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: sir. Q And nothing [criminal] in particular with [regard to] [the juvenile] that you know of? A Other than he was wearing gang attire. Q What kind of attire was that?. A Large baggy clothes. Q Is that it? A I guess that’s it. The trial court further found there was a “reasonable, [articu-lable] suspicion that some criminal activity may have taken place” and distinguished the present case from State v. Fleming, 106 N.C. App. 165, 415 S.E.2d 782 (1992). Although labeled as findings, these determinations are actually conclusions of law, in that they require the exercise of judgment and application of legal principles. See In re Helms, 127 N.C. App. 505, 510, 491 S.E.2d 672, 675 (1997). As such, they are reviewa S.E.2d 234, 237, disc. review denied, 342 N.C. 416, 465 S.E.2d 546 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Officer Henderson did not observe Options: A. holding that to justify detention of a criminal suspect the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts reasonably warrant that intrusion B. holding that when a police communique has been issued on the basis of articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion any authorized officer may make an investigatory stop on the basis of that bulletin even though the officer making the stop is not aware of the underlying facts C. holding specific articulable facts sufficient to justify a stop included a description of the defendants clothing D. holding that an investigatory stop must be supported by specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts reasonably warrant that intrusion E. holding that under article i section 7 of the hawaii constitution a police officer must have at least a reasonable basis of specific articulable facts to believe a crime has been committed to order a driver out of a car after a traffic stop

assistant: The best answer is C. holding specific articulable facts sufficient to justify a stop included a description of the defendants clothing
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: Prudentia l, the Compan y, and the Independent Fiduciary will cooperate in good faith to agree on communications to be provided prior to the Data Finalization Date to annuitants, including the Welcome Kit and the annuity certificates; provided, however, that the annuity certificates shall provide that the annuitant has the right to enforce all provisions of the Contrac t, including provisions with respect to such annuitant’s annuity payments under the Contrac t, solely against Prudential and against no other person including the Pla n, the Compan y, or any affiliate thereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: question in other jurisdictions have upheld searches of students’ lockers. However, in all these cases there was substantially more evidence justifying the search of the students’ lockers. For example, in S.A. v. Indiana, 654 N.E.2d 791 (Ind.App.1995), there were a number of high school locker break-ins, and it was subsequently discovered that the school’s master locker combination book had been stolen. Id. at 792. School security officials were given information that defendant possessed the combination book which resulted in a warrantless search of defendant’s locker and discovery of the book. Id. The Indiana Court of appeals held that a student had no expectation of privacy in his locker and that the warrantless search of that student’s locker was reasonable b 597 N.E.2d 1363 (1992) (<HOLDING>); In the Interest of S.C., 583 So.2d 188 (1991) Options: A. holding that even though student had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his locker school officials properly conducted a warrantless search of the students locker because the officials had probable cause to believe that the locker contained marijuana B. holding that the police officers had probable cause to make a warrantless entry C. holding that passengers lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore had no standing to challenge the search of the vehicle D. holding that the question of whether the police had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to make a warrantless search should be reviewed de novo E. holding that the odor of marijuana gave officers probable cause to believe members of a group possessed marijuana and therefore a search of each person present was proper

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that even though student had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his locker school officials properly conducted a warrantless search of the students locker because the officials had probable cause to believe that the locker contained marijuana
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 any subsequent amendment(s), may be executed in counterparts and the counterparts, together, shall constitute a single agreement. A facsimile transmission of this signed Agreement or a Work Order bearing a signature on behalf of a party shall be legal and binding on such party.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Partnership shall pay to the General Partner the fees (the “ GP Fees ”) as compensation for providing services in managing the activities of the Partnership specifically enumerated in Section 6.3(a) (or where applicable providing such services to the Investment Entities) pursuant to and as and when set forth on Exhibit D attached hereto; provided, however, the General Partner may direct the Partnership to pay directly any of such GP Fees directly to any Unrelated Third Party (including the Special Limited Partner) or Affiliate.

