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: the whole record before they may justify an adverse credibility determination.” Id. at 308. Further complicating our review is the IJ’s apparent reliance on a serious error of fact. See Zhou Yun Zhang, 386 F.3d at 74 (noting that reviewing court must ensure that credibility findings are not based upon “a misstatement of the facts in the record”). The IJ found that, because the Democratic Party won the election, “it [was] difficult to understand why [the Socialist Party members] would threaten him to try to cover up alleged voting fraud.... ” Although we cannot consider petitioner’s proffered evidence that the results for the 2000 elections were not available until October 8, 2000, because it was not presented to the BIA, see Correa v. Thornburgh, 901 F.2d 1166, 1171 (2d Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>), we recognize that nothing in the record Options: A. holding that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to his claim involving a procedural error correctable by the bia B. holding that claims not presented to the ij and bia should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies C. holding that the petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies by first presenting ineffective assistance of counsel claim to the bia D. holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim E. holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial the state claims should be dismissed as well

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that claims not presented to the ij and bia should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Executive’s initial annual base salary shall be $625,000. The Executive’s base salary shall be reviewed annually by the Board or designated committee thereof. The base salary in effect at any given time is referred to herein as “Base Salary.” The Base Salary shall be payable in a manner that is consistent with the Company’s usual payroll practices for executive officers, but no less often than monthly.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution and delivery by the Guarantor of this Guaranty does not, and the performance by the Guarantor of its obligations under, and the consummation by the Guarantor of the transactions contemplated by this Guaranty will not, require the approval of any federal, state, local or foreign governmental or regulatory authority, agency, commission, department, body, court or other legislative, executive, or judicial or quasi-judicial governmental entity to be obtained by the Guarantor.

assistant: Approvals
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: To New Borrower’s actual knowledge, no event, fact or circumstance has occurred or failed to occur which constitutes, or with the lapse or passage of time, giving of notice or both, could constitute a default or Event of Default under the Loan Documents.

assistant: No Defaults
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: supra at 485-486. 9 See Pfeiffer v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 275 Ga. 827, 829 (2) (573 SE2d 389) (2002). 10 See Coldmatic, supra at 756 (summary judgment for defendant on plaintiffs breach of contract claim appropriate where key terms of contract were incomplete and subject to future negotiation, rendering contract unenforceable). 11 See OCGA § 15-10-43 (c); Uniform Magistrate Court Rule 34. 12 122 Ga. App. 681 (178 SE2d 543) (1970). 13 See OCGA § 15-10-42; UMCR 38; but see Howe v. Roberts, 259 Ga. 617, 619 (1) (385 SE2d 276) (1989) (magistrate courts may “follow the provisions of the Civil Practice Act, or any other appropriate rules and regulations relating to pleading, practice, and procedure, where to do so would ‘administer justice’ ”). 14 See Stuckey’s, supra at 690 (4). 15 See id. (<HOLDING>). 16 See also Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. Options: A. holding that there was no good cause to raise an untimely suppression issue where the defendant could have with due diligence discovered the information necessary to timely raise the issue B. holding that the failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waives the issue C. recognizing that the cpapermits a general denial but explaining that a general denial does not raise an issue as to a purported corporate defendants legal existence the defendant must raise such issue by direct negative averment to avoid waiver D. holding that a defendant who fails to raise a specific issue as the basis for suppression in a motion to suppress to the district court has waived the right to raise that issue on appeal E. holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that the cpapermits a general denial but explaining that a general denial does not raise an issue as to a purported corporate defendants legal existence the defendant must raise such issue by direct negative averment to avoid waiver
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 PARTIES HERETO HEREBY WAIVES ITS RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL WITH RESPECT TO ANY ACTION OR CLAIM ARISING OUT OF ANY DISPUTE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT, ANY RIGHTS OR OBLIGATIONS HEREUNDER OR THE PERFORMANCE OF SUCH RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS HEREUNDER. EXCEPT AS PROHIBITED BY LAW, EACH OF THE SUBORDINATING LENDER AND THE BORROWERS HEREBY WAIVES ANY RIGHT WHICH IT MAY HAVE TO CLAIM OR RECOVER IN ANY LITIGATION REFERRED TO IN THE PRECEDING SENTENCE ANY SPECIAL EXEMPLARY, PUNITIVE OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES OTHER THAN, OR IN ADDITION TO, ACTUAL DAMAGES. EACH OF THE SUBORDINATING LENDER AND THE BORROWERS (A) CERTIFIES THAT NO REPRESENTATIVE, AGENT OR ATTORNEY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT HAS REPRESENTED, EXPRESSLY OR OTHERWISE, THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT WOULD NOT, IN THE EVENT OF LITIGATION, SEEK TO ENFORCE THE FOREGOING WAIVERS AND (B) ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT HAS BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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: Conduct its businesses in compliance with the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, the UK Bribery Act 2010, and other similar anti‑corruption legislation in other jurisdictions, and maintain policies and procedures designed to promote and achieve compliance with such laws.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: favor of the accused, (3) the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding and (4) actual malice. Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir.1997); O'Brien v. Alexander, 101 F.3d 1479, 1484 (2d Cir.1996). The first element is met because the plaintiff was charged with counts of assault and trespass arising out of her arrest on January 5, 2000. The second element is also satisfied for the purpose of the present motion because the certificate of disposition of the plaintiffs criminal case, of which this Court may take judicial notice, states that a grand jury dismissed the charge of assault and the District Attorney dismissed the trespass charges in the interest of justice. See Cantalino v. Danner, 96 N.Y.2d 391, 392, 729 N.Y.S.2d 405, 754 N.E.2d 164 (N.Y.2001) (<HOLDING>). With respect to the third element, “probable Options: A. holding that a dismissal of a defendant who did not agree to settlement is not a favorable termination if dismissal of that defendant was a condition of settlement B. holding that in certain circumstances fraud can be prosecuted under the statute C. holding that a dismissal in the interest of justice can be a favorable termination under certain circumstances D. holding that a dismissal under heck is without prejudice to a claims reassertion following a favorable termination E. holding that a dismissal in the interest of justice was a favorable termination for the purposes of a malicious prosecution action where the courts reasons for dismissing the criminal charges were not inconsistent with the innocence of the accused

