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: of reorganization. Generally, interest stops accruing on pre-petition claims upon the filing of bankruptcy. However, § 506(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides an exception to this rule when the value of the collateral exceeds the principal and interest due on a claim. 11 U.S.C. § 506(b) (1994). Section 506(b) provides, in part: To the extent that an allowed secured claim is secured by property the value of which, after any recovery under subsection (c) of this section, is greater than the amount of such claim, there shall be allowed to the holder of such claim, interest on such claim, and any reasonable fees, costs, or charges provided for under the agreement under which such claim arose. 11 U.S.C. § 506(b) (1994). In United States v. Ron Pair Enterprise & L, 159 B.R. 198 (S.D.Tex.1993) (<HOLDING>); Wasserman v. City of Cambridge, 151 B.R. 4 Options: A. holding that when an oversecured creditor seeks interest on its claim courts apply the interest rate provided for in the contract B. holding that nonconsensual oversecured tax claim is entitled to the statutory rate of interest unless the statutory rate constitutes a penalty C. holding that when a creditor is oversecured solvency is not required for the creditor to be entitled to postpetition interest and fees and granting contractual default interest to the oversecured creditor of approximately 24 D. holding that nonconsensual oversecured creditor shall receive the statutory rate of interest unless it can be characterized as a penalty E. holding that an oversecured creditor is entitled to postpetition interest if the creditor is oversecured or if the estate proves to be solvent

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that nonconsensual oversecured creditor shall receive the statutory rate of interest unless it can be characterized as a penalty
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: three years, he maintains that the evidence was insufficient to support his habitual offender conviction. The defendant’s interpretation, while intriguing as a matter of statutory construction, has already been rejected by the SJC and the MAC: The defendant argues that the statute requires that one actually serve at least three years in prison on each prior felony conviction before one can be sentenced under the habitual offender statute. We disagree. A defendant must have been sentenced to at least three years on each prior felony, but release on parole before three years have been served will not defeat application of the statute. See Commonwealth v. Tuitt, 393 Mass. 801, 473 N.E.2d 1103, 1111 n. 11 (1985); see also Commonwealth v. Allen, 22 Mass.App.Ct. 413, 494 N.E.2d 55, 62 (1986) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Hill, 20 Mass.App.Ct. 130, Options: A. holding that under the 1991 version of the habitual offender statute defendant could not receive habitual offender sentence for life felony B. holding that defendants habitual traffic violator conviction could also serve as a predicate felony conviction under the general habitual offender statute C. holding that to constitute a prior conviction for purposes of the habitual felony offender act the defendant must have been adjudicated guilty before the present crime was committed D. holding that defendants adjudication as a habitual offender was not dependent upon his having served at least three years on each prior felony conviction per the tuitt decision E. holding that defendants auto theft conviction could serve to support his conviction for auto theft as a class c felony and as a prior unrelated felony conviction under the habitual offender statute

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that defendants adjudication as a habitual offender was not dependent upon his having served at least three years on each prior felony conviction per the tuitt decision
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: which reads in relevant part: “[I]f any person entitled to bring an action, other than for the recovery of real property or a penalty or a forfeiture, at the time the cause of action accrued or at any time during the period the statute of limitations is running, is less than 18 years of age, . . . such person shall be entitled to bring such action within one year after the person’s disability is removed . . . .” We are required to consider whether K.S.A. 60-515(a) is a tolling statute that applies only when a plaintiff needs to extend the statute of limitations under K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 60-513, as Smith contends, or if, as the defendants contend, the legislature intended for certain plaintiffs who were minors at the time the cause of .2d 11 (1977), aff'd 224 Kan. 12, 577 P.2d 1172 (1978) (<HOLDING>); Seymour v. Lofgreen, 209 Kan. 72, 79, 495 Options: A. holding that employers have standing to sue B. 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 C. recognizing a childs right to sue for wrongful death pursuant to ksa 60515 when mother could not sue because her statute of limitations had lapsed D. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue E. holding that plaintiffs do not lose their right to sue for damages sustained within statute of limitations period by failing to sue on earlier incidents in timely manner