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: The agreements in this Section and the indemnity provisions of Section 10.02(d) shall survive the resignation of any Agent, the L/C Issuer or the Swing Line Lender, the assignment of any Commitment or Loan by any Lender, the replacement of any Lender, the termination of the Aggregate Commitments and the repayment, satisfaction or discharge of all the other Obligations.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that the mere creation of a security interest against a business partner’s interest in the business impacts a property interest owned by the business and the other owners that requires due process protections. See Bankhead v. Walker, 846 N.E.2d 1048, 1053 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (noting that procedural due process protections apply only to deprivations of life, liberty, or property). That is all that the original dissolution decree here did — it granted Christina a security interest against Jeffs ownership interests in the Crider Entities. We acknowledge and agree that the Crider Entities were entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard with respect to any enforcement or foreclosure of Christina’s security interests. See Brant v. Krilich, 835 N.E.2d 582, 588 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). The Crider Entities did successfully Options: A. recognizing need to balance interests of debt or and creditor in determining nature of protection to be afforded creditor B. holding that notice of judgment was insufficient C. holding that new yorks notice to judgment debtors satisfied due process by specifying that a procedure existed to adjudicate exemption claims and advising debtors to contact an attorney even though the notice did not inform judgment debtors of the specific steps to be taken to test exemption claims D. holding llcs were entitled to notice of proceedings supplemental instituted by a judgment creditor to attempt to obtain judgment debtors interests in the companies to pay judgment debt E. holding that the appellate court should have construed the notice of appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate the judgment as an attempt to appeal from the underlying judgment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding llcs were entitled to notice of proceedings supplemental instituted by a judgment creditor to attempt to obtain judgment debtors interests in the companies to pay judgment debt
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: motion as to the period from October 2010 through the remainder of the relevant period but will GRANT the motion from May 2010 through September 2010. The court WILL DENY the motion as to the claims of Daryl Carr, Anita Clark, Wanda Holt, Tommy Murray, Geraldine Parker, Teresa Phillips, Andrea Scott, Andrea Stallings, Julia Williams, and Rhonda Yancey. 1 . In this Memorandum Opinion, the court includes discussions of some of the Plaintiffs’ testimony and/or timesheets for periods after May 1, 2013. These discussions provide a more complete picture of the work and payment history of those Plaintiffs. Whether such evidence would be admissible at trial remains to be determined. 2 . Walker v. Jefferson Cty. Bd. of Educ. & Weaver v. Madison City Bd. of Educ., 771 F.3d 748 (11th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>). 3 . That act does not call into question the Options: A. holding california school district a state agency for purposes of the eleventh amendment B. holding that school boards in alabama counties were not arms or alter egos of the state for purposes of eleventh amendment immunity C. holding that local school boards were not entitled to eleventh amendment immunity even though entitled to sovereign immunity in the same degree as the state itself from tort suits D. holding that the new mexico school district and their governing boards are not arms of the state entitled to eleventh amendment immunity E. 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

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that school boards in alabama counties were not arms or alter egos of the state for purposes of eleventh amendment immunity
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: F.2d at 1562. Southern asserts that GUA did not take steps necessary to obtain permits to commence construction or to obtain environmental permits. Moreover, GUA did not contact FERC regarding approval of a bypass facility. Tutcher Deposition at 517-520. Southern also dismisses GUA’s discussions and communications with FERC and the Alabama Public Sendee Commission regarding necessary approvals and eminent domain rights as exploratory. According to Southern, courts have held that such preliminary efforts can not confer antitrust standing. Parks v. Watson, 716 F.2d 646, 660 (9th Cir.1983). Responding to GUA’s contentions that it was futile to take such steps absent a tap, Southern argues that such positions have routinely been rejected. See, e.g., Jayco Sys., Inc., supra, 111 F.2d at 314 (<HOLDING>). See also Cable Holdings, Inc., supra, 825 Options: A. holding that the court had an adequate record to grant the defendants motion for summary judgment because the relevant evidence would have been in plaintiffs possession B. holding that the plaintiff could not show surprise when the plaintiff had received the additional terms from the defendant prior to the agreement C. holding that prior dui conviction could be used to enhance an offense to felony even though defendant did not have appointed counsel where defendant could not have been imprisoned for more than six months and was not in fact imprisoned D. holding that failure to provide adequate medical care claim asserted against supervisory prison official should be dismissed because the fact that he did not respond to or denied plaintiffs grievances does not alone state a claim E. holding that the fact plaintiff could not have acquired machines from defendant even had it undertaken adequate preparations did not excuse plaintiffs failure to undertake such preparations

