by the Company pursuant to this Agreement or the issuance of the Warrant. No further approval or authority of the Company’s stockholders or the Board of Directors of the Company (the “ Board ”) will be required for the issuance and sale of the Shares to be sold by the Company as contemplated herein or the issuance of the Warrant .

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: working conditions; a racial discrimination claim alleging wrongful termination based on racial animus; and a claim alleging a racially hostile work environment. (See Doc. 1). “Because the legal standards governing each of these categories of claims are the same, it is unnecessary to evaluate separately the Title VII ... and the § 1981 causes of action.” Pears v. Mobile County, 645 F.Supp.2d 1062, 1089 (S.D.Ala.2009). Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against a person based on race. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). Likewise, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibits intentional race discrimination in the making and enforcement of public and private contracts, including employment contracts. See, e.g., Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454, 95 S.Ct. 1716, 44 L.Ed.2d 295 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Section 1981 liability must be founded on Options: A. holding with little discussion that section 1981 applies to private racial discrimination B. holding that title vii proscribe racial discrimination in private employment against whites on the same terms as racial discrimination against nonwhites C. holding that 1981 protects against discrimination based on ancestry D. holding that section 1981 prohibits racial discrimination in private employment against whites as well as nonwhites E. holding unequivocally that 1981 protects against racial discrimination in private employment

assistant: The best answer is E. holding unequivocally that 1981 protects against racial discrimination in private employment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: by the plaintiffs in their complaints — harmful effects on the quality and quantity of East Texas’ water supply— “are among the sorts of interests” that NEPA was specifically designed to protect. Lujan, 110 S.Ct. at 3187. These alleged injuries fall squarely within the class of injuries that NEPA safeguards: the circuit courts, to be sure, are flooded with cases which elucidate that water quality and water supply are prototypically matters of great environmental concern. E.g., Olmsted Citizens for a Better Community, 793 F.2d 201, 205 (8th Cir.1986) (a federal action which “poses a threat to the physical resources of the area because of anticipated ... water supply problems” must be preceded by an EIS); Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Andrus, 596 F.2d 848, 851-53 (9th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>); City of Davis v. Coleman, 521 F.2d 661, Options: A. holding after consideration of a single significance factor that an eis was required B. holding that an attorney is required to advise a defendant of the direct consequences of a plea and will not be found ineffective for failing to advise of collateral consequences of the plea C. holding that an eis was required to evaluate the environmental consequences of the decision to divert water to industrial use D. holding that an agencys decision not to prepare an eis was unreasonable because record demonstrated that four of the regulatory factors were implicated E. holding that an ea prepared by an agency in that case was not the functional equivalent of an eis

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an eis was required to evaluate the environmental consequences of the decision to divert water to industrial use
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: There is no (a) Action of any nature pending or, to the Company’s Knowledge, threatened, nor is there any reasonable basis for any Action to be made, or (b) Order pending now or rendered by a Governmental Authority since January 1, 2015, in either case of (a) or (b) by or against the Company, its sole shareholder, or its current or former directors or officers. Since January 1, 2015, none of the sole shareholder, current or former officers, senior management or directors of the Company have been charged with, indicted for, arrested for, or convicted of any felony or any crime involving fraud.

assistant: Litigations
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: several eases have held bankruptcy only exemptions constitutional. In re Joyner, 2012 WL 3610118 (Bankr.S.D.Ga. Aug. 7, 2012)(J. Davis)(upholding the constitutionality of Georgia’s bankruptcy statute); Kulp v. Zeman (In re Kulp), 949 F.2d 1106, 1109 n. 3 (10th Cir.1991) ("[S]tates may pass laws which do not conflict with the federal scheme. In this case we have no conflict [with Colorado’s bankruptcy only exemption] because 11 U.S.C. § 522 expressly delegates to states the power to create bankruptcy exemptions.”); In re Morrell, 394 B.R. 405 (Bankr.N.D.W.Va.2008)(West Virginia “admirably fulfilled its federal mandate in opting out of the federal exemptions” and creating its bankruptcy specific exemption statute); In re Brown, 2007 WL 2120380, *15 (Bankr.N.D.N.Y. July 23, 2007) (<HOLDING>); In re Shumaker, 124 B.R. 820, 826 Options: A. holding that congress specifically allowed states to use their own exemptions instead of the federal exemptions listed in 522d and new yorks bankruptcy only exemption scheme is not so inconsistent with the exemptions listed in 522d as to render it invalid under the supremacy clause B. holding that free exercise clause did not require government to grant religious exemption from generally applicable religionneutral statutory requirement that welfare recipients furnish their social security numbers where no individualized exemptions were allowed C. holding the provisions of a new york welfare program that conflicted with federal regulations under the social security act invalid under the supremacy clause D. recognizing that the supremacy clause is not a source of any federal rights E. holding states may make nondiscriminatory religious practice exemptions but that such exemptions are not constitutionally required