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing a childs right to sue for wrongful death pursuant to ksa 60515 when mother could not sue because her statute of limitations had lapsed
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: An eligible employee who receives long-term disability (“LTD”) payments during a Plan Year under a Company LTD Plan or policy will be eligible to receive a prorated amount of any Bonus earned for the Plan Year. Any Bonus payment earned for the Plan Year will be reduced, based on the number of full months the employee is absent on LTD leave during the Plan Year. LTD leave generally begins after six months of short term disability leave. An eligible employee will receive employment credit under the Plan while on short term disability leave. If an eligible employee ceases to qualify for LTD, and the eligible employee does not return to work with the Company at that time, the eligible employee will forfeit any right to receive any unpaid Bonus for the Plan Year.

assistant: Disability
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: Benefits payable under this Agreement will be paid only from the general assets of the Company. No person has any right to or interest in any specific assets of the Company by reason of this Agreement. To the extent benefits under this Agreement are not paid when due to any individual, he or she is a general unsecured creditor of the Company with respect to any amounts due.

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: See id. We similarly held in White v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 766 So.2d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for mistrial after the appellees’ counsel, who advised the jury during opening statements that the investigating highway patrolman talked to everyone who was at the accident scene, stated, “ ‘I think the evidence will show that no one claimed that [the appellee] had anything to do with this accident at the scene of the accident.’ ” We determined that the only reasonable inference to be made from the statement was that the appellee was not charged with any traffic infraction in connection with the accident. See id. at 1233; see also Galgano v. Buchanan, 783 So.2d 302, 306-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>); Wainer v. Banquero, 713 So.2d 1104, 1105 Options: A. holding that the appellant was deprived of a fair trial as a result of the admission of evidence that she received a traffic citation following the accidentand concluding that the trial court erred in denying the appellants motion in limine to preclude the appellee from questioning her and the investigating officer as to whether she received a citation B. holding that the trial court reversibly erred in denying the appellants motion for mistrial following the investigating officers affirmative response to the appellees counsels question of whether any traffic citations had been issued as a result of the parties collision C. holding that although the parking citation that the plaintiff received did not indicate where and how to contest the allegation the plaintiff was not deprived of procedural due process because he received a summons to appear in court via first class mail before he was deprived of any liberty interest D. holding that the trial court reversibly erred in denying the appellants motion for mistrial following the appellees negative response to his attorneys question of whether he had been cited for a traffic violation following the parties accident and concluding that the question and answer were highly improper and prejudicial and that the harm was hot cured by the trial courts instruction to the jury E. holding that appellants could have amended as of right after they received the motion to dismiss and prior to the trial courts decision

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the appellant was deprived of a fair trial as a result of the admission of evidence that she received a traffic citation following the accidentand concluding that the trial court erred in denying the appellants motion in limine to preclude the appellee from questioning her and the investigating officer as to whether she received a citation
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 headings of Sections in this Agreement are provided for convenience only and will not affect its construction or interpretation. All bare references to “Section” or “Sections” refer to the corresponding Section or Sections of this Agreement. Terms defined in the singular shall have a comparable meaning when used in the plural, and vice versa. The word “or” is not exclusive. All references to “hereof,” “hereto” and “hereunder” shall refer to this Agreement. All words used in this Agreement will be construed to be of such gender or number as the circumstances require. All currency amounts referred to in this Agreement are in United States Dollars unless otherwise specified. Unless otherwise expressly provided, the word “including” does not limit the preceding words or terms. This Agreement was negotiated by the Parties with the benefit of legal representation, and any rule of construction or interpretation otherwise requiring this Agreement to be construed or interpreted against any Party shall not apply to any construction or interpretation hereof. Each reference herein to a statute means such statute as amended from time to time and includes any successor legislation thereto and any regulations promulgated thereunder. Each reference herein to “written” or “in writing” includes in electronic form.