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the fact plaintiff could not have acquired machines from defendant even had it undertaken adequate preparations did not excuse plaintiffs failure to undertake such preparations
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: areas of the assailant’s impending criminal conduct inside the club. Finally, our resolution of this issue is dispositive and we need not address Appellants’ remaining issues regarding proximate causation. Whiteside v. Cherokee County School Dist. No. One, 311 S.C. 335, 428 S.E.2d 886 (1993) (appellate court need not address remaining issue when resolution of prior issue is dispositive). AFFIRMED. MOORE and WALLER, JJ., concur. PLEICONES, J., dissents in a separate opinion in which TOAL, C.J., concurs. Justice PLEICONES. I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, Swordfish had a duty to reasonably secure the common areas of the premises, and there are genuine issues of material fact concerning breach and causation. By emphasizing the fact that Appellant was injured 4 S.E.2d 61, 62 (1984) (<HOLDING>), and Munn v. Hardee’s Food Sys., Inc., 274 Options: A. holding that duty to protect from criminal acts does not arise in the absence of a foreseeable risk of harm B. holding that a residential landlord has no duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts C. holding a business owes a duty to protect invitees from reasonably foreseeable harm by third persons D. holding that a store owner has a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts E. holding landowner had duty to provide security in parking lot to protect its invitees from criminal acts of third parties

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a store owner has a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts
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 June 30, 2017 consolidated financial statements of the General Partner, the Borrower and their Subsidiaries heretofore delivered to the Lenders were prepared in accordance with GAAP in effect on the date such statements were prepared and fairly present in all material respects the consolidated financial condition and operations of the General Partner, the Borrower and their Subsidiaries at such date and the consolidated results of their operations for the period then ended. Since June 30, 2017, there has been no change in the business, Property, financial condition or results of operations of the General Partner, the Borrower and their Subsidiaries (including any litigation, arbitration, governmental investigation, proceeding or inquiry) which could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: against him at any time thereafter. Rule 55(c) provides that “[a] judgment by default may be set aside in accordance with Rule 60(b).” Rule 60(b) provides that “[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or unavoidable cause....” In Syllabus Point 2, Parsons v. McCoy, 157 W.Va. 183, 202 S.E.2d 632 (1973), we said: The Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to the setting aside of default judgments should be liberally construed in order to provide the relief from onerous consequences of default judgments. See Syllabus Point 2, Hamilton Watch Co. v. Atlas Container, Inc., 156 W.Va. 52, 190 S.E.2d 779 (1972) (<HOLDING>). This Court in Parsons v. McCoy 157 W.Va. at Options: A. holding that defenses under rule 60b may be waived B. holding that section 63 should be given the same construction of section 53 in light of their substantial similarities C. holding that 116 and 256 should be given a liberal construction in favor of applicants D. holding that federal rule of civil procedure 60b should be liberally construed so that cases are heard on the merits and not hampered by technical problems E. holding that because adjudication of cases on their merits is favored rule 60b should be given a liberal construction

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that because adjudication of cases on their merits is favored rule 60b should be given a liberal construction
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that Stearns Weaver, which solely represented Publix, had access to confidential irrelevant information that would not otherwise have been available. Disqualification of a party’s chosen counsel is a drastic remedy that should be used sparingly. Alexander v. Tandem Staffing Solutions, Inc., 881 So.2d 607, 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); see also Gutierrez v. Rubio, 126 So.3d 320, 2013 WL 1316383 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 3, 2013). The party seeking disqualification has the burden of showing that it is necessary because of actual harm. Coral Reef of Key Biscayne Developers v. Lloyd's Underwriters at London, 911 So.2d 155, 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Disqualification is not appropriate if lesser alternatives can alleviate the harm. Id.; Esquire Care, Inc. v. Maguire, 532 So.2d 740, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (<HOLDING>). We agree with petitioners that the Options: A. holding that an agreement in which one party promised to make monthly payments to the other partys attorney as part of an asset sale contract was for the direct benefit of the attorney B. holding that a contracting party cannot be allowed to use his own breach to gain an advantage by impairing the rights that the contract confers on the other party C. recognizing that before ordering disqualification the trial court should determine whether one party has obtained an unfair advantage over the other which can only be alleviated by removal of the attorney citations omitted D. holding under arkansas rule of professional conduct 37 that party seeking disqualification of an attorney must demonstrate that the attorney has personal knowledge which is unobtainable elsewhere E. holding that in order to determine whether disqualification of plaintiffs attorney is appropriate because of a previous attorneyclient relationship he had with the defendant the court must determine whether confidential information was passed from client to attorney