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that congress specifically allowed states to use their own exemptions instead of the federal exemptions listed in 522d and new yorks bankruptcy only exemption scheme is not so inconsistent with the exemptions listed in 522d as to render it invalid under the supremacy clause
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 understand that the yahoo services and software embodied within the yahoo services may include security components that permit digital materials to be protected , and that use of these materials is subject to usage rules set by yahoo and/or content providers who provide content to the yahoo services .

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if we choose to conduct identity verification or background checks on any member , to the extent permitted by applicable law , we disclaim warranties of any kind , either express or implied , that such checks will identify prior misconduct by a member or guarantee that a member will not engage in misconduct in the future .

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Buyer (or its assignee pursuant to Section 7.06 or its agent) may withhold from any payment hereunder any tax required by applicable Law to be withheld, and the tax withheld will be treated for all purposes hereof as paid to the Person with respect to which the withholding was made, to the extent that the withholding Person complies with applicable Law with respect to the withholding (including any applicable Law for depositing the tax withheld with a Governmental Authority).

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in many cases with the problem of making difficult and time-consuming factual determinations based on stale records. We believe that a court’s time and energy would be better spent in handling its current caseload.... Glenn, 558 So.2d at 8; see also Reed v. State, 837 So.2d 366, 370 (Fla. 2002) (refusing to apply a new rule retroactively to child abuse cases because it “would require courts to revisit numerous final convictions and to extensively review stale records”); Williams, 421 So.2d at 515 (refusing to apply a new rule retroactively because it would entail hearings with “evidence possibly long since destroyed, misplaced, or deteriorated” and witnesses who “may not be available or [whose] memory might be dimmed”); [State v. Towery, 204 Ariz. 386, 64 P.3d 828, 835 (Ariz. 2003) ] (<HOLDING>). 904 So.2d at 411-12. Thus, we concluded that Options: A. recognizing that conducting new sentencing hearings for arizonas 90 death row prisoners many requiring witnesses no longer available would impose a substantial and unjustified burden on arizonas administration of justice B. holding that recklessness even for fiduciaries is no longer sufficient C. recognizing cause of action for wrongful death D. holding that because plaintiff no longer has available administrative remedies his action must be dismissed with prejudice E. recognizing that section 5 is inapplicable when the parties have specified an exclusive arbitral forum but that forum is no longer available

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that conducting new sentencing hearings for arizonas 90 death row prisoners many requiring witnesses no longer available would impose a substantial and unjustified burden on arizonas administration of justice
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: For each Plan Year, the Base Salary portion of the Annual Deferral Amount shall be withheld from each regularly scheduled Base Salary payroll in equal amounts, as adjusted from time to time for increases and decreases in Base Salary. The Bonus and Commissions portion of the Annual Deferral Amount shall be withheld at the time the Bonus and Commissions would be paid to the Participant, whether or not this occurs during the Plan Year itself. Annual Deferral Amounts shall be credited to a Participant's Deferral Account.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and all covenants, agreements, representations and warranties made herein and in the certificates delivered pursuant hereto shall survive the making by the Lender of the Loan and the execution and delivery to the Lender of the Note, and shall continue in full force and effect so long as all or any of the Obligations are outstanding and unpaid unless a longer period is expressly set forth herein or in the other Loan Documents. Whenever in this Agreement any of the parties hereto is referred to, such reference shall be deemed to include the legal representatives, successors and assigns of such party. All covenants, promises and agreements in this Agreement, by or on behalf of the Borrowers, shall inure to the benefit of the legal representatives, successors and assigns of the Agent and the Lender.

