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: rather than merely voidable, thereby conferring standing on private parties to collaterally attack the decision outside of a quo warranto proceeding. See, e.g., Lum v. City of Bowie, 18 S.W. 142, 144 (Tex.1891) (“The proceedings by means of which it was attempted to annex the land of appellants were, we think, void, and not mere irregularities, and the rule is familiar that void acts may be questioned collaterally.”); City of Galena Park v. City of Houston, 183 S.W.2d 162, 164-65 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston 1989, writ ref'd) (when attempted incorporation was collaterally attacked as “wholly invalid and void,” contestant could proceed “without the joinder of the State under a writ of quo warranto”) (citing City of Port Arthur v. Gaskin, 107 S.W.2d 610 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1937, no writ) (<HOLDING>), and Hunt v. Atkinson, 12 S.W.2d 142 (Tex. Options: A. holding that a third party holding legal title to property is a necessary party in an action for equitable distribution B. holding that while the fourteenth amendment is directed against state action and not private action the state action requirement is met in a civil action where state law is applied whether by statute or common law C. recognizing that allegation of state action is a necessary element of a 1983 claim D. recognizing that in a derivative action the corporation for whose benefit suit is brought is a necessary party to the action E. holding that state is necessary party only when action is merely voidable

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that state is necessary party only when action is merely voidable
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: he raises it to preserve it for possible review by the Supreme Court. He further argues that the age of his conviction, his subsequent work history and devotion to his family, and his motive for returning to the United States — to be with his family, in particular, his aging and ill parents — made a sentence within the guideline range greater than necessary to meet the goals. As he so concedes, his argument that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply to his sentence because § 2L1.2 lacks empirical support has been rejected by this court. See id. (rejecting the notion that this court should examine the empirical basis behind each guideline before applying the presumption of reasonableness); see also United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Before imposing a sentence within the Options: A. recognizing a presumption of reasonableness B. holding that sentence within guidelines range enjoys a presumption of reasonableness C. holding that we may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the guidelines range D. holding that any sentence that is properly calculated under the guidelines is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness E. holding that kimbrough does not require discarding the presumption of reasonableness for sentences based on nonempiricallygrounded guidelines

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that kimbrough does not require discarding the presumption of reasonableness for sentences based on nonempiricallygrounded guidelines
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: injuries. See Dawmar Partners, Ltd., 267 S.W.3d at 878 (explaining that diminish-éd value must be derived from a constitutionally’cognizable injury); see also Interstate Northborough P'ship v. State, 66 S.W.3d 213, 224 (Tex. 2001) (unsafe access). 9 . The State does not separately challenge McRoberts’s comparables. 10 . The $2.2 million difference between this figure and McRoberts’s $2,609,420.00 dam age opinion thus results from substituting High’s $5.4 million entire property-valuation opinion for McRoberts’s $3.2 million entire property-valuation opinion. 11 . Quite clearly, this is not. an instance of improperly > "blending” dissimilar, value categories to establish support for the jury’s finding. See Callejo v. Brazos Elect. Power Coop., Inc., 755 S.W.2d 73, 74-76 (Tex. 1988) (<HOLDING>). Instead, we merely acknowledge the range of Options: A. recognizing that an easement may entitle the easement owner to do acts which were not for the easement would constitute a nuisance B. holding that court of appeals erred by considering evidence establishing pretaking value of easement strip in determining legal sufficiency of evidence to support jurys posttaking value of easement strip C. holding that permanent easement arising from condemnation of pipeline easement reduced property value by 20 D. holding that the trial court erred in considering the intent of the parties when the document creating the easement was unambiguous E. holding that an easement agreement and an unrecorded easement plan created an easement