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that before ordering disqualification the trial court should determine whether one party has obtained an unfair advantage over the other which can only be alleviated by removal of the attorney citations omitted
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: downward departure. We hol , 1222 (6th Cir.1997) (permitting the district court to revisit a defendant’s “entire aggregate sentence” composed of a “single comprehensive sentencing plan” when resentenc-ing pursuant to a successful § 2255 motion to vacate). We note that our holding comports with the practice of the Second Circuit, see Core, 125 F.3d at 75, 77 (ruling that the district court had the discretion to consider a motion for a downward departure on the basis of post-sentence rehabilitation) (“When the trial court undertook to resentence [the defendant] after vacating his § 924(c) conviction, it was required to consider him as he stood before the court at that time.”), and the reasoning of the Tenth Circuit as expressed in an unpublished opinion, see Roberts, 1999 WL 13073, at *6 (<HOLDING>) (“[A]fter vacating a § 924 conviction, a Options: A. holding that the district courts denial of a downward departure was an exercise of discretion and therefore not reviewable B. holding that district court had authority to grant section 5k20 downward departure despite governments opposition C. holding that the district court may consider evidence of a defendants postsentence rehabilitation and that such evidence may support a downward variance from the federal sentencing guidelines D. holding that we may not review a district courts refusal to grant a downward departure unless the court mistakenly believed that it lacked the authority to grant such a departure E. holding that the district court had the discretion to grant a downward departure for postsentence rehabilitation

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the district court had the discretion to grant a downward departure for postsentence rehabilitation
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 consider the addi tional facts, and to rule on the additional claims, presented in his amended petition. Boyd has failed to preserve this issue for review. It would appear from a review of the record that Boyd is correct in maintaining that the circuit did not consider, or rule on, the additional facts and claims presented in his amended petition. However, the record also reflects that Boyd never objected to the circuit court’s failure to rule on the amended petition. As noted above, Boyd never moved for leave to file the amended petition, and the circuit court never entered an order granting Boyd leave to do so. Moreover, the circuit court never took any action indicating that it was granting Boyd leave to file an amended petition or that it would consider claims rim.App.1989) (<HOLDING>). Because Boyd never objected to the circuit Options: A. holding that claim that the circuit courts order was deficient because it did not include specific findings of fact regarding each is sue was not preserved for review where it was not raised in the circuit court B. holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court failed to make specific findings of fact relating to issues raised at an evidentiary hearing on the appellants postconviction petition was not preserved for review because the appellant did not raise the issue in the circuit court C. holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court improperly adopted the states proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order denying the appellants postconviction petition was not preserved for review because the appellant never objected to the circuit courts order D. holding in an appeal from the denial of a rule 32 petition that the appellants claim that the circuit court erred in not ruling on his motion to subpoena a transcript of his guilty plea proceedings was not preserved for review because the circuit court never ruled on the motion and the appellant never objected to the circuit courts failure to rule on the motion E. holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court erred in failing to make specific findings of fact as to all claims in the appellants rule 32 petition was not preserved for review because the appellant did not first present the claim to the circuit court

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court improperly adopted the states proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order denying the appellants postconviction petition was not preserved for review because the appellant never objected to the circuit courts order
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: GSSI has all governmental licenses, per-mits, authorizations and approvals necessary for the conduct of its business as currently conducted ("Li-censes and Permits"). All such Licenses and Permits are in full force and effect, and no proceedings for the suspension or cancellation of any thereof is pending or, to the knowledge of GSSI, threatened.

