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: have a continued interest in her or whether the political forces now controlling the Guatemalan government were the same as those in control in 1991. The objective reasonableness of her fear of future persecution is further undermined by the length of time that has elapsed since the 1991 threat, her ability to return to Guatemala on five occasions without incident, and her daughter’s ability to live in Escuintla since 1991 without threats or harassment. See Kone v. Holder, 596 F.3d 141, 148 (2d Cir.2010) (adopting Ninth Circuit’s holding that “ ‘return trips can be considered as one factor, among others, to rebut th[e] presumption [of future persecution]’ ” (quoting Boer-Sedano v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1082, 1091 (9th Cir.2005))); Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). The record also supports the agency’s finding Options: A. recognizing that the governments inability to control the source of persecution may support a finding of a wellfounded fear B. holding that record did not compel finding of asylum on grounds of a future fear of persecution in part because the petitioners child and parents remained in columbia unharmed C. holding that an applicants wellfounded fear claim was speculative at best when he failed to present solid support that he would be persecuted for violating family planning policy upon his return to china D. holding that ability of applicants family to remain unharmed cuts against finding of wellfounded fear E. holding that wellfounded fear was established where all of petitioners similarly situated family members were persecuted

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that ability of applicants family to remain unharmed cuts against finding of wellfounded fear
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a defendant’s Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights were violated when a district court relied on facts not found by a jury in determining his sentence. United States v. Dare, 425 F.3d 634, 638 (9th Cir.2005). We also review de novo whether the district court applied the correct standard of proof. Id. Moreland’s argument relies on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Blakely, and Booker. In Apprendi, the Court held that, as required by the Sixth Amendment, facts that increase the penalty of a crime beyond the statutory maximum, other than the fact of a prior conviction, must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348; see also Blakely, 542 U.S. at 303-04, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (<HOLDING>). But the Court expressly limited its holding Options: A. holding that any apprendi error is harmless if the defendant is sentenced to less than the statutory maximum B. holding that the statutory maximum for apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant and without any additional findings by the court C. holding that for purposes of apprendi the statutory maximum is the maximum sentence that may be imposed based solely on the jurys findings D. holding that there is no sixth amendment error when the sentence does not exceed the maximum authorized by facts the defendant admitted E. holding statutory maximum for prior conviction is the potential maximum sentence defined by the applicable state criminal statute not the maximum sentence which could have been imposed against the particular defendant according to the states sentencing guidelines