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that court of appeals erred by considering evidence establishing pretaking value of easement strip in determining legal sufficiency of evidence to support jurys posttaking value of easement strip
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 party agreed to do so.” And in AT&T Mobility v. Concepción, the Supreme Court struck down a California rule of decision because it allowed co . Merrill Lynch, 626 F.3d 156, 159 (2d Cir. 2010); In re Tyco Int’l Ltd. Sec. Litig., 422 F.3d 41, 44 (1st Cir. 2005) ("A determination that a party has waived its right to arbitrate is reviewed de novo, whereas the district court’s findings of fact are subject to 'clear error’ review.”); Hoover v. Am. Income Life Ins. Co., 206 Cal.App.4th 1193, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 312, 319 (2012) ("The waiver issue may be reviewed de novo when the question is whether the superior court properly applied the correct legal standard to the undisputed facts.,..”); LAS, Inc. v. Mini-Tankers USA, Inc., 342 Ill.App.3d 997, 277 Ill.Dec. 547, 796 N.E.2d 633, 636 (2003) (<HOLDING>). 6 . Guttchen v. Gabriel, 49 P.3d 223, 225 Options: A. holding that review of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is under the de novo standard B. holding that we review legal conclusions of the court of federal claims de novo C. holding that because the facts are not in dispute the court should review the arbitration waiver de novo and gathering federal cases holding the same D. recognizing de novo standard of review E. holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that because the facts are not in dispute the court should review the arbitration waiver de novo and gathering federal cases holding the same
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: between the federal and state standards (an assumption which, in light of Dartt, appears quite reasonable). B Liberty asserts that, because the jury found only pretext, not pretext plus, it could not have acted with the evil motive or intent that the federal standard for exemplary damages requires. This assertion is not unlike Liberty’s due process argument, see supra Part III(B), and suffers the same fate. A jury need not find some special sort of malign purpose in order to exact punitive damages in a disparate treatment case because the “intent” that is necessary to under-gird an award of punitive damages in such a ease is the same “intent” that is required' for a finding of discrimination in the first place. See Rowlett v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 832 F.2d 194, 205 (1st Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). The Rowlett panel specifically rejected an Options: A. recognizing that the state of mind necessary to trigger liability for the wrong is at least as culpable as that required to make punitive damages applicable B. holding that in order to submit a claim for punitive damages to a jury in a product liability action a plaintiff is required to produce evidence of actual knowledge C. holding a court may not award punitive damages D. holding that a hearing on a motion to amend to allege punitive damages is not necessary E. recognizing the financial position of the defendant as a factor in assessing a punitive damages award

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that the state of mind necessary to trigger liability for the wrong is at least as culpable as that required to make punitive damages applicable
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 collect those rates. While the result we reach is mandated by the filed rate doctrine, that doctrine is plainly a creature of a different time. The Supreme Court has recognized that “although the filing requirement prevented price discrimination and unfair practices” when AT&T held a monopoly in long-distance telecommunications, strict application of the filed rate doctrine “frustrates those same goals” in today’s era of deregulation and multiple competing carriers. MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. American Tel. & Tel. 512 U.S. 218, 233, 114 S.Ct. 2223, 2232-33, 129 L.Ed.2d 182 (1994). The FCC itself has tried unsuccessfully to regulate the doctrine out of existence by excusing carriers other than AT&T from the FCA’s filing requirements. See id. at 220-21, 234, 114 S.Ct. at 2226-27, 2233 (<HOLDING>). In practice, as this case illustrates, the Options: A. holding that the childrens court exceeded its authority in prohibiting the human services department from placing a child with her brother B. holding that congress had exceeded its authority by using its section five power under the fourteenth amendment to enact the statute C. holding that presentment is a requirement of the fca D. holding that the fca includes a materiality requirement E. holding that the fca exceeded its authority in exempting nondominant carriers from filing requirement