assistant: Authorizations
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: ORDER Defendant-Appellant Montaque Green (“Green”) pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A)(iii). The District Court sentenced Green principally to 120 months’ imprisonment. Green appeals his sentence, arguing that the District Court erred at his sentencing by not applying the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (“FSA”). See Dorsey v. United States, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 2821, 2335, 183 L.Ed.2d 250 (2012) (<HOLDING>). The government concedes that the District Options: A. holding that the fsa applies to sentencing proceedings occurring after august 3 2010 B. holding that the confrontation clause applies equally to sentencing proceedings tried to a jury C. holding 2254 applies to administrative proceedings D. holding descamps and mathis divisibility analysis applies in immigration proceedings nationwide to the same extent that it applies in criminal sentencing proceedings E. holding that 1146a applies only to transfers under the plan occurring after the date of confirmation

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the fsa applies to sentencing proceedings occurring after august 3 2010
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: they have elsewhere within the State or Territory: :(! ‡ !{« S}! * ifc “(b) Nothing in this section shall authorize the alienation, encumbrance, or taxation of any real or personal property, including water rights, belonging to any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or community that is held in trust by the United States . ' . . ; or shall authorize regulation of the use of such property in a manner inconsistent with any Federal treaty, agreement, or statute or with any regulation made pursuant thereto; or shall confer jurisdiction upon the State to adjudicate, in probate proceedings or otherwise, the ownership or right to possession of such property or any interest therein. “(c) Any tribal ordinance or custom heretofore or hereafter adopted by an Indian tribe, 4, 18 L.Ed.2d 643 (1967) (<HOLDING>). See Board of Regents v. New Left Education Options: A. holding local ordinances not state laws within the meaning of the railroad safety act of 1970 45 usc 434 B. holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of 1983 C. holding that venue for litigation was proper based on 28 usc 1441 regardless of whether defendant was doing business in the district within the meaning of 28 usc 1391 D. holding local ordinances are not state statutes within the meaning of 28 usc 2281 requiring convening of a threejudge district court to enjoin a state statute E. holding that because no clear implication could be derived from the language of the statute that the state should be bound by the local zoning ordinances the state was not bound

assistant: The best answer is D. holding local ordinances are not state statutes within the meaning of 28 usc 2281 requiring convening of a threejudge district court to enjoin a state 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: for the first time at oral argument. This Court declines to address these issues where they were not addressed either in the district court or in the appellant’s opening brief. State v. Stone, 147 Idaho 330, 334, 208 P.3d 734, 738 (Ct. App. 2009). Because there is no retroactivity issue to decide, we can only determine whether Myers personally submitted to the district court’s jurisdiction when it filed a notice of general appearance on April 6, 2015, almost two weeks before filing the motion to set aside the default judgment. We hold that filing the general appearance, without simultaneously challenging jurisdiction as required by I.R.C.P. 12(g)(1), constituted a voluntary appearance pursuant to I.R.C.P. 4. See Rhino Metals, Inc. v. Craft, 146 Idaho 319, 322, 193 P.3d 866, 869 (2008) (<HOLDING>); Engleman v. Milanez, 137 Idaho 83, 85, 44 Options: A. holding that one of the effects of submitting to the courts jurisdiction by making a general appearance is that a party waives any objection to service of process B. holding the notice of appearance was not a motion under rule 12b2 4 or 5 and therefore the filing of the notice constituted a voluntary appearance by the defendants in this action which was the equivalent of the service of the summons upon them C. holding that party waived special appearance D. holding a general appearance constitutes voluntary submission to the personal jurisdiction of the court E. holding that defendant did not waive his special appearance by filing a motion for new trial subject to the special appearance

assistant: The best answer is D. holding a general appearance constitutes voluntary submission to the personal jurisdiction of the court
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: Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 3009-625 (“IIRIRA”) — bars such relief in their case. Petitioners’ arguments challenging the application of the stop-time rule are foreclosed by our decision in Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510 (9th Cir.2001). The Board therefore correctly concluded that the stop-time rule applied to their application. PETITIONS DENIED. ** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1 . The Immigration Judge properly applied the stop-time rule to Petitioners because her order pretermitting Petitioners' application for suspension of deportation was issued subsequent to the April 1, 1997, effective date of IIRIRA. See Astrero v. INS, 104 F.3d 264, 266 (9th Cir.1996) Options: A. holding that a prisoner with a state conviction finalized before april 24 1996 had until april 23 1997 to file a federal habeas petition B. holding that because the removal proceeding began after april 1 1997 iirira governed C. holding that iiriras effective date is april 1 1997 D. holding that because iirira 309 would not become effective before april 1 1997 retroactive application of ina 240a could not take effect before that date E. holding that habeas petitions challenging judgments of conviction that became final before the effective date of the aedpa are not time barred if filed within one year from aedpas effective date april 241996

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that iiriras effective date is april 1 1997
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, along with the Proprietary Information Agreement, Sections 8, 10, 12, 15 and 23 of the Employment Agreement, and Employee’s written equity compensation agreements with the Company, represents the entire agreement and understanding between the Company and Employee concerning Employee’s separation from the Company.