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a dismissal in the interest of justice can be a favorable termination under certain circumstances
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: other than as expressly authorized in the service , you shall not sell , redeem or otherwise transfer virtual items to any person or entity , including but not limited to company , another user , or any third party .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Buyer is not entering the transactions contemplated hereby with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud either present or future creditors. Immediately after giving effect to the transactions contemplated hereby, Buyer, Buyer’s Subsidiaries and the Company will be Solvent and will have adequate capital to carry on their respective businesses in the ordinary course.

assistant: Solvency
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: court denied Blum’s petition for writ of mandamus and found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider his request for injunctive relief. This appeal followed. Analysis Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss the Appeal Appellees contend this Court should dismiss this appeal because Blum’s petition for injunctive relief is now moot. The mootness doctrine limits courts to deciding cases in which an actual controversy exists. FDIC v. Nueces County, 886 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Tex.1994). Appellees argue that because “ballots have already been printed and mailed, early voting by mail ballot is underway, and early voting by personal appearance has already begun,” Blum’s request for injunctive relief is moot. See Shaw v. Miller, 394 S.W.2d 701, 703 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston 1965, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>); see also Davis v. Oaks, 507 S.W.2d 328 (Tex. Options: A. holding that dismissal is proper for a derivative cause of action but not for a direct cause of action B. recognizing the cause of action C. holding that under the rule against splitting a cause of action a new claim for damages is not barred if the underlying cause of action had not accrued at the time of filing the previous lawsuit D. holding a cause of action is moot if it cannot be disposed of prior to the time for printing of ballots and the commencement of absentee voting E. recognizing cause of action