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the fca exceeded its authority in exempting nondominant carriers from filing requirement
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: Administrative Agent (at the direction of the Majority Lenders, in their reasonable discretion) may remove from time to time, any one or more of the Independent Consultants for cause and appoint replacements reasonably acceptable to Borrower. Notice of any replacement Independent Consultant shall be given by Administrative Agent to Borrower, the Lenders and to the Independent Consultant being replaced. All reasonable fees and expenses of the Independent Consultants (whether the original Independent Consultants or replacements) shall be paid by Borrower; provided , however , that unless an Event of Default shall have occurred and be continuing, Administrative Agent shall request that each such Independent Consultant provide Borrower with its proposed scope of work and proposed budget therefor, and shall consult with and obtain the consent of Borrower with regard to the matters contained therein.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: eliminate Pennsylvania’s interest in ensuring legitimate electoral outcomes, since there is always a chance that an election official will neglect to enforce the applicable statutory requirements and unknowingly permit a fraudulent vote to be cast. Nevertheless, the availability of these safeguards to protect the integrity of Pennsylvania’s electoral system clearly factors into the constitutional analysis in this case. Buckley, 525 U.S. at 205, 119 S.Ct. 636 (explaining that the “arsenal of safeguards” retained by Colorado to protect the integrity of its initiative process made more burdensome measures unnecessary). The legitimacy of electoral results, however, is not the only regulatory interest at stake. Doe v. Reed, _ U.S. _, _, 130 S.Ct. 2811, 2819, 177 L.Ed.2d 493 (2010) (<HOLDING>). The Attorney General argues that county Options: A. 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 B. recognizing that fraud can have a negative systemic effect extending beyond the production of fraudulent outcomes C. recognizing wrongful adoption cause of action grounded in fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation D. recognizing that a mailing must be sufficiently related to the fraudulent scheme to support a charge of mail fraud E. holding to the same effect

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that fraud can have a negative systemic effect extending beyond the production of fraudulent outcomes
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 data on the disk drive was integrated into the computer system. IBM also argues that the risk of failure of the disk drive (and the risk of loss of data due to failure of the disk drive) was reasonably contemplated by TCA. Thus, IBM argues that the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) as adopted in Minnesota controls the remedy in a transaction between sophisticated commercial parties. The economic loss doctrine in Minnesota bars recovery under the tort theories of negligence or strict liability for economic losses that arise out of commercial transactions, except those involving personal injury or damage to other property. Superwood Corp. v. Siempelkamp Corp., 311 N.W.2d 159, 162 (Minn.1981) (Superwood), overruled in part, Hapka v. Paquin Farms, 458 N.W.2d 683, 688 (Minn.1990) (Hapka) (<HOLDING>). There are two issues in applying this Options: A. holding that under privacy act federal government waived its sovereign immunity with respect to actual damages but not with respect to damages for mental or emotional distress B. holding that a previous decision assuming a malpractice action was a commercial transaction for the purpose of awarding attorney fees was not binding because the court in that case was not asked to decide whether a malpractice action involving a commercial transaction falls within the parameters of the statute C. holding sale of property was commercial transaction where the land was for both a family retreat and for logging D. holding ucc controls exclusively with respect to damages in commercial transaction which involves property damage only E. holding lease of property was a commercial transaction where the property was for commercial ranching but a residence was maintained on the property