assistant: 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Rosar agrees to execute any proper oath or verify any proper document required to carry out the terms of this Agreement. Rosar represents that Rosar’s performance of all the terms of this Agreement will not breach any agreement to keep in confidence proprietary information acquired by Rosar in confidence or in trust prior to Rosar’s engagement by the Company. Rosar hereby represents and warrants that Rosar has not entered into, and Rosar will not enter into, any oral or written agreement in conflict herewith.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 27 Cal.3d 741, 167 Cal. Rptr. 70, 614 P.2d 728, 734-35 (1980) (declining to extend holding in Tarasoff when neither a special relationship existed nor had a specific individual been threatened); Brenneman v. State, 208 Cal.App.3d 812, 256 Cal. Rptr. 363, 367 (following Thompson in holding that “public entities and employees have no affirmative duty to warn of the release of an inmate with a violent history who has made nonspecific threats of harm directed at nonspecific victims”); Leonard v. Latrobe Area Hospital, 425 Pa.Super. 540, 625 A.2d 1228, 1232 (1993) (following Thompson, finding "no common law rule that imposes a duty on a psychologist or psychiatrist to warn a non-patient of a patient’s dangerous propensities”). But see, e.g., Perreira v. State, 768 P.2d 1198, 1201 (Co. 1989) (<HOLDING>). 6 .Among those who have been held in certain Options: A. holding there is no duty to third parties on the part of a premises owner who could not have foreseen the criminal acts of third parties B. holding that the law imposes on every person who enters upon an active course of conduct the positive duty to exercise ordinary care to protect others from harm and calls a violation of that duty negligence that a complete binding contract between the parties is not a prerequisite to a duty to use due care in ones actions and that architects may be held liable for a breach of the duty of care and breach of contract that results in foreseeable injury economic or otherwise C. holding courts have held that hospitals have a duty to protect its patients from the tortious or criminal actions of third parties due to the special relationship between the hospital and the patient D. holding that when a psychiatrist determines or should determine that a patient poses a serious threat of danger to a third party the psychiatrist has a duty of reasonable care to that party E. holding that psychiatrist has duty to third parties to exercise due care in treatment and release of committed patients

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that psychiatrist has duty to third parties to exercise due care in treatment and release of committed patients
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: participation in Wilshire. Albrecht argues he did not know that the June 4 agreement would serve as a release with regard to his counterclaim against Lund. Nonetheless, the express terms of the June 4 agreement acknowledged that Lund was an “owner of record” of Wil-shire, that Albrecht “disclaims any interest” in Wilshire, that Wilshire belongs to Lund, and that Albrecht would make no claim against Lund with respect to Wil-shire. The objective language of the June 4 agreement, not Albrecht’s undisclosed subjective intention regarding the June 4 agreement, is what is legally binding upon the parties. See Brae Transp., Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 790 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir.1986) (applying California law); Edwards v. Comstock Ins. Co., 205 Cal.App.3d 1164, 252 Cal.Rptr. 807, 809 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we hold that the district court Options: A. holding that releasors submitted declaration in opposition to summary judgment as to his undisclosed intent was inadmissible to contradict the release B. holding that grant of judgment was premature where plaintiff submitted properly supported rule 56f request for further discovery in opposition to defendants motion for summary judgment C. holding that arguments not raised in opposition to a motion for summary judgment are waived D. holding that claims raised for the first time in an opposition to a motion for summary judgment are not properly before a court E. holding that defendants failed to raise triable issue of material fact where they did not establish that the type size of the copy they submitted in opposition to summary judgment motion was identical to that of the original contract