assistant: The best answer is D. holding a cause of action is moot if it cannot be disposed of prior to the time for printing of ballots and the commencement of absentee voting
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: to the extent permitted by applicable law , you also acknowledge and agree that these warranty disclaimers , releases , and limitations of liability reflect a reasonable and fair allocation of risk between you and us and that these warranty disclaimers , releases , and limitations of liability form an essential basis of the bargain between you and us .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: video tapes for use in the case.” Morrison v. Reichhold Chems., Inc., 97 F.3d 460, 465 (11th Cir.1996). State Farm argues that videotaping Lee’s deposition was necessary because he was very uncooperative in communicating with State Farm, he failed to appear for one scheduled deposition, and he appeared late for another scheduled deposition. For these reasons, State Farm argues that it had strong reason to suspect that Lee might fail to appear at trial, in which event playing his videotaped deposition would have been preferable to merely reading his deposition transcript. The Court finds this explanation sufficient and concludes that State Farm has adequately explained its need to videotape Lee’s deposition. See Baisden v. I’m Ready Prods., Inc., 793 F.Supp.2d 970, 977 (S.D.Tex.2011) (<HOLDING>). The only remaining issue is whether State Options: A. holding that party could recover for videotaped depositions of witnesses whose live attendance at trial was uncertain or whose credibility was sharply disputed B. holding trial court is sole and exclusive judge of witnesses credibility C. holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial D. holding trial court free to evaluate credibility of witnesses E. holding that plaintiff whose truck was demolished in an accident could not recover lost profits unless he could show that he could not obtain a suitable substitute vehicle

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that party could recover for videotaped depositions of witnesses whose live attendance at trial was uncertain or whose credibility was sharply disputed
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 Lenders agree to indemnify Administrative Agent in its capacity as such (to the extent not reimbursed by the Loan Parties and without limiting the obligation of the Loan Parties to do so), ratably according to their respective Term Loan Exposure in effect on the date on which indemnification is sought under this Section 8.09 (or, if indemnification is sought after the date upon which the Term Loan Commitments shall have terminated and the Loans shall have been paid in full, ratably in accordance with such Term Loan Exposure immediately prior to such date), from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, actions, judgments, suits, costs, expenses or disbursements of any kind whatsoever that may at any time (whether before or after the payment of the Loans) be imposed on, incurred by or asserted against Administrative Agent in any way relating to or arising out of, the Term Loan Commitments, this Agreement, any of the other Loan Documents or any documents contemplated by or referred to herein or therein or the transactions contemplated hereby or thereby or any action taken or omitted by Administrative Agent under or in connection with any of the foregoing; provided, that no Lender shall be liable for the payment of any portion of such liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, actions, judgments, suits, costs, expenses or disbursements that are found by a final and non-appealable decision of a court of competent jurisdiction to have resulted from Administrative Agent’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. The agreements in this Section 8.09 shall survive the payment of the Loans and all other amounts payable hereunder.

assistant: Indemnifications
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: outlining the offenses, not the later date of indictment. Id. The appeals court disagreed, holding that denial of parole due to pending charges is not equivalent to arrest on the charges. Id. at 1043. Therefore, the defendant’s continued incarceration was for his prior conviction, rather than pretrial detention for the uncharged offense, and so the speedy trial clock began to run from the date of indictment. Id.; see also People v. Roscoe, 162 Mich.App. 710, 413 N.W.2d 483 (1987); State v. Johnson, 92 Wash.2d 598, 599 P.2d 529 (1979). Likewise, the Alaska Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that the speedy trial clock begins to run when a defendant is indicted, rather than when arrested on other offenses or for probation violations. Harmon v. State, 908 P.2d 434 (Alaska Ct.App.1995) (<HOLDING>); Demientieff v. State, 814 P.2d 745 (Alaska Options: A. holding that although plaintiff was liable for medical services rendered he was not bound by the amount of the charges listed in the admission contract as he was entitled to question the reasonableness of the charges B. holding that the speedy trial clock for state charges did not begin to run when the defendant was taken into custody by federal authorities on federal charges but rather when he was indicted for the state charges C. holding attorneys must be given reasonable notice of the charges they face before the referees hearing on those charges D. holding that 1983 claims accrued when all charges were dismissed rather than a previous date on which the conviction was vacated on the theory that the charges remained pending until the dismissal E. holding that an exception to the charges having to do with contributory negligence charges two three and four was insufficient to preserve issue for appeal