assistant: The best answer is D. holding ucc controls exclusively with respect to damages in commercial transaction which involves property damage only
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: as imposing a "penalty on married individuals for filing separately” by limiting separately filing spouses to a combined debt limit of $550,000). As we have explained, however, the dissent's view runs contrary not only to-the statute's text ("in the case of a married individual filing a separate return”) but also to the IRS's own uncontested interpretation of the statute. 9 . That said, Congress usually accomplishes this purpose by giving each spouse half the tax benefit that the jointly filing couple gets. That may mean that if a married couple has a large mortgage and files separate returns, but only one spouse seeks the benefit, the couple may, all counted, only get half the benefit it would have received had the couple filed jointly. See, e.g., Bronstein, 138 T.C. at 384, 386 (<HOLDING>). 10 . The statute's definition of qualified Options: A. holding that the clear language of 163h3 limited a spouse filing a separate return to 550000 of debt even though she paid all of the mortgage interest and her husband was unable to seek the deduction B. holding a wife liable for necessary medical expenses incurred by her husband under the doctrine even though the wife did not sign as a guarantor and did not request that her husband be admitted nor anticipate that her husband would be admitted C. holding that a reservation clause gave a life estate to a spouse pursuant to a deed reserving use of the property to both husband and wife for life even though the husband had no interest in the property D. holding that debtor who was separated from her husband and who testified that she would only return to the marital home if her husband vacated the house or died or if she was required to care for him or her adult son there or if the couple reconciled was an abandonment of the marital home as her homestead E. holding that plaintiffs motion to amend her complaint to add her husband as a defendant did not relate back because her failure to sue her husband was not due to misnomer or mistake involving the identity of the proper party but because the law at the time of the complaint did not allow one spouse to sue another in tort

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the clear language of 163h3 limited a spouse filing a separate return to 550000 of debt even though she paid all of the mortgage interest and her husband was unable to seek the deduction
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 Party shall promptly notify the other of any knowledge it acquires of any potential infringement of (i) the Collaboration Patent Rights with respect to any Engineered T-Cells, or (ii) the Editas Patents with respect to a Competitive Product, in each case by a Third Party.

assistant: Notices
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: (a) The Parent Guarantor hereby unconditionally and irrevocably waives promptness, diligence, notice of acceptance, presentment, demand for performance, notice of nonperformance, default, acceleration, protest or dishonor and any other notice with respect to any of the Guaranteed Obligations and this Guaranty and any requirement that the Designated Agent or any Lender protect, secure, perfect or insure any Lien or any property subject thereto or exhaust any right or take any action against the Borrower or any other Person or any collateral.

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: The court ultimately concluded, however, that the danger Mendoza posed to the community — evidenced by the fact that, despite his relatively young age (twenty-five), Mendoza had a history of using aliases, two convictions for driving while impaired, and a prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon — trumped any leniency that these factors might otherwise support. Thus, the court opined that an upward variance was necessary to protect the public from any further crime Mendoza may commit. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C). We thus conclude the district court’s well-reasoned explanation amply justified the extent of the variance it imposed. Because there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s reasoning in this case, we will defer to it. See Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d at 366-67 (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d Options: A. holding sentencing courts decision to impose a sentence six years longer than advisory guidelines range was reasonable because district court employed 3553based reasoning to justify the variance B. holding sentence within properly calculated advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable C. holding a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable D. holding that district courts decision to exceed the advisory sentencing range in chapter 7 of the sentencing guidelines ussg 7b14 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion E. holding booker error is avoided when district court calculates proper guidelines sentencing range treats guidelines as advisory and imposes reasonable sentence

assistant: The best answer is A. holding sentencing courts decision to impose a sentence six years longer than advisory guidelines range was reasonable because district court employed 3553based reasoning to justify the variance
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: pre-trial release on April 12, 1985. Although this appeal has received expedited review, a decision has not yet been rendered by the Second Circuit. Thus a total of only fifty-six (56) non-excludable days have elapsed since Leon was arrested and detained (assuming that the filing of Elba Rodriguez’s omnibus motion stopped the clock as to all the co-defendants). DISCUSSION Leon’s first argument is based upon the interpretation of Section 3164(b) itself, which provides that, “[t]he periods of delay enumerated in Section 3161(h) are excluded in computing the time limitations specified in this section.” Leon argues that this sent C.Cir.1976) and United States v. Mejias, 417 F.Supp. 579 (S.D.N.Y.1976), aff'd. on other grounds, sub nom., United States v. Martinez, 538 F.2d 921 (2d Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). According to the House Report accompanying Options: A. holding generally that new rules of law should not be applied retroactively in habeas corpus cases B. holding that a court examining if a law should be applied retroactively should consider whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment C. holding that the first amendment definition should be applied by analogy in the franks setting D. holding that factor 10 should not be applied when the victim is the only one at risk E. holding that the exclusions should be applied