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the statutory maximum for apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant and without any additional findings by 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Indemnitee shall promptly give the Company notice in writing of any Claim made against Indemnitee for which indemnification will or could be sought under this Agreement. Notice to the Company shall be directed to the General Counsel of the Company at the address shown on the signature page of this Agreement (or such other address as the Company shall designate in writing to Indemnitee); provided, however, that the failure to promptly give the Company notice in writing shall not relieve it from any liability that it may have under this Agreement, except to the extent that it has been materially prejudiced (through the forfeiture of substantive rights or defenses) by such failure. In addition, Indemnitee shall reasonably cooperate with the Company and shall give the Company such information as it may reasonably require.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 382 U.S. 397 86 S.Ct. 485 15 L.Ed.2d 445 Sergeant Jesse E. SNAPP, Petitioner,v.Honorable W. D. NEAL, State Auditor, et al. No. 16. Argued Nov. 15 and 16, 1965. Decided Jan. 18, 1966. Leon D. Hubert, Jr., New Orleans, La., for petitioner. Martin R. McLendon, Jackson, Miss., for respondents. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 This is a companion case to California v. Buzard, 382 U.S. 386, 86 S.Ct. 478, decided today. The State of Mississippi levied an ad valorem tax against a house trailer of the petitioner, Sergeant Jesse E. Snapp. Sergeant Snapp was stationed under military orders at Crystal Springs Air Force Base, Mississippi. He bought the trailer in Mississippi and moved it on Mississippi highways to a private trailer park near the Air Force Base where he placed it on movable concrete blocks and used it as a home. He did not register or license the trailer, or pay any taxes on it in his home State of South Carolina. He challenged the Mississippi tax as a tax on his personal property prohibited by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1178, as amended in 1944, § 514, 50 U.S.C.App. § 574.* The Mississippi Supreme Court sustained the levy on the ground that, as applied to motor vehicles, § 514(2)(b) conditions the nonresident serviceman's immunity from its ad valorem tax on the serviceman's prior payment of the fees imposed by his home State. The court reasoned that since § 514(2)(b), 'stipulat(es) expressly that the taxation should not be limited to privilege and excise taxes, it necessarily follows that the prohibited tax must include the only other general branch of taxation, that is, ad valorem. It is emphasized that the federal statute is meant to include ad valorem taxes as being one of the taxes for which the serviceman is immune, provided he complies with the laws of his home state concerning registration of the motor vehicle. If he fails to so comply, as was done in this case at bar, he is no longer entitled to protection of the Act of Congress.' 250 Miss. 597, at 614—615, 164 So.2d 752, at 760. We granted certiorari, 380 U.S. 931, 85 S.Ct. 935, 13 L.Ed.2d 819. We reverse on the authority of our holding today in Buzard that the failure to pay the motor vehicle 'license, fee, or excise' of the home State entitles the host State only to exact motor vehicle taxes qualifying as 'licenses, fees, or excises'; the ad valorem tax, as the Mississippi Supreme Court acknowledged, is not such an exaction. We thus have no occasion to decide whether the Mississippi Supreme Court was correct in holding that the house trailer was a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of § 514(2)(b). 2 Reversed. * The relevant text of the statute is in California v. Buzard, 382 U.S., p. 388, 86 S.Ct., p. 480, n. 1.

assistant: 2
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: stemmed from a lack of advanced planning. In this case, the only evidence the plaintiff brings forth to prove its claim that the Army violated 10 U.S.C. § 2304(f)(5)(A) is one document written by Mr. Massey, the SBA’s Procurement Center Representative. Mr. Masseys statements, however, are unsupported by any other evidence cited to in the record. Mr. Masseys memorandum alone, without any additional supporting evidence, and especially given his role at the agency, is not sufficient to prove that the Army failed to properly plan funding for the research and development of the “Fat Boy” strap pack. Without any additional evidence, the plaintiff fails to carry its burden. See JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 49 Fed.Cl. 364, 370 (2001), aff'd, 279 F.3d 985 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g denied (2002) (<HOLDING>). 4. Injunctive Relief Standard Plaintiff seeks Options: A. holding that the burden of proving a violation of the idea lies on the party seeking relief during the administrative process B. holding that statute does not remove plaintiffs burden of proving causation and reasonableness C. holding that the burden of proving lack of negligence is on the owner D. recognizing the plaintiffs burden of proving a violation of 48 cfr 6301c E. recognizing burden

