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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No waiver by any Party of any of the provisions hereof shall be effective unless explicitly set forth in writing and signed by the Party so waiving. No waiver by any Party shall operate or be construed as a waiver in respect of any failure, breach, or default not expressly identified by such written waiver, whether of a similar or different character, and whether occurring before or after that waiver. No failure to exercise, or delay in exercising, any right, remedy, power, or privilege arising from this Agreement shall operate or be construed as a waiver thereof; nor shall any single or partial exercise of any right, remedy, power, or privilege hereunder preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, remedy, power, or privilege.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall terminate without further action at any time before the Closing upon termination of the Business Combination Agreement. If terminated, no Party shall have any Liability of any kind to the other Party or any other Person on account of this Agreement.

assistant: Terminations
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 constitutes the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement, and supersedes all other prior negotiations, agreements and understandings, whether written or oral, among the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement; provided , however , that any confidentiality agreement executed by any party hereto shall survive this Agreement and shall continue in full force and effect irrespective of the terms hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: holding that the migration of residual contamination from prior discharges is not an ongoing violation. See Connecticut Coastal Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Remington Arms Co., 989 F.2d 1305, 1312-13 (2d Cir.1993) (“The present violation requirement of the Act would be completely undermined if a violation included the mere decomposition of pollutants.”); Pawtuxet Cove Marina v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 807 F.2d 1089, 1094 (1st Cir.1986) (dismissing citizen suit because the alleged polluter had ceased operations by the time of the suit); Hamker v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 756 F.2d 392, 397 (5th Cir.1985) (dismissing complaint because it “alleges only a single past discharge with continuing effects, not a continuing discharge”); Aiello v. Town of Brookhaven, 136 F.Supp.2d 81, 120 (E.D.N.Y.2001) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. Amoco Corp., 33 F.Supp.2d 969, Options: A. holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state B. holding that the cwa authorizes citizen suits for the enforcement of all conditions of npdes permits including those imposed by georgia law C. holding cwa does not allow citizen suit against a past polluter for the ongoing migrating leachate plume D. holding that statute authorizing citizen suits against those alleged to be in violation of the clean water act cwa conferred no jurisdiction over cases based on wholly past violations E. holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear the suit under the citizen suit provision of the caa

assistant: The best answer is C. holding cwa does not allow citizen suit against a past polluter for the ongoing migrating leachate plume
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the jury that the stock was worthless both at the time of the sale and at the time of the tender, or, in other words, that the sale was without consideration.”). See generally 17 Williston on Contracts §51:18 (4th ed.) (discussing the defense of failure of consideration for the sale of securities and noting that, “[i]f the parties are dealing at arm’s length... and neither buyer nor seller is guilty of fraud, the defense of failure of consideration will not, by the weight of authority, prevail, unless the stock or other security had neither a market value, nor an intrinsic value both on the day of the contract and on the day of tender”). 10 Coast Scopitone, 127 Ga. App. at 126 (1); see also Jones v. Dixie O’Brien Div., O’Brien Corp., 174 Ga. App. 67, 68 (1) (329 SE2d 256) (1985) (<HOLDING>); Fagala v. Morrison, 146 Ga. App. 377, 377 (1) Options: A. holding testimony that inter alia paint at issue was defective and of no value whatsoever was sufficient evidence that the consideration had totally failed punctuation omitted B. holding that there was no evidence of market value where owners testimony affirmatively showed that it was based on personal value C. holding inter alia that common law claims were preempted D. holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence that other persons had a motive to kill the victims because inter alia such evidence was speculative E. holding inter alia that expert testimony was not required to prove damages for emotional distress in an abuse of process claim

assistant: The best answer is A. holding testimony that inter alia paint at issue was defective and of no value whatsoever was sufficient evidence that the consideration had totally failed punctuation omitted
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of a writ. See Allied Chemical Corp., 449 U.S. at 35, 101 S.Ct. 188; Gall, 865 F.2d at 788-89. First, this Court did not clearly err as a matter of law in ordering the disbursal of funds for DNA testing and ordering that Petitioners retain the forensic evidence to provide Cherrix the opportunity to access the evidence. See infra section V.B. As has been demonstrated in detail, this Court possesses the authority to order the disbursal of funds for Cherrix’s requested DNA testing under 21 U.S.C. § 848(q), and the authority to provide for Cherrix’s access to the existing physical evidence under ,the rules and law governing discov ery. Where, as here, a court acts well within its discretion in ordering discovery, there is no clear error as a matter of law. See McDaniel, 127 F.3d at 888 (<HOLDING>). In a case similar to this one, where the Options: A. holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law B. holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law C. holding that the district court did not err as a matter of law in issuing a discovery order because a death row habeas petitioner had shown good cause for seeking discovery D. holding that the time of discovery of fraud is not a proper matter for summary judgment E. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion to extend discovery where no effort was made to explain why the requested discovery could not have taken place within the original discovery period