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: Any Loan Document may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which when taken together shall constitute a single contract. This Agreement shall become effective when Agent has received counterparts bearing the signatures of all parties hereto. Agent may (but shall have no obligation to) accept any signature, contract formation or record-keeping through electronic means, which shall have the same legal validity and enforceability as manual or paper-based methods, to the fullest extent permitted by Applicable Law, including the Federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, the New York State Electronic Signatures and Records Act, or any similar state law based on the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act.

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: a criminal defendant had obtained independent DNA testing of physical evidence, but decided not to present the evidently unfavorable results at trial. When the prosecution subpoenaed the person who had conducted the tests to testify, the defendant moved to quash the subpoena, but the trial court denied the motion. On appeal to this Court, we determined that the work-product privilege barred the prosecution from presenting the testimony. We refused to allow the prosecution to present the expert’s testimony because the defense had reasonably expected discussions with, and investigations by, the expert to remain confidential, and the public interest behind the privilege would be undermined by overriding the privilege. See also Commonwealth v. Noll, 443 Pa.Super. 602, 662 A.2d 1123 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Consistent with Kennedy, we conclude here Options: A. holding that the prosecution could not retain as a testifying expert for trial a nontestifying expert the defendant had previously retained B. holding that public policy militates against a judge testifying as an expert witness for one of the parties C. recognizing that the need for the expert was so great that the decision to preclude the expert effectively amounted to dismissal of case D. holding that an expert that had provided consulting services to the defendant relating to the litigation was not precluded from serving as an expert for the plaintiff E. holding that the plaintiff was entitled to recover reasonable expert fees for a rehabilitation expert and economist

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the prosecution could not retain as a testifying expert for trial a nontestifying expert the defendant had previously retained
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: bench trial before the Honorable Frank M. Davis, which was concluded September 30, 1986. Defendant, “The Shining Mountains,” a California limited partnership, is the owner-developer of property known as the “Shining Mountains Subdivision” located in Madison County, Montana. A dispute arose between defendant and individuals purchasing parcels within the subdivision as to the extent and nature of defendant’s commitment to construct roadways within the subdivision. The plaintiff-landowners filed suit alleging defendant represented that roadways would be provided as part of the development and constructed by defendant. This Court previously reversed a partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Majers v. Shining Mountains (Mont. 1986), [219 Mont. 366,] 711 P.2d 1375, 43 St.Rep. 16 (<HOLDING>). Following a subsequent trial, the District Options: A. holding that the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence is insufficient to create a dispute of fact that is genuine B. holding that the original pto declarations create a genuine issue of material fact C. holding that subsequent affidavit contradicting prior sworn testimony does not create genuine issue of fact D. holding that a genuine issue of fact remained in determining what representations were made by defendant to plaintiffs as to the construction of roadways and that roadway easement designations on the plat maps did not alone create a promise to construct roads E. holding that unsupported allegations or denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of summary judgment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a genuine issue of fact remained in determining what representations were made by defendant to plaintiffs as to the construction of roadways and that roadway easement designations on the plat maps did not alone create a promise to construct roads
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, the Confidentiality Agreement and any covenants and agreements incorporated herein by reference, as set forth in Section 4 above, together constitute the entire agreement between the parties in respect of the subject matter contained herein and therein and supersede all prior or simultaneous representations, discussions, negotiations, and agreements, whether written or oral, provided, however , that for the avoidance of doubt, all Other Arrangements (as such Other Arrangements may be amended, modified or terminated from time to time) shall remain in effect in accordance with their terms, subject to Section 3(d) above. This Agreement may be amended or modified only with the written consent of Key Colleague and an authorized representative of the Company. No oral waiver, amendment or modification will be effective under any circumstances whatsoever.