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 1970’s version of that device came with the package of disposable parts including a separate anvil, staple cartridge and cam bar-knife assembly. The package was labeled a “disposable loading unit.” The surgeon would assemble these parts manually. Later U.S. Surgical combined the staple cartridge and cam bar-knife assembly elements into a DLU. However, they have retained the language “cartridge” or “staple cartridge” to refer to the plastic piece which contains the staples, staple drivers and slots for receiving the cam bars. This staple cartridge remains a distinct sub-element of the DLU. In our previous decision, we found additional evidence of this in the specification of the Fox Reissue Patent. See Ziggity Systems, Inc. v. Val Watering Systems, 769 F.Supp. 752, 784 (E.D.Pa.1990) (<HOLDING>). The inventor is allowed considerable latitude Options: A. holding that the possibility of a mistaken understanding of the phrase preponderance of the evidence on the part of the jury is too remote to constitute plain error when counsel gave the jury an accurate explanation of the legal meaning of the phrase in his closing argument and that meaning is consistent with the common understanding of the words in the phrase B. holding that in order to understand patent claims a court can take instruction from the other claims the specification and the prosecution history C. holding that where the language of the contract is unambiguous and conveys a definite meaning the court may decide the meaning of the contract as a matter of law D. recognizing that the court must give meaning to all the words in the claims E. holding that a court can turn to the specifications and drawings in order to aid it in understanding the scope and meaning of the language employed in the claims

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a court can turn to the specifications and drawings in order to aid it in understanding the scope and meaning of the language employed in the claims
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Delaware without regard to principles of conflicts of laws. Each Party waives, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, any right it may have to a trial by jury in respect of any action, suit or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement or any transaction contemplated hereby.

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: 1223, 1228 (7th Cir.1994) (same); United States v. Badalamenti, No. S.S. 84 Cr. 236CPNL), 1985 WL 2572, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 1985) (referring to a second indictment that would be returned after dismissal of a first indictment because of section 2517(5) violations, the same situation as in this case, as a “superseding” indictment). Therefore, the court holds that the second indictment in this case can properly be referred to as a “superseding” indictment. The superseding-versus-new-indictment issue might have been an interesting and relevant debate if the Speedy Trial Act or the statute of limitations were the focus of defendants’ appeals from the Detention Order, because those are the only situations in which it matters whether an indictment is a superseding indictme (D.C.1979) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Thoresen, 428 F.2d 654, Options: A. holding that application of the doctrine of law of the case is discretionary and that a district court abuses its discretion in applying the law of the case doctrine only if 1 the first decision was clearly erroneous 2 an intervening change in the law occurred 3 the evidence on remand was substantially different 4 other changed circumstances exist or 5 a manifest injustice would otherwise result B. holding that the law of the case doctrine posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case C. holding that the application of the fair use doctrine at the pleading stage is appropriate D. holding that for all intents and purposes the instant case is the same action that was brought previously we therefore find the application of the doctrine of the law of the case to be appropriate E. holding that the degree of the loss of use of a body part is a question of fact whether the loss is for all practical intents and purposes is a question of law

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that for all intents and purposes the instant case is the same action that was brought previously we therefore find the application of the doctrine of the law of the case to be appropriate
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: recklessness in th reme Court has made clear, it is not only the content of the speech that is important, but the context and circumstances in which the language was used that must also be examined. FCC v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726, 744-45 (1978). This was not solely the use of one profane word spoken in an effort to register disagreement or protest. It was an unprovoked, aggressive, and abusive tirade aimed personally at Foster in her workplace. The object was not, as the dissent notes, to register her protest at being removed from Our Place without any food, but rather to injure, insult, and accuse Foster of sleeping with her ex-husband and spreading venereal disease. Such behavior falls well outside free speech protection. See In re S.J.N-K., 647 N.W.2d 707, 712 (S.D. 2002) (<HOLDING>); James M., 806 P.2d at 1066-67 (ruling Options: A. holding that when protected speech is inextricable from unprotected speech the court will treat the entire message as protected B. holding that a city could not use past conduct to enjoin future protected speech C. holding that students repeated yelling fuck you and use of accompanying obscene gestures amounted to an ongoing aggression that fell outside protected free speech D. holding that school district policy requiring that students obtain the review and approval of school officials prior to distributing any written material violated free speech rights of students E. holding that after the district court determined that the plaintiffs speech was protected the court was required to inform the jury of its ruling that knapps speech was constitutionally protected