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing the plaintiffs burden of proving a violation of 48 cfr 6301c
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company is duly incorporated, validly existing, and in good standing under the laws of Nevada and has the corporate power and is duly authorized under all applicable laws, regulations, ordinances and orders of public authorities, to carry on its business in all material respects as it is now being conducted. Prior to the Closing Date (as hereinafter defined) the Company will deliver to Source complete and correct copies of the articles of incorporation and by-laws of the Company as in effect on the date hereof. The execution and delivery of this Agreement does not, and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby will not, violate any provision of Company’s articles of incorporation or by-laws. The Company has taken all actions required by law, its articles of incorporation or by-laws, or otherwise to authorize the execution and delivery of this Agreement. The Company has full power, authority, and legal capacity and prior to the Closing Date will have taken all action required by law, its articles of incorporation or by-laws, and otherwise to consummate the transactions herein contemplated.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: "good faith” exception, "involve an application of a "good faith” exception analysis only after determining that the warrant was invalid. Majority's opinion at 395 n. 21, 319 P.3d at 314 n. 21. However, our jurisprudence clearly establishes that the warrant in this case was per se invalid because it was mis-dated. See Endo, 83 Hawai'i at 94, 924 P.2d at 581. Thus, in our jurisdiction, upholding a mis-dated warrant would constitute an application of the "good faith” exception where it has been previously rejected. Ultimately, how the "good faith” exception is applied or formulated in other jurisdictions is irrelevant, since, as noted, Endo would hold the warrant was invalid. See id. at 93-94, 924 P.2d at 581—82. 20 . See also State v. Guzman, 122 Idaho 981, 842 P.2d 660, 671-72 (1992) Options: A. holding that one of the purposes of the exclusionary rule is to ensure police officers carefully review warrants B. holding that probation and parole revocation hearings are not criminal proceedings such that the state exclusionary rule applies but noting that police misconduct which shocks the conscience may lead to invocation of the exclusionary rule C. holding that exclusionary rule to be applied as a matter of state law is no broader than the federal rule D. holding exclusionary rule inapplicable to evidence obtained by police officers acting in reasonable reliance on search warrant later held invalid E. holding that a police officers illegal manner of entry into ones home is a constitutional violation albeit not one that triggers the exclusionary rule

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that one of the purposes of the exclusionary rule is to ensure police officers carefully review warrants
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: Following the Committee’s determination in accordance with Section 9.2(a), the Company shall settle Performance Awards, in such form (including, without limitation, in shares of Common Stock or in cash) as determined by the Committee, in an amount equal to such Participant’s earned Performance Awards.

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: opportunity; Failing to pursue its claims and seek meaningful discovery; Trying to thwart nearly all depositions of its officials; Repeatedly obstructing documentary discovery ....; Trying to avoid dismissal on the merits by amending its complaint and leaving only an unripe — but equally bad — • claim; Suing here first and then instigating, paying for and supervising — and hiding its role in — a second proceeding ...; Trying to hide its illegal arrangement; and Engaging in an open war of attrition.” Id. at 1111-12. 122 . Id. at 1119. 123 . Chambers, 501 U.S. at 54, 111 S.Ct. 2123. 124 . Boland Marine & Mfg. Co. v. Rihner, 41 F.3d 997, 1005 (5th Cir.1995) (quoting Chambers, 501 U.S. at 46, 111 S.Ct. 2123). 125 . NASCO, Inc. v. Calcasieu Tel. & Radio, 894 F.2d 696, 703-04 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). 126 . Chambers, 501 U.S. at 58, 111 S.Ct. Options: A. holding that trial courts have the power to sanction parties for bad faith abuse of the judicial process not covered by rule or statute B. holding that a finding of plaintiffs bad faith is not a prerequisite to the trial courts exercise of discretion to award fees C. holding that the rules of civil procedure did not displace a district courts power to shift fees for bad faith wanton and vexatious conduct in the prosecution of the case D. recognizing that federal courts have inherent authority to control and redress bad faith and unreasonable vexatious or wanton conduct in litigation that leads to delay prolonging or disruption of court proceedings via imposition of sanctions including award of attorney fees E. holding that although courts have inherent power to dismiss bad faith litigant 707a does not provide basis for dismissal on grounds of bad faith filing