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the exclusions should be applied
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 computations of interest for Base Rate Loans when the Base Rate is determined by the Prime Lending Rate shall be made on the basis of a year of three hundred sixty-five (365) days, or three hundred sixty-six (366) days, as applicable, and actual days elapsed. All other computations of fees and interest shall be made on the basis of a three hundred and sixty (360) day year and actual days elapsed. Interest shall accrue on each Loan for the day on which the Loan is made, and shall not accrue on a Loan, or any portion thereof, for the day on which the Loan or such portion is paid; provided that any Loan that is repaid on the same day on which it is made shall, subject to Section 2.12(a) , bear interest for one (1) day. Each determination by the Administrative Agent of an interest rate or fee hereunder shall be conclusive and binding for all purposes, absent manifest error.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither the Company nor any Guarantor, nor any other person acting on behalf of the Company or any Guarantor, has sold or issued any securities that would be integrated with the offering of the Offered Securities contemplated by this Agreement pursuant to the Securities Act, the rules and regulations thereunder or the interpretations thereof by the SEC.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the Term, Executive shall be paid a base salary (“Base Salary”) of $66,666.67 per month (or $800,000 on an annualized basis), subject to applicable withholding, in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll procedures. Executive’s Base Salary shall be reviewed on an annual basis by the Board for possible increase (but not decrease) based on the Company’s operating results and financial condition, salaries paid to other Company executives, and general marketplace and other applicable considerations. Such increased Base Salary, if any, shall then constitute Executive’s “Base Salary” for purposes of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: You and the Company agree to submit to mandatory binding arbitration any and all claims arising out of or related to your employment or service with the Company and the termination thereof, including, but not limited to, claims for unpaid wages, wrongful termination, torts, stock or stock options or other ownership interest in the Company, and/or discrimination (including harassment) based upon any federal, state or local ordinance, statute, regulation or constitutional provision, except that each party may, at its, his or her option, seek injunctive relief in court related to the improper use, disclosure or misappropriation of a party’s private, proprietary, confidential or trade secret information (collectively, “ Arbitrable Claims ”). Further, to the fullest extent permitted by law, you and the Company agree that no class or collective actions can be asserted in arbitration or otherwise. All claims, whether in arbitration or otherwise, must be brought solely in your or the Company’s individual capacity, and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class or collective proceeding. Nothing in this Arbitration and Class Action Waiver section, however, restricts your right, if any, to file in court a representative action under California Labor Code Sections 2698, et seq.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 831 A.2d 1006, 1013 n. 3 (D.C.2003) (quoting Gray v. Gray, 412 A.2d 1208, 1210 (D.C.1980)). ‘“Since a constructive trust is found for the purpose of preventing humans from being successful in shady bits of behavior, it is universally f laches is a complete bar to the appellees’ constructive trust action, because in cases of mixed law and equity, courts “consider themselves bound by statutes of limitations governing actions of law.” King v. Kitchen Magic, Inc., 391 A.2d 1184, 1187 (D.C.1978). This rule, as the trial court indicated, appears to be mere dicta in this jurisdiction. Courts refer to the rule only to establish that allegations of fraud trigger a well-established exception to the “rule.” See, e.g., Fed. Mktg. Co. v. Virginia Impression Prods. Co., 823 A.2d 513, 528 (D.C.2003) (<HOLDING>); King, supra, 391 A.2d at 1187 (holding that Options: A. holding that rule 36 may not be used by the district court to fundamentally alter the defendants sentence from three to five years imprisonment in an attempt to conform the sentence to the intention of the parties as reflected in the plea agreement which provided that the prisoner would serve exactly five years B. holding new mexico statute of limitations for filing a 1983 action is three years C. holding that the trial courts limiting of claims to those occurring five years before the date of filing under laches was reasonable generous even inasmuch as it was two years beyond the statutory limitations pe riod D. holding that a potential prison sentence of up to five years was clearly serious E. holding that sentences of five years in prison followed by ten years probation were illegal sentences that exceeded the statutory maximum of five years for a thirddegree felony