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the speedy trial clock for state charges did not begin to run when the defendant was taken into custody by federal authorities on federal charges but rather when he was indicted for the state charges
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 authorized capital stock of the Company and the shares thereof issued and outstanding were as set forth in the Commission Documents as of the dates reflected therein. All of the outstanding shares of Common Stock have been duly authorized and validly issued, and are fully paid and nonassessable. Except as set forth in the Commission Documents, this Agreement and the Registration Rights Agreement, there are no agreements or arrangements under which the Company is obligated to register the sale of any securities under the Securities Act. Except as set forth in the Commission Documents, no shares of Common Stock are entitled to preemptive rights and there are no outstanding debt securities and no contracts, commitments, understandings, or arrangements by which the Company is or may become bound to issue additional shares of the capital stock of the Company or options, warrants, scrip, rights to subscribe to, calls or commitments of any character whatsoever relating to, or securities or rights convertible into or exchangeable for, any shares of capital stock of the Company other than those issued or granted in the ordinary course of business pursuant to the Company’s equity incentive and/or compensatory plans or arrangements. Except for customary transfer restrictions contained in agreements entered into by the Company to sell restricted securities or as set forth in the Commission Documents, the Company is not a party to, and it has no Knowledge of, any agreement restricting the voting or transfer of any shares of the capital stock of the Company. Except as set forth in the Commission Documents, the offer and sale of all capital stock, convertible or exchangeable securities, rights, warrants or options of the Company issued prior to the Closing Date complied with all applicable federal and state securities laws, and no stockholder has any right of rescission or damages or any “put” or similar right with respect thereto that would have a Material Adverse Effect. Except as set forth in the Commission Documents, there are no securities or instruments containing anti-dilution or similar provisions that will be triggered by this Agreement or any of the other Transaction Documents or the consummation of the transactions described herein or therein. The Company has furnished or made available to the Investor via EDGAR true and correct copies of the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation, as amended by the Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation, as in effect on the Closing Date (as so amended, the “ Charter ”), and the Company’s Second Amended and Restated Bylaws as in effect on the Closing Date (the “ Bylaws ”).

assistant: Capitalization
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: scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. Fed, R. Evid. -701. Rule- 701 thus authorizes “a lay witness to testify in the form of opinions or inferences drawn from her observations when testimony in that form will be helpful to the trier of fact.” Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 169, 109 S.Ct. 439, 102 L.Ed.2d 445 (1988); see also Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (“Unlike an ordinary witness, see Rule 701, an expert is permitted wide latitude to offer opinions, including those that are not based on firsthand knowledge or observation. See Rules 702 and 703.”). Further, it is established that testimony by a witness relating the value of his own land or property may be admissible as a lay opinion. See Neff, 708 F.2d at 643-44 (<HOLDING>); Arkansas Natural Gas Co. v. Sartor, 78 F.2d Options: A. recognizing that the expert was particularly qualified to give his opinion B. holding that even though the plaintiff was not tendered as an expert he should have been permitted to give his lay opinion as to the value of his coin collection which was based upon coin collector publications upon appraisals he received from various collectors and upon his own experience as owner of the collection C. holding that plaintiffs allegations that he was improperly paid for appearances at arbitration proceedings that he received highly negative performance evaluations that he was harassed by being required to perform tasks outside his job description that he received shorter notice of his termination than other employees and that he was terminated in retaliation for his eeoc complaint each state a claim upon which relief can be granted under 1981 D. holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live E. holding that lay testimony as to the presence of asbestos in the workplace which was based upon personal knowledge of employees was properly admitted

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that even though the plaintiff was not tendered as an expert he should have been permitted to give his lay opinion as to the value of his coin collection which was based upon coin collector publications upon appraisals he received from various collectors and upon his own experience as owner of the collection
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: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) would follow the few state courts which have held that a hospital can be deemed a seller or distributor of medical devices for the purposes of a product liability claim. Resolving all ambiguities in the law in favor of the Plaintiffs, the Court infers that the Massachusetts state courts would do so. The Defendants bear a heavy burden of proving fraudulent joinder and they have cited no Massachusetts case law in their favor. See Simons, 2007 WL 1306558, at *3. In other similar cases, courts have refused to find fraudulent joinder. See Badon, 236 F.3d at 286-87; In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1789, 2008 WL 2940560, at *6-8 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2008); Snyder v. Davol, Inc., No. CV 07-1081-ST, 2008 WL 113902, at *1 (D.Or. Jan. 7, 2008) (<HOLDING>). Even where a court is inclined to infer that Options: A. holding that the hospital was fraudulently joined because hospitals are not sellers of medical devices and therefore there was no basis in illinois law to support the plaintiffs claims for strict liability and breach of implied warranty against the hospital B. holding that a hospital had not been fraudulently joined because there was no definitive ruling from any oregon appellate court foreclosing a strict liability claim against a hospital C. holding that because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the expert report adequate as to the vicarious liability claim against the hospital based on the actions of the doctors plaintiffs suit against the hospital including her claim that the hospital was vicariously hable for the actions of its nurses could proceed D. holding that the hospital was fraudulently joined because it did not meet the definition of seller as defined by mississippis product liability statute or under the uniform commercial code E. holding that claim against hospital regarding patients fall caused by defective footboard on hospital bed constituted health care liability claim