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the rules of civil procedure did not displace a district courts power to shift fees for bad faith wanton and vexatious conduct in the prosecution of the 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company has the right, prior to the issuance or delivery of any Shares subject to this Award, to withhold or require from you the amount necessary to satisfy applicable tax requirements (e.g., income tax, social insurance, payroll tax and payment on account), as determined by the Company. If, at any time after the Grant Date, you become subject to tax in more than one jurisdiction, the Company may be required to withhold or account for applicable tax requirements in the various jurisdictions. By accepting this Award, you authorize the Company or any Subsidiary to satisfy applicable tax or tax withholding requirements by: (i) withholding from your wages or other cash compensation payable to you; (ii) withholding from any proceeds resulting from the sale of Shares subject to this Award either through a voluntary sale or through a mandatory sale arranged by the Company on your behalf and pursuant to this authorization; (iii) redemption by the Company at Fair Market Value of Shares due to you following the vesting of Shares subject to this Award; or (iv) a combination of (i), (ii) or (iii) above. If the Company or any Subsidiary cannot withhold or account for all taxes associated with this Award, by application of the means described herein, then, by accepting this Award, you agree that you will pay to the Company or any Subsidiary all amounts necessary to satisfy applicable tax requirements and acknowledge that the Company may refuse to issue or deliver Shares subject to this Award, or the proceeds from the sale of such Shares, if you do not comply with such obligations.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Termination or expiration of this Agreement will not affect any rights and obligations of the Parties that arose prior to such termination or expiration, but neither Party shall be liable for or have any obligation to pay any amount or payment accruing or becoming payable under this Agreement after the date of termination or expiration of this Agreement. In addition, Sections 5.3(b), 5.5, 8.6, 8.7, 10, 11.4(b), 11.5, 11.6, 11.7, 12, 13 and 14 shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The invalidity or unenforceability of any paragraph or provision of these Terms and Conditions shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other paragraph or provision, and all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. If any provision of these Terms and Conditions is held to be excessively broad, then such provision shall be reformed and construed by limiting and reducing it so as to be enforceable to the maximum extent permitted by law.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (i) Seller is duly authorized to execute and deliver the Transaction Documents to which it is a party, to enter into the Transactions contemplated hereunder and to perform its obligations under the Transaction Documents, and has taken all necessary action to authorize such execution, delivery and performance, and (ii) each person signing any Transaction Document on its behalf is duly authorized to do so on its behalf.