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the trial courts limiting of claims to those occurring five years before the date of filing under laches was reasonable generous even inasmuch as it was two years beyond the statutory limitations pe riod
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 original form of the authorizing statute would nonetheless be saved under the general savings statute, 1 U.S.C. § 109, which provides: The repeal of any statute shall not have the effect to release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under such statute, unless the repealing Act shall so expressly provide, and such statute shall be treated as still remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any proper action or prosecution for the enforcement of such penalty, forfeiture, or liability. This provision reversed the common-law rule, under which the repeal of a criminal law “preclude[d] punishment for acts antedating the repeal.” Landgraf 511 U.S. at 271, 114 S.Ct. 1483; see also Yeaton v. United States, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 281, 283, 3 L.Ed. 101 (1809) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, “unless [a] repealing statute Options: A. holding no violation of ex post facto clause because enhancement provision increases the punishment for being a felon in possession of a firearm that traveled in or affected interstate commerce and it does not affect the punishment previously meted out to the defendant for the crimes he committed prior to the effective date of the statute B. holding that a statute may be facially challenged only by establishing that no set of circumstances exists under which the statute would be valid ie that the law is unconstitutional in all of its applications or at least that the statute lacks a plainly legitimate sweep C. holding that when a statute is patterned after a similar provision in another states statute it is proper to resort to judicial constructions placed on the statute by the courts of the state whose statute provided the model in determining the proper construction D. holding that an executive order authorized by statute and intended to implement or supplement that statute has the force of law E. holding that when a criminal statute expires or is repealed no penalty can be enforced nor punishment inflicted for violations of the law committed while it was in force unless some special provision be made for that purpose by statute

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that when a criminal statute expires or is repealed no penalty can be enforced nor punishment inflicted for violations of the law committed while it was in force unless some special provision be made for that purpose by statute
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: regarding the granting of relief under section ... 1229b ... of this title.”); Martinez v. Mukasey, 508 F.8d 255, 257-58 (5th Cir.2007) (“Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary decisions under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b.”). We therefore lack jurisdiction over the petition to the extent Khan challenges the dispositive finding that his removal will not result in an exceptional hardship to his children, see Sung v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir.2007), and dismiss the petition for review to the extent it challenges his removal order. However, we “retain[] jurisdiction over purely legal and nondiscretionary questions.” Wilmore v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 524, 526 (5th Cir.2006); Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>) “[Wjhether an alien satisfies the continuous Options: A. holding that statutes restricting judicial review of discretionary decisions do not preclude review of challenges to the constitutionality of ins regulations but holding that petitioners failure to receive discretionary relief does not rise to a constitutionally protected interest B. holding that the term final and conclusive precludes judicial review of army claims decisions C. holding that sjeetion 1252a2bii clearly precludes judicial review of decisions under section 1186ac4 because the statute specifies that those decisions are purely discretionary D. holding that 1252a2bii precludes review of discretionary decisions in only the specific circumstances specified in the statute itself E. holding that 1252a2bs ban on review of judgments regarding the granting of relief precludes review of only discretionary decisions