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that releasors submitted declaration in opposition to summary judgment as to his undisclosed intent was inadmissible to contradict the release
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 of the Borrower and each Subsidiary is in compliance in all material respects with the requirements of all Laws and all orders, writs, injunctions and decrees applicable to it or to its properties, except in such instances in which (a) such requirement of Law or order, writ, injunction or decree is being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings diligently conducted or (b) the failure to comply therewith, either individually or in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Third Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original, but all such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument, and all signatures need not appear on any one counterpart. Any party hereto may execute and deliver a counterpart of this Third Amendment by delivering by facsimile or email transmission a signature page of this Third Amendment signed by such party, and any such facsimile or email signature shall be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature. Any party delivering by facsimile or email transmission a counterpart executed by it shall promptly thereafter also deliver a manually signed counterpart of this Third Amendment.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: (Ind.App.1999) (recognizing that child has right to have his parents present during custodial interrogation); State v. Walker, 352 N.W.2d 239 (Iowa 1984) (statute implicitly requires that, after notification of parents, police wait before interrogation to allow parents time to come to station and consult with child); M.A.C. v. Harrison County Family Court, 566 So.2d 472 (Miss.1990) (hold ing that deliberate exclusion of parents from child’s interrogation renders statements inadmissible); Ezell v. State, 489 P.2d 781, 783-84 (OMa.Crim.App.1971) (finding that neither mother nor legal guardian of juvenile defendant was “capable of protecting defendant’s constitutional rights,” thereby rendering juvenile’s confession inadmissible); Edward C. v. Collings, 193 Mont 426, 632 P.2d 325 (1981) (<HOLDING>); In re D.S., 263 N.W.2d 114 (N.D.1978) Options: A. holding that juveniles may not waive counsel unless parent or guardian also waives that right B. holding relation back permitted where a complaint misnamed a parent as guardian rather than the child by and through the parent as guardian C. recognizing juveniles right to counsel in certain juvenile proceedings D. holding that juveniles may waive constitutional rights E. holding that juveniles may waive right to counsel only upon advice of counsel

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that juveniles may not waive counsel unless parent or guardian also waives that right
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 is performable in the state in which the Property is located and shall in all respects be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the substantive federal laws of the United States and the laws of the state of North Carolina. Seller and Purchaser hereby irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of any state or federal court sitting in the state and judicial district in which the Property is located in any action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement and hereby irrevocably agree that all claims in respect of such action or proceeding shall be heard and determined in a state or federal court sitting in the state and judicial district in which the Property is located. Purchaser and Seller agree that the provisions of this Section 11.10 shall survive the Closing of the transaction contemplated by this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The closing on the purchase and sale of the 1% Interest shall occur simultaneously with the closing on the sale of the 50% Interest to Cargill, which closing shall be within thirty (30) days following the date on which Cargill exercises the Option. The closing shall occur at a time and place to be mutually agreed upon. The 1% Interest shall be conveyed by ACSC to GGC by an Assignment of Membership Interest in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A.

assistant: Closings
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: “Tort damages are ‘the amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not.’” Id. at 913 (quoting Cal.Civ.Code § 3333). Otherwise, Plaintiffs are only entitled to contract damages for breach of State Farm’s contractual duty to defend. See id. at 912. 1. Duty to Settle California’s “implied covenant good faith and fair dealing imposes a duty on the insurer to settle a claim against its insured within policy limits whenever there is a substantial likelihood of a recovery in excess of those limits.” Johansen v. Cal.State Auto. Ass’n Inter-Ins. Bureau, 15 Cal.3d 9, 123 Cal.Rptr. 288, 538 P.2d 744, 747 (Cal.1975); Crisci v. Sec. Ins. Co. of New Haven, Conn., 66 Cal.2d 425, 58 Cal.Rptr. 13, 426 P.2d 173, 176 (Cal.1967) (<HOLDING>). The California Supreme Court explained that Options: A. holding that an agent as a stranger to an insurance contract cannot be held to breach an implied covenant of fair dealing B. holding that liability based on an implied covenant exists whenever the insurer refuses to settle in an appropriate case C. recognizing implied covenant to market gas D. holding that an insurer has a duty to conduct an investigation reasonably appropriate under the circumstances E. holding the insurer liable for failing to settle the claim when time was of the essence