assistant: Authority
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 and be enforceable by the parties hereto and their respective successors (including any direct or indirect successor by purchase, merger, consolidation, or otherwise to all or substantially all of the business and/or assets of the Tyco Management), assigns, spouses, heirs, and personal and legal representatives. Tyco Management shall require and cause any successor thereof (whether direct or indirect by purchase, merger, consolidation, or otherwise) to all, substantially all, or a substantial part, of the business and/or assets of the Tyco Management, by written agreement in form and substance satisfactory to Indemnitee, expressly to assume and agree to perform this Agreement in the same manner and to the same extent that Tyco Management would be required to perform if no such succession had taken place. The indemnification provided under this Agreement shall continue as to Indemnitee for any action taken or not taken while serving in an indemnified capacity pertaining to an Indemnifiable Event even though he may have ceased to serve in such capacity at the time of any Proceeding or is deceased and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, legatees and assigns of such a person.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement contains all of the agreements between the parties relating to Employee’s employment with the Company. The parties have no other agreements relating to Employee’s employment, written or oral. This Agreement supersedes all other agreements, arrangements, and understandings relating to Employee’s employment, and no such agreements, arrangements, or understandings are of any force or effect. The parties will execute and deliver to each other any and all such further documents and instruments, and will perform any and all such other acts, as reasonably may be necessary or proper to carry out or effect the purposes of this Agreement.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth on Schedule 7.27 , neither any Credit Party nor any ERISA Affiliate (a) maintains or has maintained any Pension Plan, (b) contributes or has contributed to any Multiemployer Plan or (c) provides or has provided post-retirement medical or insurance benefits with respect to employees or former employees (other than benefits required under Section 601 of ERISA, Section 4980B of the Code or applicable federal, state or foreign law). Except as set forth on Schedule 7.27 , neither any Credit Party nor any ERISA Affiliate has received any notice or has any knowledge to the effect that it is not in material compliance with any of the requirements of ERISA, the Code or applicable federal, state or foreign law with respect to any Employee Benefit Plan. No ERISA Event exists. Each Employee Benefit Plan which is intended to qualify under the Code has received a favorable determination letter (or opinion letter in the case of a prototype Employee Benefit Plan) to the effect that such Employee Benefit Plan is so qualified and to Credit Parties’ knowledge, there exists no reasonable basis for the revocation of such determination or opinion letter. Neither any Credit Party nor any ERISA Affiliate has (i) any unpaid minimum required contributions under any Plan, whether or not waived, (ii) any liability under Section 4201 or 4243 of ERISA for any withdrawal, or partial withdrawal, from any Multiemployer Plan, (iii) a Pension Plan that is “at risk” within the meaning of Section 430 of the Code, (iv) received notice from any Multiemployer Plan that it is either in endangered or critical status within the meaning of Section 432 of the Code or (v) any material liability or knowledge of any facts or circumstances which reasonably might be expected to result in any material liability to the PBGC, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Labor or any participant in connection with any Employee Benefit Plan (other than routine claims for benefits under the Employee Benefit Plan). In respect of each UK Credit Party, (a) neither it nor any of its Subsidiaries is or has at any time been an employer (for the purposes of sections 38 to 51 of the Pensions Act 2004) of an occupational pension scheme which is not a money purchase scheme (both terms as defined in the Pensions Schemes Act 1993); and (b) neither it nor any of its Subsidiaries is or has at any time been “connected” with or an “associate” of (as those terms are used in sections 38 and 43 of the Pensions Act 2004) such an employer.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: record. By her own candid admission, Young disclosed plaintiffs pregnancy to Sarah, plaintiff’s sister, because Sarah was both plaintiff’s sister and Young’s friend. Young assumed, albeit incorrectly, that plaintiff had already related the information to Sarah. Young was in no way motivated to serve the hospital. As the dissent correctly reasoned, “nothing in the record supports an inference that Young was attempting to benefit or serve her employer when she divulged plaintiff’s medical records. In fact, such disclosure was in direct contravention to the confidentiality agreements and did nothing to further the business of Illini Hospital.” 363 Ill. App. 3d at 925 (Turner, P.J., dissenting). We agree and so hold. See, e.g., Hentges v. Thomford, 569 N.W.2d 424, 427-29 (Minn. App. 1997) (<HOLDING>). Although summary judgment is generally Options: A. holding that employeeminister was not motivated by purpose to serve employercongregation when he accidentally shot parishioner during deer hunting B. holding that a fleeing suspect in a car was seized only when an officer actually shot him not when several officers previously shot his vehicles tires in an effort to stop him C. holding that the erroneous admission of a hearsay statement that identified the defendant as the shooter was harmless where the defendant never contested that he shot the gun but claimed only that he shot in selfdefense D. holding that scope of employment was an issue for the jury where a chicago police officer was off duty but within the city limits when he shot the plaintiff E. holding that a police officers words during an assault make clear that he was motivated by a protected ground

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that employeeminister was not motivated by purpose to serve employercongregation when he accidentally shot parishioner during deer hunting
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 Holder, in addition to being entitled to exercise all rights granted by law, including recovery of damages, will be entitled to specific performance of its rights under this Warrant. The Company agrees that monetary damages may not be adequate compensation for any loss incurred by reason of a breach by it of the provisions of this Warrant and hereby agrees to waive and not to assert the defense in any action for specific performance that a remedy at law would be adequate.