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that 1252a2bs ban on review of judgments regarding the granting of relief precludes review of only discretionary decisions
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect, each Credit Party and each Subsidiary thereof has duly filed or caused to be filed all federal, state, local and other tax returns required by Applicable Law to be filed, and has paid, or made adequate provision for the payment of, all federal, state, local and other taxes, assessments and governmental charges or levies upon it and its property, income, profits and assets which are due and payable (other than any amount the validity of which is currently being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and with respect to which reserves in conformity with GAAP have been provided for on the books of the relevant Credit Party). Such returns accurately reflect in all material respects all liability for taxes of any Credit Party or any Subsidiary thereof for the periods covered thereby. As of the Closing Date, except as set forth on Schedule 6.06 , there is no ongoing audit or examination or, to the knowledge of each of the Credit Parties and each Subsidiary thereof, other investigation by any Governmental Authority of the tax liability of any Credit Party or any Subsidiary thereof. No Governmental Authority has asserted any Lien or other claim against any Credit Party or any Subsidiary thereof with respect to unpaid taxes which has not been discharged or resolved (other than (a) any amount the validity of which is currently being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and with respect to which reserves in conformity with GAAP have been provided for on the books of the relevant Credit Party and (b) Permitted Liens). The charges, accruals and reserves on the books of each Credit Party and each Subsidiary thereof in respect of federal, state, local and other taxes for all Fiscal Years and portions thereof since the organization of any Credit Party or any Subsidiary thereof are in the judgment of the Borrower adequate, and the Borrower does not anticipate any additional taxes or assessments for any of such years.

assistant: Payments
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: language similar to the language at issue here — any claim “arising under” the Medicare or Social Security Acts, § 405(h)— would have led it to a different legal conclusion. See id., at 494 (using as an example a statute precluding review of “ ‘all causes ... arising under any of’ ” the immigration statutes). In Eldridge, the Court held permissible a District Court lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of agency proce dures authorizing termination of Social Security disability payments without a pretermination hearing. See 424 U. S., at 326-332. Eldridge, however, is a case in which the Court found that the respondent had followed the special review procedures set forth in § 405(g), thereby complying with, rather than disregarding, the strictures of § 405(h). See id., at 326-327 (<HOLDING>). The Court characterized the constitutional Options: A. holding jurisdiction available only under 405g B. holding a district court remanding a case pursuant to sentence four of 405g must order judgment in the case and may not retain jurisdiction over the ad ministrative proceedings on remand C. holding that 42 usc 405g limits the district courts discretion to remand for reconsideration in light of new evidence D. holding that equitable relief under rico is available only to the government E. holding that a sentence four remand under 42 usc 405g is a final appealable decision and that a party who wins a remand under sentence four is a prevailing party for purposes of the eaja

assistant: The best answer is A. holding jurisdiction available only under 405g
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: 51 (1999). 6 . Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 51(c) (2005). 7 . The act making the change was passed on May 28, 1999, but it provided that it was to “take effect January 1, 2000, but only if the constitutional amendment ... is approved by the voters.” 8 . Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 41.002(a),(d) (Vernon 2002). 9 . The Jays do not challenge this conclusion on appeal. 10 . As noted above, both on December 15, 1999 and January 1, 2000, Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 41.002(d) had the same language applying the statutory definition in § 41.002(a) to homesteads "whenever created.” That is, the January 1, 2000 statutory amendment did not alter the retroactivity section of the statute. But on December 15, 1999, the statutory definition was the old definition. 11 . See Linch v. Broad, 70 Tex. 92, 93-95, 6 S .1985) (<HOLDING>). 14 . Wessely Energy Corp. v. Jennings, 736 Options: A. recognizing distinction between cases before 1983 amendment to constitution and 1984 codification of tex propcode 41001c where there was no retroactivity and cases after the amendment and codification of there which specifically provided retroactivity B. holding that there is no distinction in the right to jury trial between sentencing factors and elements C. recognizing distinction between tolling and estoppel D. recognizing distinction between illegal voter cases and irregular ballot cases E. holding there is no meaningful distinction between due course and due process