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that liability based on an implied covenant exists whenever the insurer refuses to settle in an appropriate case
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 378 U.S. 123 84 S.Ct. 1657 12 L.Ed.2d 743 VIKING THEATRE CORP.v.PARAMOUNT FILM DISTRIBUTING CORP. et al. No. 481. Supreme Court of the United States June 15, 1964 Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, 1964. See 85 S.Ct. 15. Edward Bennett Williams, Washington, D. C., for petitioner. Louis Nizer, New York City, and Morris Wolf, Philadelphia, for respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. 2 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS took no part in the decision of this case.

assistant: 8
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 of the Company and the Director hereby agrees that the courts of the State of New York shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any claims or disputes pertaining to this Agreement or to any matter arising therefrom. Each of the Company and the Director expressly submits and consents in advance to such jurisdiction in any action commenced in such courts, hereby waiving personal service of the summons and complaint or other process or papers issued therein, and agreeing that service of such summons and complaint, or other process or papers, may be made in any manner permitted by the laws of the State of New York including if permissible the same manner as notices hereunder may be given pursuant to Section 10. The choice of forum set forth in this paragraph (b) shall not be exclusive nor shall it preclude the enforcement of any judgment obtained in such forum or the taking of any action under this Agreement to enforce such judgment in any appropriate jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: any person with a physiological disorder affecting the reproductive system. 29 C.F.R. § 1613.702(b)(1); McWright, 982 F.2d at 227. Finally, plaintiff cites Doe v. Kohn Nast & Graf, P.C., 862 F.Supp. 1310 (E.D.Pa.1994). Doe found that reproduction was a major life activity under the ADA for a person infected with HIV by relying on Congress’ use of the broad terms of “life” and “major life activities.” Doe, 862 F.Supp. at 1320. Although the terms “life” and “major life activities” are broad, the EEOC regulations on this provision of the ADA, as discussed earlier, necessitate a finding that “procreation” and “caring for others” are not “major life activities” under the statute. See Department of Treasury, I.R.S. v. FLRA, 494 U.S. 922, 931-33, 110 S.Ct. 1623, 1629, 108 L.Ed.2d 914 (1990) (<HOLDING>). The EEOC’s interpretation indicates that Options: A. holding that when an agency is charged with administering a statute part of the authority it receives is the power to give reasonable content to the statutes textual ambiguities B. holding that where multiple agencies are charged with administering a statute a single agencys interpretation is generally not entitled to chevron deference but concluding that there would be no comparable concern if all three agencies charged with administering the statute in question pressed the same interpretation before this court C. holding that even in considering a purely legal issue a court should grant great deference to reasonable interpretation of statutes by agencies charged with administering those statutes D. holding that when a court is asked to construe an ambiguous statute it must defer to the interpretation set out in a regulation promulgated by the agency charged with administering the statute so long as the agencys interpretation is reasonable E. holding no physical attachment one to the other is necessaryf it is the textual relationship that is significant

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that when an agency is charged with administering a statute part of the authority it receives is the power to give reasonable content to the statutes textual ambiguities
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Participant shall be responsible for providing such information as the Administrator deems appropriate or useful for processing the payment of the Retirement Benefit. Unless and only to the extent there is a good faith dispute over the right to the Retirement Benefit or the amount due (and reasonable corresponding efforts to resolve same), the Retirement Benefit shall be paid commencing as of the Benefit Commencement Date based on the information reasonably available to the Administrator. If there is a delay in the actual commencement of the Retirement Benefit past the Benefit Commencement Date, the Benefit Commencement Date shall not change and the Participant shall be entitled to receive those benefits which would have been paid on or after such date, but for the delay, but without interest thereon.