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: the restraint on his freedom of movement associated with a formal arrest. Defendant correctly points out he was told by Officer Robb that he was “detained” while he waited on the curb for the detectives to arrive. However, any custody associated with the detention ended when defendant left Robb and voluntarily accompanied Detectives Copeland and Taylor. Robb also told defendant more than once that he was not under arrest, a status investigators confirmed when they arrived, and any conflict engendered in defendant’s mind by being told at the outset that he was being detained pending the investigators’ arrival necessarily dissipated when those investigators appeared and specifically told defendant he was not under arrest. See State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 658-63, 483 S.E.2d 396, 402-06 (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900, 139 L. Ed. 2d 177 Options: A. holding that farm workers who voluntarily choose to ride employers bus to and from field were engaged in noncompensable travel B. holding that a transfer to night patrol from the intelligence unit was a demotion where evidence revealed that the intelligence unit positions were more prestigious had better working hours and were more interesting than night patrol and the few officers voluntarily transferred from the intelligence unit to night patrol and other officers had been so transferred as punishment C. holding that the juvenile defendants who voluntarily left their homes in the middle of night to ride to the police department in patrol cars and who were told they were not under arrest were not in custody D. holding that a defendant who voluntarily rode to the station with officers in a police car waited in a lobby with unlocked external doors and was told more than once he was not under arrest was not in custody E. holding that a defendant who was told several times he was not under arrest and who never asked to leave during an interview with investigators was not in custody

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the juvenile defendants who voluntarily left their homes in the middle of night to ride to the police department in patrol cars and who were told they were not under arrest were not in custody
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: Invalidation of any one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, the Deed of Trust, the other Loan Documents or the Environmental Indemnity by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any of the other provisions thereof which shall remain in force and effect.

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: gun at a building that happens to be occupied without actually shooting, attempting to shoot, or threatening to shoot another person.” Id. By contrast, 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/24-1.2(a)(2) only mentions vehicles. Buildings are confined to subsection (a)(1). Vehicles as a class are generally quite smaller than buildings. This difference in size in proportion to the average size of a person causes us to draw a conclusion opposite Alfaro: shooting in the direction of an occupied vehicle has as a necessary element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force against a person because one cannot commit that act without shooting, attempting to shoot, or threatening to shoot at that person in the vehicle. See generally United States v. Hernandez-Rodriguez, 467 F.3d 492, 495 (5th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). As the government properly conceded at oral Options: A. holding that to enhance a sentence because of the defendants use of a firearm the jury must find the defendant guilty of a crime involving a firearm or otherwise specifically find that a firearm was used B. holding that a statute requiring the discharge of a firearm in the direction of a person is unlike alfaro C. holding that a statute imposing a mandatory minimum sentence on a person convicted of a crime of violence if the person visibly possessed a firearm or replica of a firearm cannot be applied to a coconspirator who did not visibly possess a firearm or replica D. holding that to apply the firearm enhancement the firearm need only reflect the context of the defendants possession and the defendants ability to use the firearm to promote the controlled substance offense E. holding that a person who cut and removed timber pursuant to the direction of the person in possession of the property but without the written consent of the company holding legal title to the land could be held liable under the gtccs

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a statute requiring the discharge of a firearm in the direction of a person is unlike alfaro
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: Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 598-99, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960); United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 577-78, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960); United Steelworkers v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564, 566-67, 80 S.Ct. 1363, 4 L.Ed.2d 1432 (1960). 4 . See, e.g., International Union of Operating Eng'rs, Local 150 v. Flair Builders, Inc., 406 U.S. 487, 491-92, 92 S.Ct. 1710, 32 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972) ("[OJnce a court finds that, as here, the parties are subject to an agreement to arbitrate, and that agreement extends to 'any difference’ between them, then a claim that particular grievances are barred by laches is an arbitrable question under the agreement.”); Independent Ass’n of Continental Pilots v. Continental Airlines, 155 F.3d 685, 696 (3d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Whittle v. Local 641, Int’l Bhd. of Options: A. holding that while the determination of the scope of an arbitration agreement is for the court the enforcement of pleading requirements before the arbitrator is a procedural matter for the arbitrator B. holding that questions of procedure are for the arbitrator not the courts C. holding that a court reviewing an arbitrators award in an act 111 grievance arbitration involves questions regarding 1 the jurisdiction of the arbitrator 2 the regularity of the proceedings 3 an excess of the arbitrators powers and 4 deprivation of constitutional rights D. holding that upon vacating an arbitration award the court has the discretion to remand to the same arbitrator or different arbitrator E. holding that determination of the parameters and scope of an arbitrators award which involved an analysis of the interplay between various contract provisions was a matter for the arbitrator to decide not the courts