assistant: Remedies
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 summary judgment, an adjudication of its rights and duties. Sears, 254 Ill. App. 3d at 694. See also Village of Melrose Park v. Nautilus Insurance Co., 214 Ill. App. 3d 864, 867, 574 N.E.2d 198 (1991); Ayers v. Bituminous Insurance Co., 100 Ill. App. 3d 33, 35 n.l, 424 N.E.2d 1316 (1981). In the instant case, Pekin brought an action for declaratory judgment on August 3, 2000. The underlying suit was resolved on August 7, 2000. The action for declaratory judgment, even though initiated by Pekin, was brought prior to the resolution of the Stolzenberg action. Allstate actively sought an adjudication of its rights by filing a counterclaim for declaratory judgment and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. As a result, Pekin’s estoppel argument fails. State Farm, 186 Ill. 2d at 374 (<HOLDING>). Allstate also argues that it had no duty to Options: A. holding that when the insurer takes the position that the policy does not cover the complaint the insurer must 1 defend the suit under a reservation of rights or 2 seek a declaratory judgment that there is no coverage if the insurer fails to take either of these actions it will be estopped from later raising policy defenses to coverage B. holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action C. holding that an insurer will not be estopped from denying coverage merely because the underlying case proceeds to judgment before the declaratory judgment action is resolved D. holding that if an insurer denies coverage based on an assertion that the underlying claim is excluded from coverage there is a presumption that the insurer did not suffer prejudice because prompt notice would have merely resulted in an earlier denial of coverage E. holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an insurer will not be estopped from denying coverage merely because the underlying case proceeds to judgment before the declaratory judgment action is resolved
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: government also had to prove that Mousavi had a specific understanding of the ITR’s licensing requirements. 2 Using the correct definition of “willfully,” we now must determine whether, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational juror could conclude that Mousavi knew that his conduct was unlawful. A rational juror could conclude that the evidence showed that Mousavi knew that his agreement with Al Mal, and his subsequent provision of services under that agreement, was unlawful. The evidence showed that Mousavi concealed his income from Al Mai from the government on his tax returns, and the Supreme Court has recognized such evidence of concealment as sufficient to indicate knowledge of unlawfulness. See Bryan, 524 U.S. at 189 & n. 8, 118 S.Ct. 1939 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, evidence viewed in the light Options: A. holding that the same types of evidence used to prove a title vii claim also may be used to prove a 1983 claim B. holding that undisclosed evidence of witnesss prior perjury was material despite availability of other types of impeachment material C. holding that the plaintiff must prove that management level employees had actual or constructive knowledge about the existence of a sexually hostile environment and failed to take prompt and adequate remedial action D. holding that the knowledge requisite to knowing violation of a statute is factual knowledge as distinguished from knowledge of the law E. holding evidence of types of concealment unquestionably adequate to prove bryans knowledge of unlawfulness

assistant: The best answer is E. holding evidence of types of concealment unquestionably adequate to prove bryans knowledge of unlawfulness
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) Each Indemnitor hereby waives as to itself (i) any right or claim of right to cause a marshaling of Indemnitor’s assets or to cause Indemnitee or other Indemnified Parties to proceed against any of the security for the Loan before proceeding under this Agreement against Indemnitor; (ii) and relinquishes all rights and remedies accorded by Legal Requirements to indemnitors or guarantors, except any rights of subrogation which Indemnitor may have, provided that the indemnity provided for hereunder shall neither be contingent upon the existence of any such rights of subrogation nor subject to any claims or defenses whatsoever which may be asserted in connection with the enforcement or attempted enforcement of such subrogation rights including, without limitation, any claim that such subrogation rights were abrogated by any acts of Indemnitee or other Indemnified Parties; (iii) the right to assert a counterclaim, other than a mandatory or compulsory counterclaim, in any action or proceeding brought against or by Indemnitee or other Indemnified Parties; (iv) notice of acceptance hereof and of any action taken or omitted in reliance hereon; (v) presentment for payment, demand of payment, protest or notice of nonpayment or failure to perform or observe, or other proof, or notice or demand; and (vi) all homestead exemption rights against the obligations hereunder and the benefits of any statutes of limitations or repose. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, Indemnitor hereby agrees to postpone the exercise of any rights of subrogation with respect to any collateral securing the Loan until the Loan shall have been paid in full.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Mitchell’s substantial rights. As required by 21 U.S.C. § 851(b), the government filed an information prior to trial notifying the defendant that the government intended to increase his statutory penalty under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) by using a 1993 conviction for attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Section 851(c)(1) provides that if the defendant intends to contest the government’s use of a prior conviction to enhance the sentence, the defendant must file a written response to the government’s information and the court is required to have a hearing to resolve the dispute. Mitchell, however, filed no written response and did not contest the existence or validity of the prior convictions pursuant to § 851(c). See United States v. Williams, 298 F.3d 688, 693 (7th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). We also note that the presentence report Options: A. holding that failure to comply with 851b was harmless in part because defendant did not object to prior convictions listed in presentence report B. holding failure to comply with 851b was harmless error in part because defendant did not comply with 851c procedures for challenging prior convictions C. holding that plan did not comply D. holding the failure to comply with the act does not bar defendant from raising a constitutional challenge to jury selection procedures E. holding that failure to comply with 851b was harmless because defendant was properly put on notice that the government was seeking an enhancement and defendant concluded that no valid grounds existed for challenging the convictions or enhancement after research