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing distinction between cases before 1983 amendment to constitution and 1984 codification of tex propcode 41001c where there was no retroactivity and cases after the amendment and codification of there which specifically provided retroactivity
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 waiver of any term, provision or condition of this Agreement, whether by conduct or otherwise in any one or more instances, shall be deemed to be, or be construed as, a further or continuing waiver of any such term, provision, or condition, or of any other term, provision or condition of this 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Acc. Ins. Co., 731 F.3d 265, 269 (3d Cir.2013) (quoting Harris v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 618 F.3d 398, 400 (3d Cir.2010)). On October 18, 2013, we alerted the parties that this case was being considered for dismissal due to a possible jurisdictional defect, insofar as the orders appealed from did not dismiss all claims as to all parties. Baxley and Georgia-Pacific (and Honeywell International Inc., which has since been dismissed through agreement of the parties) have advised us that all other defendants have been dismissed by Baxley, have agreed to settle, or were granted summary judgment by the District Court. We are thus satisfied that, under our practical finality rule, we have jurisdiction. See Morton Int'l, Inc. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 460 F.3d 470, 476 (3d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Georgia-Pacific urges that we dismiss Options: A. holding that existence of outstanding claims for attorneys fees do not affect determination whether district court entered a final decision for purposes of 28 usc 1291 B. holding that the rule 21 severance rendered the district court verdict a final and appealable judgment under 28 usc 1291 C. recognizing the general rule that once all claims against all parties have been dismissed a prior order will become final for purposes of appeal under 28 usc 1291 D. holding that summary judgment order that does not dispose of all claims between parties does not confer appellate jurisdiction because it is not a final decision under 28 usc 1291 E. holding that order denying motion to dismiss a bankruptcy petition is final under 28 usc 1291

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing the general rule that once all claims against all parties have been dismissed a prior order will become final for purposes of appeal under 28 usc 1291
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: penalty imposed for the violation of some law, rule or regulation.” Brown v. Navarre Chevrolet, Inc., 610 So.2d 165, 170 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1992). The few cases discussing § 23:635 restrict employers from levying fines on the employee (via deductions from wages) for failing to fol low workplace procedures and regulations. Brown, 610 So.2d at 168, 170 (finding that deductions made because employee arrived late for meetings, and parked company car in wrong place were fines and, therefore, prohibited by § 23:635); Stoll v. Goodnight Corp., 469 So.2d 1072, 1077 (La.App. 2 Cir.1985) (determining that requiring employee to reimburse employer for bad checks written by customers was not a fine where agreement existed between parties that employee would cover such losses); Hanks, 187 So. at 819 (<HOLDING>). Under a strict construction of the term Options: A. holding that employers charges against driveremployee for damages to a cab were not fines because the charge was used to cover cost of repair to cab and employee agreed to be responsible for such damage B. holding that the total cost of repairs could be found to be a fair measure of the plaintiffs total damage C. holding that an exception to the charges having to do with contributory negligence charges two three and four was insufficient to preserve issue for appeal D. holding that failure of eeoc to transmit charge to phrc within limitations period was subject to equitable tolling where plaintiff requested crossfiling in the cover letter attached to the eeoc charge on the first page of the charge itself and on an official form used by the eeoc for requests for dualfiling E. holding that a criminal defendant is entitled to know the charges against him and to be tried solely upon the charges against him internal quotation marks and citation omitted

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that employers charges against driveremployee for damages to a cab were not fines because the charge was used to cover cost of repair to cab and employee agreed to be responsible for such damage
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 Financial Statements (i) were prepared in accordance with GAAP consistently applied throughout the period covered thereby, except as otherwise expressly noted therein; and (ii) fairly present the financial condition of the Company as of the date thereof and their results of operations for the period covered thereby, except as otherwise expressly noted therein.

assistant: Financial 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: The Company and each of the Company Subsidiaries are insured by insurers of recognized financial responsibility against such losses and risks and in such amounts as are prudent and customary in the businesses in which they are engaged; and neither the Company nor any of the Company Subsidiaries has any reason to believe that it will not be able to renew its existing insurance coverage as and when such coverage expires or to obtain similar coverage from similar insurers as may be necessary to continue its business at a cost that would not be reasonably likely to have a material impact on the Company and the Company Subsidiaries taken as a whole.

assistant: Insurances