assistant: General
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: controversy since the defendant was, for all intents and purposes, operating its business from Ohio. Id. In the instant case, the Court finds that Defendants’ contacts with this forum are too tenuous to support a finding of general jurisdiction. Unlike the defendant in Perkins, Defendants maintain no physical presence in California nor is there any showing that they conducted their business operations here. The examples of Defendants’ alleged forum-related contacts are, at best, too isolated and sporadic to constitute the type of continuous and systematic contacts that “approximates physical presence.” Bancroft, 223 F.3d at 1086. Thus, based on the record presented, the Court finds that it lacks general jurisdiction over Defendants. See Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 416-17, 104 S.Ct. 1868 (<HOLDING>). 2. Alter Ego/Agency Theory As an alternative Options: A. holding there was no general jurisdiction when there was no evidence that defendants advertised or promoted their goods or services in texas solicited business in texas sold their goods or services to a texas entity established a general business office or general business presence in texas or targeted texas markets B. holding that a texas court lacked jurisdiction over a defendant which did not have a place of business in and never had a license to do business in texas and where its contacts consisted of sending personnel to the state for businessrelated matters and making instate purchases of equipment and services C. holding that jurisdiction existed over nonresident printing customer despite the fact that texas printer solicited the business in alabama and nonresident sent no personnel to texas because nonresident placed additional orders from which it expected to profit sent payments to texas sent and received printing materials to and from texas paid for shipping of printed goods from texas and sent payments to texas the transactions were governed by texas law and substantial part of performance occurred in texas D. holding sending two employees to work in texas and using an office in texas for limited purposes did not support finding of general jurisdiction E. holding that jurisdiction existed over nonresident guarantor of debt to texas creditor based only on sending a guaranty agreement to texas and discussing the general pattern of texas cases holding likewise

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a texas court lacked jurisdiction over a defendant which did not have a place of business in and never had a license to do business in texas and where its contacts consisted of sending personnel to the state for businessrelated matters and making instate purchases of equipment and services
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: because it is funded by local taxpayers. Rather, “public” also refers to that which is for the public’s use. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1265 (8th ed. 2004) (defining “public building” as “[a] building that is accessible to the public; esp., one owned by the government”). Here, the stipulated evidence indicated that Belvidere High School is maintained by the government, as local property taxes pay for its operation and maintenance. What is less ascertainable, perhaps, is whether a public high school is for the public’s use. In other circumstances, our supreme court has recognized that public schools are used not only to educate children but, also, to provide space for public functions. See, e.g., Board of Education of City of Chicago v. A, C, & S, Inc., 131 Ill. 2d 428, 474 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Thus, although public schools are used Options: A. holding that a federallyfunded program in which public school teachers provided remedial education to disadvantaged children in parochial schools as well as public schools did not violate the establishment clause B. holding that the waters of the state are a public asset and noting that this court has previously determined that public land public revenue a municipallyowned utility and wild salmon are all public assets that cannot be appropriated by initiative footnotes omitted C. recognizing the legal principle that an order of sale is a public document and all bidders as well as other persons are charged with notice of its terms D. recognizing that public schools are owned by the government maintained with tax revenue and used for mandatory classroom attendance as well as for other public functions E. recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that public schools are owned by the government maintained with tax revenue and used for mandatory classroom attendance as well as for other public functions
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: 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); United States v. Bloom, 112 F.3d 200, 205 (5th Cir. 1-997); Fraire v. City of Arlington, 957 F.2d at 1273; Hanks v. Transcontinental. Gas Pipe Line Corp., 953 F.2d at 997; Lechuga v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company, 949 F.2d 790, 794 (5th Cir.1992). A dispute about a material fact is "genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non- , moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510; Stults v. Conoco, Inc., 76 F.3d 651, 654 (5th Cir.1996); Burfield v. Brown, Moore & Flint, Inc., 51 F.3d 583, 588 (5th Cir.1995). 39 . Tacon Mechanical Contractors v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 65 F.3d 486, 488 (5th Cir.1995). 40 . See Celote 9 (5th Cir.1984), (<HOLDING>); and Jones v. Menard, 559 F.2d 1282, 1285 n. 5 Options: A. holding that a district court may not consider either hearsay evidence in affidavits or unsworn documents in a summary judgment proceeding B. holding that unsworn statements may not be considered on a motion for summary judgment C. holding that an unsworn letter is not proper summary judgment proof D. holding that a signed but unsworn letter which is not otherwise authenticated is hearsay and should not be considered as evidence in opposition to a motion for summary judgment E. holding that unsworn pleadings do not constitute proper summary judgment evidence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an unsworn letter is not proper summary judgment proof
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: Plaintiff and Defendant by imposing upon Defendant 'a legally enforceable obligation to pay Plaintiff $130,000.00”). Given this material alteration in the parties’ legal relationship, this court turns to the second aspect of the prevailing party inquiry, to wit, the existence of judicial imprimatur on the change. On a substantive basis, the court performed little review of the merits. Defendant therefore legitimately and understandably argues that the Rule 68 judgment awarding $15,000 was not on the merits. Instead, it was simply a voluntary change in conduct unaccompanied by the required judicial imprimatur, according to defendant. The Buckhannon opinion unequivocally rejects the catalyst theory as a means to confer prevailing party status. Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 610, 121 S.Ct. 1835 (<HOLDING>); Doe v. Boston Public Schools, 358 F.3d 20, 24 Options: A. recognizing that an attorneys fee award does not become final and ripe for review until the amount is set B. holding that in determining the reasonableness of attorneys fees under federal fee shifting statutes courts may not enhance the fee award above the lodestar amount to compensate attorneys for assuming the risk of receiving no payment for their services if the lawsuit failed C. holding that catalyst theory1 is not a permissible basis for attorneys fee award under ada and another federal statute D. holding that attorneys fee statute using shall language is not discretionary E. holding that attorneys fee award in a common fund case must be reasonable under the circumstances