assistant: The best answer is B. holding failure to comply with 851b was harmless error in part because defendant did not comply with 851c procedures for challenging prior convictions
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 Executive and his family shall be entitled to participate in employee benefits on a basis comparable to other senior executives, including any insurance, group medical, disability, or other executive benefit plans of the Company. Executive’s paid vacation shall be in accordance with Company policy for senior executives and in no event shall be less than three weeks.

assistant: Benefits
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: directed a de novo investigative hearing, its order ended all litigation concerning the conduct of the prior Board hearing. In addition, we noted that "denial of appeal now may deny the Railroad an opportunity for later review” of the district court’s order. 648 F.2d 905, 911 (3d Cir.1981). Consequently, we held that the district court’s order was an appealable final order. While we recognize that the finality in Union Railroad arose out of an administrative context, the principle giving rise to finality in that case is analogous to the principle expressed here—that when a district court’s order has the effect of a final disposition which may be denied later review, appellate jurisdiction under § 1291 may be found. 9 . See, e.g., Air-Shields, Inc. v. Fullam, 891 F.2d 63 (3d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Foster v. Chesapeake Insurance Co., 933 F.2d Options: A. holding review appropriate where district court had remanded case for procedural defects after 30day time limit in 1447c had expired B. holding that a case remained pending where the time to file a rehearing petition had not expired C. holding 30day limit to be mandatory and jurisdictional D. holding that the district judge who remanded a properly removed case where there was diversity jurisdiction exceeded statutory authority when he remanded that case based on efficiency E. holding that rule 11 sanctions imposed by district court remained in effect after case was remanded to state court upon a finding that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case

assistant: The best answer is A. holding review appropriate where district court had remanded case for procedural defects after 30day time limit in 1447c had expired
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 elevator maintenance, repair, and inspection exercised the appropriate care in keeping the elevators in safe operating condition. A. Liability for Delegation of a Non-delegable Duty The United States exercised its discretion to carry out its responsibilities for maintaining the elevators at the VA Medical Center by contracting with Otis and Bayline. “[T]he law is clear that the government may delegate its safety responsibilities to independent contractors in the absence of federal laws or policies restricting it from doing so.” Andrews v. United States, 121 F.3d 1430, 1440-41 (11th Cir.1997) (citations omitted); Moore, 2014 WL 949985, at *5 (citing Cochran v. United States, 38 F.Supp.2d, 986, 992-93 (N.D.Fla.1998)); see also Feyers v. United States, 749 F.2d 1222 (6th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Dingler v. United States, No. 1:06-cv-181, Options: A. holding that causes of action for employers misrepresentation and breach of contract to replacement workers are not preempted B. holding that an agencys determination on a workers compensation claim was entitled to deference C. holding the government was entitled to delegate responsibility for safety of rail yard workers to their private employers D. holding that employee must prove that the sole reason for their discharge was their filing of a workers compensation claim to prevail on a claim of wrongful discharge under marylands workers compensation act E. holding that an agency may not delegate its public duties to private entities