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that determination of the parameters and scope of an arbitrators award which involved an analysis of the interplay between various contract provisions was a matter for the arbitrator to decide not the courts
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 agrees that the restrictions in the Covenants are reasonable and necessary for the protection of the Corporation’s legitimate interests. If at any time there is a final determination in arbitration or temporary or preliminary determination in court pursuant to Section 6.06(f) that the time period, geographic scope, or any other restriction contained in the Covenants is unenforceable against the Participant, the provisions of the Covenants shall not be deemed void but shall be deemed amended to apply as to such maximum time period, geographic scope and to such other maximum extent as the arbitrator may determine or indicate to be enforceable. In the event any provision in the Covenants should be held by an arbitrator or court to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, neither party will be required to comply with such provision for so long as the provision is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, but the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained in the Covenants shall not in any way be affected or impaired by the illegality, invalidity or unenforceability of such provision. The Covenants together with the Confidentiality Agreement and the Plan constitute a single, integrated written contract expressing the entire agreement of the parties hereto relative to the subject matter hereof and represents the complete understanding between the Corporation and the Participant concerning the subject matter of the Covenants, and no other promises or agreements concerning the subject matter of the Covenants shall be binding unless signed by the Company’s Chief Human Resources Officer and the Participant. The Covenants supersede and terminate any and all prior agreements or understandings between the parties, whether oral or written, concerning the subject matter of the Covenants.

assistant: Miscellaneous
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: not applicable here. At the time of the fitness hearing in this case, the statute to which Owens refers (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 1005 — 2—3) had been repealed, and no reviewing court had yet to address the burden-of-proof issue. Thus, there was no statute or other statement of the law which we may presume the trial judge followed. Furthermore, the record affirmatively shows that the trial judge misallocated the burden of proof to defendant. Finally, the State contends that defendant waived review of this issue by failing to raise the matter before the circuit court. We decline, however, to find waiver where, as here, both parties before the court, as well as the trial judge, all proceeded under an erroneous view of the .law. See People v. Bedford, 31 Ill. 2d 227, 229 (1964) (<HOLDING>). Our conclusion that the circuit court erred Options: A. holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant B. holding that a jury charge submitting preponderance of the evidence as the burden of proof was error that could be raised for the first time on appeal C. holding burden of proof is on one asserting an affirmative defense D. holding that defendants acquiescence in the misallocation of the burden of proof at pretrial fitness hearing was not a bar from asserting error as grounds for reversal on appeal E. holding that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the protection of the work product doctrine

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that defendants acquiescence in the misallocation of the burden of proof at pretrial fitness hearing was not a bar from asserting error as grounds for reversal on appeal
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company confirms that neither it nor any other Person acting on its behalf has provided the Investor or its agents or counsel with any information that constitutes or could reasonably be expected to constitute material, non-public information regarding the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, other than the existence of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and the other Transaction Documents. The Company understands and confirms that the Investor will rely on the foregoing representations in effecting transactions in securities of the Company. All disclosure provided to the Investor regarding the Company and its Subsidiaries, their businesses and the transactions contemplated hereby, including the schedules to this Agreement, furnished by or on behalf of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is true and correct and does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. Each press release issued by the Company or any of its Subsidiaries during the twelve (12) months preceding the date of this Agreement did not at the time of release contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading. No event or circumstance has occurred or information exists with respect to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries or its or their business, properties, liabilities, prospects, operations (including results thereof) or conditions (financial or otherwise), which, under applicable law, rule or regulation, requires public disclosure at or before the date hereof or announcement by the Company but which has not been so publicly disclosed. The Company acknowledges and agrees that the Investor does not make and has not made any representations or warranties with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby other than those specifically set forth in Section 2.