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a hospital had not been fraudulently joined because there was no definitive ruling from any oregon appellate court foreclosing a strict liability claim against a hospital
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: Rule 1.10(b), as Rule 1.10(b) explicitly incorporates Rule 1.6. As noted above, Rule 10(b) deals with the imputation of the conflict of one lawyer of a firm to the rest of the firm. Rule 1.10(b) explicitly states that “[w]hen a lawyer becomes associated with a firm, the firm may not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that lawyer, or a firm with which the lawyer was associated, had previously represented a client whose interests are materially adverse to that person and about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(b) that is material to the matter.” As is apparent from the text of Rule 1.10(b), it does not explicitly refer to a paralegal, and how the conflict of a paralega 41, 14[5], 876 P.2d 1176 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Koulisis v. Rivers, 730 So.2d 289, 291 Options: A. holding that correspondence between counsel cannot suffice as a rule 34 request that may be compelled through rule 37 B. holding that employers intent may be inferred through circumstantial evidence C. holding that uncharged conduct may be considered at sentencing when that conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence D. holding that individual rights under the flsa may not be waived through agreement E. holding that ethical rule er 110b may be extended to the conduct of nonlawyers through er 53

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that ethical rule er 110b may be extended to the conduct of nonlawyers through er 53
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 may be required to pay to the Company or any Affiliate and the Company shall have the right and is hereby authorized to withhold, any applicable withholding taxes in respect of the Performance RSUs, their grant, vesting or otherwise and to take such other action as may be necessary in the opinion of the Committee to satisfy all obligations for the payment of such withholding taxes.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: This option, however, is available to all candidates challenging ballot-access requirements, yet that has hardly stopped the Supreme Court from holding that political candidates have “ample standing” to bring such challenges. Storer, 415 U.S. at 738 n. 9, 94 S.Ct. 1274. Similarly, Nix could avoid the alleged electoral disadvantages of the partisan system only by running as a Democrat. But given Nix’s First Amendment right to freedom of association, that option cannot possibly provide a basis for depriving him of standing. See Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30, 89 S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968) (explaining that the First Amendment protects “the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs”); see also Storer, 415 U.S. at 738 n. 9, 745-46, 94 S.Ct. 1274 (<HOLDING>). As a second line of defense, the Attorney Options: A. holding that candidates had ample standing to challenge ballotaccess requirements B. holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract C. recognizing that standing is an essential component of our appellate jurisdiction and permitting party to appeal only after determining that they had met the requirements of article iii standing D. holding that candidates had standing to challenge requirements for appearing on the generalelection ballot as independents even though they could have chosen to run in a party primary E. holding that even though the government had not strictly complied with the statutory requirements the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief because they failed to challenge that noncompliance in a prompt fashion

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that candidates had standing to challenge requirements for appearing on the generalelection ballot as independents even though they could have chosen to run in a party primary
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 provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed severable, and if any part of any provision is held illegal, void or invalid under applicable law such provision may be changed to the extent reasonably necessary to make the provision, as so changed, legal, valid and binding. If any provision of this Agreement is held illegal, void or invalid in its entirety, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not in any way be affected or impaired but shall remain binding in accordance with their terms.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in federal court arguing that his sentencing enhancement was unconstitutionally imposed because he was found guilty of having obstructed justice by the sentencing judge rather than by a jury. The district court denied this petition, finding it was time-barred. Chee filed a motion with the district court seeking reconsideration or, in the alternative, to appeal the denial of his petition. The district court denied Chee’s motion for reconsideration, treating the motion instead as an appeal of its denial of his § 2255 petition. Because the district court did not issue Chee a COA or state why a certificate should not issue, we deem that Chee’s constructive request for a COA was denied. See United States v. Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187, 1193 n. 3 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Our granting of a COA is a jurisdictional Options: A. holding that the district court acted within its discretion when it denied plaintiffs request for counsel B. recognizing that while defendants may freely amend their notice of removal within thirty days of service they may not add new grounds for removal after the thirty day period has expired C. holding court lost jurisdiction to enter its order after thirty days and the motion was denied by operation of law D. holding that the laterserved defendants had thirty days from the date of service on them to file a notice of removal with the unanimous consent of their codefendants even though the firstserved codefendants did not file a notice of removal within thirty days of service E. holding that a coa is deemed denied if the district court does not address its issuance within thirty days