assistant: The best answer is C. holding the government was entitled to delegate responsibility for safety of rail yard workers to their private employers
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 defendant is either a direct or indirect recipient of federal funds. See generally NCAA v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459, 119 S.Ct. 924, 142 L.Ed.2d 929 (1999); U.S. Dept. of Transp. v. Paralyzed Veterans, 477 U.S. 597, 106 S.Ct. 2705, 91 L.Ed.2d 494 (1986); Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555, 104 S.Ct. 1211, 79 L.Ed.2d 516 (1984). In this case, however, there is no evidence that the MHSAA is either a direct or indirect recipient of federal funds. First, the MHSAA does not receive any direct assistance from the federal government. Second, the MHSAA receives the bulk of its funding from gate receipts generated at MHSAA-sponsored tournaments. Based upon this evidence, the MHSAA is neither a direct nor indirect recipient of federal funds. See generally Smith, 119 S.Ct. at 929-930 (<HOLDING>); Horner v. Kentucky High School Athletic Options: A. holding that kentucky high school athletic association was an indirect recipient of federal funds because it was created by state law its functions were determined by the kentucky board of education and it received dues from member schools who received federal funds B. holding that ohio high school athletic association was not a recipient of federal funds because it did not receive direct federal assistance and it did not receive money from local schools who were recipients of federal assistance C. holding that ncaa was not an indirect recipient of federal funds even though it received dues from schools that received federal funds D. holding that kentucky high school athletic associa tion qualified as agent of the state and as recipient of federal funds so as to be subject to title ix when association received dues from member schools which received federal funds E. holding that a college received federal funds where the funds were granted to its students as financial aid rather than directly to the college because the language of the section does not distinguish between direct and indirect receipt of federal funds

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that ncaa was not an indirect recipient of federal funds even though it received dues from schools that received federal funds
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 him by the constitution and laws of the United States and (2) the officer responsible for the deprivation is not entitled to qualified immunity because the right violated was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 1696-97, 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (noting that the first step in evaluating a qualified immunity defense to a § 1983 claim is to “determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right at all”). A municipality may be liable under § 1983 only if (1) the plaintiff suffered a deprivation of rights secured to him by the constitution and laws of the United States and (2) the violation occurred pursuant to an official policy or custom. See Owen, 445 U.S. at 657-58, 100 S.Ct. 1398 (<HOLDING>) (quoting Monell v. Department of Soc. Servs., Options: A. holding that a municipality may only be held liable under 1983 for a policy practice or custom B. holding that a municipality may not assert the defense of qualified immunity but may be held liable under 1983 only for a constitutional deprivation inflicted by the execution of a governments policy or custom whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy C. holding that a municipality may be held liable as a person under 1983 D. holding that a municipality may be sued as a person under 42 usc 1983 when the municipalitys policy or custom whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy inflicts a constitutional injury E. holding that a municipality cannot be held liable for an official policy or custom if it has been determined that the individual defendants did not violate the plaintiffs constitutional rights

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a municipality may not assert the defense of qualified immunity but may be held liable under 1983 only for a constitutional deprivation inflicted by the execution of a governments policy or custom whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy
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: Other than consummating the transactions contemplated hereunder, such Purchaser has not, nor has any Person acting on behalf of or pursuant to any understanding with such Purchaser, directly or indirectly executed any purchases or sales, including Short Sales, of the securities of the Company during the period commencing as of the time that such Purchaser first received a term sheet (written or oral) from the Company or any other Person representing the Company setting forth the material terms of the transactions contemplated hereunder and ending immediately prior to the execution hereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the case of a Purchaser that is a multi-managed investment vehicle whereby separate portfolio managers manage separate portions of such Purchaser’s assets and the portfolio managers have no direct knowledge of the investment decisions made by the portfolio managers managing other portions of such Purchaser’s assets, the representation set forth above shall only apply with respect to the portion of assets managed by the portfolio manager that made the investment decision to purchase the Securities covered by this Agreement. Other than to other Persons party to this Agreement or to such Purchaser’s representatives, including, without limitation, its officers, directors, partners, legal and other advisors, employees, agents and Affiliates, such Purchaser has maintained the confidentiality of all disclosures made to it in connection with this transaction (including the existence and terms of this transaction). Notwithstanding the foregoing, for the avoidance of doubt, nothing contained herein shall constitute a representation or warranty, or preclude any actions, with respect to locating or borrowing shares in order to effect Short Sales or similar transactions in the future.

assistant: Confidentiality