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that catalyst theory1 is not a permissible basis for attorneys fee award under ada and another federal 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Partnership maintains or is entitled to the benefits of insurance from insurers of recognized financial responsibility covering its properties, operations, personnel and businesses against such losses and risks as are reasonably adequate to protect it and its businesses in a reasonable manner and in amounts which are prudent and customary in the businesses in which the Partnership and its Subsidiaries are engaged. All such insurance is outstanding and duly in force on the date hereof, except for such insurance for which the failure to be outstanding and duly in force would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. Neither the Partnership nor any of its 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 have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Insurances
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 plain meaning of the federal statute.” Dahl at 7. The state plan “directly conflicts with” the federal statute, “which clearly states that providers cannot deny services to a recipient on account of an inability to pay a co-pay.” Id. at 8. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on this issue. Other federal courts have found unlawful state Medicaid plan provisions that allowed providers to refuse services to participants unable to pay a cost-sharing charge, but those courts did not address the issue of past-due co-payments. See Newton-Nations v. Rogers, 316 F.Supp.2d 883 (D.Ariz.2004) (granting preliminary injunction); Spry v. Thompson, 2003 WL 23411996 (D.Or.2003) (Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation), adopted after de novo review, 2004 WL 1050867 (D.Or.2004) (<HOLDING>). The defendants cite Sweeney v. Bane, 996 F.2d Options: A. holding that person in 42 usc 1983 does not include states B. holding that 42 usc 1988 authorizes the grant of attorneys fees for services on appeal though statute does not specifically so provide C. recognizing that title iii enforcement statute 42 usc 12188 which incorporates the remedies of 42 usc 2000a3a does not include money damages D. holding that a demonstration project authorized by 42 usc 1315 must include the prohibition against refusal of services stated in section 1396oe E. holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc 1983