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a coa is deemed denied if the district court does not address its issuance within thirty days
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: James’s wife, Kellie James, about a statement from his former wife, Glenda Kyser: “Isn’t it true ma’am that Glenda Kyser told you, warned you when you got together with Mr. James that you better watch out for any kids that you have because of sexual abuse?” ROA, Vol. I at 26 (quoting transcript from second trial). Ms. James denied having that conversation with Ms. Kyser. Id. Mr. James argued in his petition that because “Ms. Kyser was not at trial for [him] to confront or cross-examine in open court,” the prosecutor’s question violated his Confrontation Clause rights. Id. The district court determined the prosecutor’s question was not testimonial and therefore did not implicate the Confrontation Clause. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) (<HOLDING>). The district court concluded appellate Options: A. holding that testimonial statements are subject to the requirements of the confrontation clause even if they are otherwise admissible under the hearsay exception for excited utterances B. holding of crawford applies only to testimonial hearsay C. holding that any confrontation right is found in the fourteenth amendments due process clause not the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment D. holding that the confrontation clause applies only to trials and not to sentencing hearings E. holding the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial statements

assistant: The best answer is E. holding the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial statements
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Duly observe, conform and comply in all material respects with all laws (including any fictitious or tradename statute), decisions, judgments, rules, regulations and orders of all governmental and regulatory authorities relating to the conduct of its business or its properties and assets, except (i) those being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings diligently pursued or (ii) where a failure to comply would not reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on its business and assets.

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 Agreement shall terminate upon the earlier of (i) the tenth anniversary of the date of this Agreement or (ii) the date as of which (A) all of the Registrable Securities have been sold pursuant to a Registration Statement (but in no event prior to the applicable period referred to in Section 4(a)(3) of the Securities Act and Rule 174 thereunder (or any successor rule promulgated thereafter by the Commission)) or (B) the Holders of all Registrable Securities are permitted to sell the Registrable Securities without registration pursuant to Rule 144 (or any similar provision) under the Securities Act with no volume or other restrictions or limitations. The provisions of Section 3.5 and Article IV shall survive any termination.

assistant: Terms
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: Ex parte Parker, 730 So.2d 168, 171 (Ala.1999). The Vanns also assert that, like the borrowers in Branch, they lacked bargaining power because they were sent to the defendant by the automobile dealer and because of their limited educations. The Vanns, however, presented no evidence indicating that they were unable to find an alternate lender or that the dealer required them to use First Community. Furthermore, the Vanns’ lack of education does not relieve them of their contractual obligations. “ ‘[A] person who signs an instrument without reading it, when he can read, can not, in the absence of fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, avoid the effect of his signature, because [he is] not informed of its contents....’” Mitchell Nissan, Inc. v. Foster, 775 So.2d 138, 140 (Ala.2000) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Beck & Pauli Lithographing Co. v. Options: A. holding that even though defendant stated he did not read and discuss psr with his counsel he could not show any error that affected his substantial rights B. holding that the plaintiff could not avoid his contractual obligation because he read at only a sixthgrade level C. holding plaintiff could not avoid release absent evidence he made reasonable effort to have document read to him D. holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment E. holding that the plaintiff filed suit within the statute of limitations even though he could not prove the time at which he mailed his petition