assistant: Disclosures
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: petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) deportation order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion whether the BIA has failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its actions. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. We reject Lopez Reyes’s contention that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to articulate its reasoning where the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s oral decision pursuant to Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), in addition to providing its own reasons for dismissing his appeal. See Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). We lack jurisdiction to review Lopez Reyes’s Options: A. holding that we will not review portions of an ijs ruling that are not adopted by the bia B. holding that this courts review is limited to the bia decision and the portions of the ijs decision that it expressly adopted C. holding the bias decision upholding the ijs finding of removability was the final order D. holding that the bia adopts the ijs entire decision when it cites burbano and expresses no disagreement with the ijs decision E. holding no due process violation where the bia affirms the ijs decision without issuing a separate opinion

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the bia adopts the ijs entire decision when it cites burbano and expresses no disagreement with the ijs decision
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 this conclusion. In addition, even if we were to agree with Pinney Dock’s assumption that the ICC has necessarily taken “the pro-competition policies of the antitrust laws” into account when calculating its rates, we fail to see how that justifies a conclusion that a competitor may not sue under the Sherman Act based on an allegation that the rates which were adopted were adopted in part because of an antitrust violation on the part of the defendant. Cf. Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 372, 93 S.Ct. 1022, 1027, 35 L.Ed.2d 359 (1973) (“Activities which come under the jurisdiction of a regulatory agency nevertheless may be subject to scrutiny under the antitrust laws.”); City of Long Beach v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 872 F.2d 1401, 1408 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>), as amended on denial of reh’g, 886 F.2d 246 Options: A. holding that existence of federal price controls did not absolve companies of antitrust liability because if the price ceilings were based on prices set artificially low as a result of an unlawful conspiracy liability should still exist B. holding contract for sale of water which did not specify price was unenforceable because price of water was essence of contract C. holding that the absence of a market price is no barrier to valuation for purposes of assessing tax liability D. holding that the measure of damages for the breach of a contract of sale where no fraud is shown is the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods on the date of the breach E. holding that although the ngpa authorizes certain price ceilings for natural gas it is the gas sales contract not federal law that creates the right to receive any price at all

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that existence of federal price controls did not absolve companies of antitrust liability because if the price ceilings were based on prices set artificially low as a result of an unlawful conspiracy liability should still exist
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 Performance Unit awards are subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan relating to Performance Units. If the Participant incurs a Termination of Employment for any reason on or before the end of the Award Cycle, all rights to or in respect of Performance Units awarded hereunder shall be forfeited except as provided in Section 8(b)(iii) or Section 9(a)(iii) of the Plan and except that, in the case of the Participant's Termination of Employment after he has at least 80 Points as defined in Section 2.49 of the OGE Energy Corp. Retirement Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2013, such Termination of Employment will be considered a Termination of Employment due to Retirement under Section 8(b)(iii) of the Plan.

assistant: Forfeitures
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 shall be effective automatically and without necessity of any further action by Borrower, Administrative Agent or the Lenders when counterparts hereof have been executed by Borrower, Guarantors and the Majority Lenders, and all conditions to the effectiveness hereof set forth herein have been satisfied.

assistant: Effectiveness
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 Loan Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, without regard to any rule of conflicts of law that would result in the application of the substantive law of any jurisdiction other than the State of Texas.