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a demonstration project authorized by 42 usc 1315 must include the prohibition against refusal of services stated in section 1396oe
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of a pleading that does not introduce any new issue does not revive a previously waived right to demand a jury trial. 5 MooRE, supra, ¶ 38.41, at 38-387. Thus, the question is whether the amendment of Yancey’s complaint to permit evidence of the February 1990 agreement raised a new “issue” within the meaning of Rule 38(b). The Rules do not provide a definition of the term, “issue.” Nonetheless, it is clear that if a case is an equitable one being tried to the court and a Rule 15(b) amendment is permitted over objection, then the objecting party is entitled to demand a jury trial only if the amendment has injected a new legal issue that could not have been reasonably anticipated. 5 MooRE, supra, ¶ 38.41, at 38-394; compare Harris v. Richards Mfg. Co., 675 F.2d 811, 815 (6th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>) with Gulbenkian v. Gulbenkian, 147 F.2d 173, Options: A. holding that where plaintiff sought only equitable relief up through the end of trial and only added claim for legal relief posttrial defendant was entitled to demand jury once legal claim was asserted B. holding preference claim legal in nature where relief sought was for a definite sum of money C. holding that equitable relief is only appropriate where legal remedies are inadequate D. holding that claims for equitable relief under 502a3 are only available when a plaintiff has no other relief under erisa E. holding that a jury trial was not required when the money demand although specific was incidental and ancillary to the equitable relief requested and would ripen only if equitable relief were granted

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that where plaintiff sought only equitable relief up through the end of trial and only added claim for legal relief posttrial defendant was entitled to demand jury once legal claim was asserted
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: From the Effective Time until the first date at which the Stockholder and Stockholder Affiliates cease to beneficially own, in the aggregate, at least five percent (5%) of the outstanding shares of Common Stock, the Company shall not issue any New Securities to any Person, except in compliance with the provisions of this Article IV .

assistant: General
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: from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition....” Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for "the United States District Courts, Rule 4. III. DISCUSSION Defendant requests that the Court reconsider his sentence of 46 months incarceration in light of the fact that the Court sentenced Alicia Gaytan to 38 months of incarceration for related charges. The Court finds that Defendant’s request shall be denied for the reasons described herein. Courts have consistently held that the mere fact that a codefendant receives a lesser sentence than defendant is not a basis for granting relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See generally, e.g., Hilbrich v. United States, 371 F.2d 826 (7th Cir.1967) (<HOLDING>); Montalvo v. United States, 174 F.Supp.2d 10, Options: A. holding that where appellant moved to recuse trial judge from deciding the motion for new trial the judge of the administrative district was required to designate a judge to hear the recusal motion B. holding that a defendant was not entitled to a relief under section 2255 when he asserted that the sentencing judge who was not the trial judge was influenced by the sentence imposed by the trial judge on a codefendant C. holding that the defendant is not entitled to be sentenced by the judge who took his plea when the judge made no promise to sentence him D. holding that the fact that a judge had ruled against the defendant is not a basis for finding the judge prejudiced E. holding that when the defendant admitted that he pleaded guilty for reasons other than to have the judge who took his plea sentence him the defendant could properly be sentenced by a different judge

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a defendant was not entitled to a relief under section 2255 when he asserted that the sentencing judge who was not the trial judge was influenced by the sentence imposed by the trial judge on a codefendant
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any term of this Note may be amended, and any provision hereof waived, (i) by the Companies, without the consent of Purchasers, as required in order to meet the definition of “Quoted Eurobond” pursuant to section 987 of the Income Tax Act 2007 or listing requirements of the Cayman Islands Stock Exchange, or (ii) with the written consent of Amicus UK and Holders of at least 85% of the aggregate principal amount of the Notes then outstanding; provided , however , that no amendment or waiver pursuant to this Section 18 may (i) modify the outstanding principal amount or interest rate of this Note, or (ii) disproportionately and adversely affect the Holder relative to the holders of all other Notes, in each case without the Holder’s consent. Any amendment effected in accordance with this Section shall be binding upon all holders of Notes, each future holder of the Notes, and Amicus UK. By acceptance hereof, the Holder acknowledges that in the event the required consent is obtained, any term of this Note may be amended or waived with or without the consent of the Holder.

assistant: Amendments