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the plaintiff could not avoid his contractual obligation because he read at only a sixthgrade level
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: with respect to content other than photos , graphics , audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the yahoo services other than yahoo groups , the perpetual , irrevocable and fully sublicensable license to use , distribute , reproduce , modify , adapt , publish , translate , publicly perform and publicly display such content ( in whole or in part ) and to incorporate such content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The headings of the Sections hereof are provided for convenience only and are not to serve as a basis for interpretation or construction, and shall not constitute a part, of this Agreement. Masculine pronouns and other words of masculine gender shall refer to both men and women as appropriate.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH PARTY HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES ALL RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY ACTION, PROCEEDING OR COUNTERCLAIM (WHETHER BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE) ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY OR THE ACTIONS OF ANY PARTY OR THE COMPANY IN THE NEGOTIATION, ADMINISTRATION, PERFORMANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OF THIS AGREEMENT.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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 First Lien Representative and each First Lien Collateral Agent, on behalf of itself and each other First Lien Claimholder represented by it, each Second Lien Representative and each Second Lien Collateral Agent, on behalf of itself and each other Second Lien Claimholder represented by it, and the Company and each other Grantor, agree that each of them shall take such further action and shall execute and deliver such additional documents and instruments (in recordable form, if requested) as any First Lien Representative and First Lien Collateral Agent or any Second Lien Representative and Second Lien Collateral Agent may reasonably request to effectuate the terms of and the Lien priorities contemplated by this Agreement.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if any provision of the tos is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid , the parties nevertheless agree that the court should endeavor to give effect to the parties ' intentions as reflected in the provision , and the other provisions of the tos remain in full force and effect .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: was admitted, and thus there is no error to correct.” This position is without support in the law. No court has ever held that review is forestalled if a witness does not answer a question posed or answers that question with a response favorable to the objecting party. Although the government cites two cases to support this proposition, United States v. Innamorati, 996 F.2d 456 (1st Cir.1993) and United States v. Zaccaria, 240 F.3d 75 (1st Cir.2001), these cases simply stand for the proposition that under such circumstances, the harmless error analysis is likely to weigh in favor of the appellee. See Innamorati, 996 F.2d at 485 (noting that because the challenged questions were not answered, the prejudicial effect of the questions was lessened); see also Zaccaria, 240 F.3d at 82-83 (<HOLDING>). Even when a question elicits no answer or an Options: A. holding that objection was timely even though objection was not made until after question was answered B. holding that even if the district court erred in sustaining the objection the error was harmless because the witness answered the question in the negative and the court did not strike his answer C. holding that prejudice from a question that violated doyle was cured by immediately sustaining objection before the question was answered D. holding that the district courts error in exercising jurisdiction was harmless error because the court properly applied the relevant state law to the undisputed material facts and came up with the right answer E. holding that even if the district court had erred by not allowing the plaintiff leave to file a reply brief any error was harmless because it did not prejudice the plaintiffs rights

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that even if the district court erred in sustaining the objection the error was harmless because the witness answered the question in the negative and the court did not strike his answer
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: (Black, J., concurring)). We are also troubled because, given that there was nothing about the officers’ appearance or conduct that revealed that they were engaged in the performance of their duties, Davis lacked fair notice that mere spoken words, which did not disturb the peace, could nonetheless constitute the crime of obstructing the officer’s performance of duty. See Cantwell, 310 U.S. at 311, 60 S.Ct. at 906. “It is an elemental requirement of our constitutional jurisprudence that laws be reasonably intelligible, providing citizens with fair notice as to what conduct is legal and what conduct is illegal.” Rodney A. Smolla, Smolla and Nimmer on Freedom of Speech § 6:13 (1996) (citing Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162, 92 S.Ct. 839, 843, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972) (<HOLDING>)). We reiterate that we recognize the need to Options: A. holding where plan language can be interpreted both to grant discretion and not to grant discretion plan does not unambiguously grant discretion B. recognizing the medicare statutes broad delegation of authority C. holding unconstitutional vagrancy statutes that were purposely designed to grant police broad discretion D. holding unconstitutional ordinance that gave executive director excessive discretion in deciding whether the grant of a permit would be detrimental to the public E. holding that district courts discretion is extremely broad

assistant: The best answer is C. holding unconstitutional vagrancy statutes that were purposely designed to grant police broad discretion
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: In case at any time after the closing any further action is necessary or desirable to carry out the purposes of this Agreement, each of the Parties will take such further action (including the execution and delivery of such further instruments and documents) as the other Party may request, all at the sole cost and expense of the requesting Party (unless the requesting Party is entitled to indemnification therefore under Section 5).

assistant: General