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: doctrine is extended to instances in which “the possessor knows that children too young to appreciate such dangers are likely to trespass on his land.” The dissent cites a number of cases from foreign jurisdictions to the effect that water is an obvious danger to all children. These cases are not consistent with our own precedent, which has rejected blanket rules. Further, other courts across the country have reached the opposite conclusion. See, e.g., King v. Lennen, 53 Cal.2d 340, 1 Cal.Rptr. 665, 348 P.2d 98, 99-100 (1959) (emphasizing that “the circumstance that a condition giving rise to injury is common in character does not necessarily exclude liability, that the ability to appreciate danger varies with the age and mental capacity of the c 2d 43, 914 P.2d 728, 729 (1996) (<HOLDING>). We decline to adopt a categorical rule that Options: A. holding that a store owner has a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts B. holding in a ease involving a child less than 3 years old that a landowner is not exempt from the duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees against potentially dangerous conditions on the land solely because the potential danger includes risks which are inherent in a natural body of water C. holding that a residential landlord has no duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts D. holding landowner had duty to provide security in parking lot to protect its invitees from criminal acts of third parties E. holding a business owes a duty to protect invitees from reasonably foreseeable harm by third persons

assistant: The best answer is B. holding in a ease involving a child less than 3 years old that a landowner is not exempt from the duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees against potentially dangerous conditions on the land solely because the potential danger includes risks which are inherent in a natural body of water
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 have submitted the action to the jury subject to a later determination of the legal questions raised by the motion. Within 10 days after the return of a verdict, a party who has timely moved for a directed verdict may serve a motion to set aside the verdict and any judgment entered thereon and to enter judgment in accordance with the motion for a directed verdict. (Emphasis added). Because the rule treats the denial of a motion for directed verdict at the close of the evidence as a reservation of ruling, in order to preserve the point for appellate review it is necessary to make an appropriate post-trial motion. See Indus. Affiliates, Ltd. v. Testa, 770 So.2d 202, 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); see also Williams v. Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach County, 770 So.2d 706, 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (<HOLDING>). In this case, Brown moved for a directed Options: A. holding that objection made at directed verdict stage and in motion for new trial were timely B. holding a directed verdict motion stating specific grounds is a prerequisite for a subsequent motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict C. holding that the trial court erred in granting the school boards posttrial motion for directed verdict because although the school board timely moved for a directed verdict during trial it did not serve its motion for directed verdict until the eleventh day after the verdict D. holding defendants failure to file motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict did not prevent district court from granting motion for directed verdict for which court reserved decision E. holding that a posttrial motion is not required after a grant of a directed verdict

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the trial court erred in granting the school boards posttrial motion for directed verdict because although the school board timely moved for a directed verdict during trial it did not serve its motion for directed verdict until the eleventh day after the verdict
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 failure on the part of the Administrative Agent or any Bank to exercise and no delay in exercising, and no course of dealing with respect to, any right, power or privilege under this Agreement or any Note shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any right, power or privilege under this Agreement or any Note preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, power or privilege. The remedies provided herein are cumulative and not exclusive of any remedies provided by law.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: intend to establish the SPCA as a state agency. 6 . While the SPCA argues it is entitled to immunity because of the law enforcement function it performs, whether an entity is engaged in a governmental function is not controlling. See Guinn v. Alburtis Fire Company, 531 Pa. 500, 614 A.2d 218, 220 n. 4 (1992) (governmental immunity not dependent on whether agency performs governmental function). 1 . For example, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has the statutory authority to sue and be sued, see 36 P.S. § 652d; nevertheless, it has maintained that it is entitled to immunity. See, e.g., Farabaugh v. Pa. Tpk. Comm’n, 590 Pa. 46, 55-56, 911 A.2d 1264, 1269-70 (2006) (discussing the Commission’s position); accord Bradley v. Pa. Tpk. Comm’n, 121 Pa.Cmwlth. 51, 55, 550 A.2d 261, 263 (1988) Options: A. holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity in the commonwealth resulted from a mistaken view of the law by earlier courts B. holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity C. holding that ujnlike for local agency employees willful misconduct does not vitiate a commonwealth employees immunity because sovereign immunity protects a commonwealth employee acting within the scope of his or her employment from liability even for intentional torts D. holding that school districts do not share in the commonwealth of pennsylvanias eleventh amendment sovereign immunity because they are not alter egos of the commonwealth E. holding that the commission is a commonwealth agency entitled to sovereign immunity

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the commission is a commonwealth agency entitled to sovereign immunity