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that students repeated yelling fuck you and use of accompanying obscene gestures amounted to an ongoing aggression that fell outside protected free speech
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: form the basis for a statutory standard of care). Even if it did, Plaintiffs claim relates to his termination, not to the health and safety objectives that the regulation targets. See Haw.Rev.Stat. § 396-2 (stating the purposes of the health and safety law). 2. Summary judgment was properly granted on Plaintiffs defamation claim. The statements made in judicial and administrative proceedings were related to Plaintiffs misconduct and termination and therefore fell within the absolute litigation privilege. See McCarthy v. Yempuku, 5 Haw.App. 45, 678 P.2d 11, 14 (1984) (describing privilege). Plaintiffs claim based on statements made during the company’s investigation and grievance procedures is preempted by the LMRA. See Shane v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 868 F.2d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Scott v. Machinists Auto. Trades Dist. Lodge Options: A. holding that a defamation claim is a personal injury tort claim B. holding that a defamation claim based on statements in a written disciplinary notice was preempted C. holding that a claim based on statements made during a formal grievance procedure was preempted D. holding statelaw claim based on alleged failure to give proper notice of right to convert is preempted by erisa E. holding claim based on failure to disclose information to the epa preempted

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a defamation claim based on statements in a written disciplinary notice was preempted
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: is a weighing State or a nonweighing State. I would hold that the fact that a State is a nonweighing State may make the possibility of harmful error less likely, but it does not excuse a reviewing court from ensuring that the error was in fact harmless. Our cases in this area do not require a different result. IV The Court reaches a somewhat similar conclusion. It, too, would abolish (or at least diminish the importance of) the weighing/nonweighing distinction for purposes of harmless-error analysis. But then, surprisingly, it also diminishes the need to conduct any harmless-error review at all. If all the evidence was properly admitted and if the jury can use that evidence when it considers other aggravating factors, any error, the Court announces, must be harmless. See ante, at 220 (<HOLDING>). Common sense suggests, however, and this Options: A. holding that resentencing hearing in capital case is not barred by double jeopardy when appeals court rejects sole aggravating factor found by sentencer failure of sentencer to find other alleged aggravating factors is not an acquittal of these factors for double jeopardy purposes B. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it gave aggravating factors considerable weight C. holding that when one of the other sentencing factors enables the sentencer to give aggravating weight to the same facts and circumstances that underlie the invalidated aggravating factor areviewing court need not apply harmlesserror review D. holding that the grand jury need not find nonstatutory aggravating factors E. holding that the death of a victim may not be considered an aggravating factor in a homicide sentencing

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that when one of the other sentencing factors enables the sentencer to give aggravating weight to the same facts and circumstances that underlie the invalidated aggravating factor areviewing court need not apply harmlesserror review
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 provision of this Agreement will be modified, waived or discharged unless the modification, waiver or discharge is agreed to in writing and signed by Executive and by an authorized officer of the Company (other than Executive ). No waiver by either party of any breach of, or of compliance with, any condition or provision of this Agreement by the other party will be considered a waiver of any other condition or provision or of the same condition or provision at another time.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Company and its successors, legal representatives and assigns, and upon the Employee, his heirs, executors, administrators, representatives and assigns; provided, however, the Employee agrees that his rights and obligations hereunder are personal to him and may not be assigned without the express written consent of the Company.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The failure of either party to enforce, or the delay by either party in enforcing, any of its rights under this Agreement shall not prejudice or affect its rights hereunder. No waiver by either party shall operate as a waiver of any subsequent or continuing breach, and no waiver shall be effective unless made in writing.

assistant: No Waivers