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the district court did not err as a matter of law in issuing a discovery order because a death row habeas petitioner had shown good cause for seeking discovery
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: see also Shepard, 544 U.S. at 26, 125 S.Ct. 1254 (explaining that among other things, a court may look to a “transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual basis for the plea was confirmed by the defendant”). Nonetheless, Lewis’s statements at sentencing do not establish to a legal certainty under which portion of the Louisiana manslaughter statute Lewis was convicted. These statements do not describe how the offense was committed. Nor do they indicate that the offense was committed intentionally. Accordingly, we agree with Lewis that the statements he made at sentencing are compatible with the scenario that Lewis committed manslaughter during the criminally negligent discharge of a firearm. See State of Louisiana v. Brown, 513 So.2d 425, 428 (La.Ct.App.1987) (<HOLDING>). Because we cannot identify with legal Options: A. holding that illegal use of a weapon is one of the predicate offenses for manslaughter where there is no intent to cause death or great bodily harm B. holding offense of carjacking while armed with a deadly weapon may be committed by holding the open blade of a pocket knife to the victims throat whether an object is a deadly weapon ie whether it is likely to produce death or great bodily harm is a factual question to be answered by the jury in each case C. holding where there was no testimony that the victim required medical treatment for her burns or that she had any lasting ill effects or scars there was insufficient testimony as a matter of law to support a charge of aggravated battery for causing great bodily harm D. holding it error to give selfdefense instruction requiring that defendant believe his actions were necessary to avert death or great bodily harm when defendant claimed that the victims death was accidental E. holding section 107a17bs plain language does not require that the actor actually intend death or serious bodily injury an object is a deadly weapon if the actor intends a use of the object in which it would be capable of causing death or serious bodily injury

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that illegal use of a weapon is one of the predicate offenses for manslaughter where there is no intent to cause death or great bodily harm
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: Due to the nature of Executive’s position with the Company, and with full realization that a violation of Section 9 may cause immediate and irreparable injury and damage, which is not readily measurable, and to protect the parties’ interests, the parties understand and agree that either party may seek injunctive relief to enforce this Agreement in a court of competent jurisdiction to cease or prevent any actual or threatened violation of this Agreement. In any action brought pursuant to this Section 9(h) , the prevailing party will be entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs.

assistant: Forfeitures
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 eehive before the administrative law judge was permissible and did not violate due process. ¶ 36 Having determined that no notice violations occurred during the Commission proceedings below, we next examine Beehive’s contention that the Commission violated separation of powers principles. 2. Separation of Powers ¶ 37 Beehive appears to argue that the Commission’s general ability as an administrative agency to exercise executive, legislative, and judicial powers at various stages of these proceedings violates separation of powers and due process principles. We do not address this argument in any great detail because such a combination of functions has long been upheld as consistent with due process. See Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 58, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975) (<HOLDING>); see also Thomas J. Peck & Sons, Inc. v. Pub. Options: A. holding that deference to an agency interpretation is not appropriate where a statute is administered by more than one agency B. recognizing the combination of functions within an agency such as prosecutorial and adjudicative without more does not violate due process by virtue of being exercised by the same agency C. holding that doctrine does not violate due process D. holding that administrative agency may adjudicate appeals by panels composed of other persons within the same agency who did not participate in investigative or prosecutorial capacities E. holding that the combination of investigatory and adjudicatory functions in one judicial disciplinary agency does not violate due process

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing the combination of functions within an agency such as prosecutorial and adjudicative without more does not violate due process by virtue of being exercised by the same agency
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 Parent Guarantor, the Borrower and each Material Subsidiary of the Borrower that is a Restricted Subsidiary (a) is a duly organized and validly existing corporation or other entity in good standing (as applicable) under the laws of the jurisdiction of its organization and has the corporate or other organizational power and authority to own its material property and assets and to transact the business in which it is engaged, (b) has duly qualified and is authorized to do business and is in good standing (if applicable) in all jurisdictions where it is required to be so qualified, except where the failure to be so qualified could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect and (c) is in compliance with all Applicable Laws, except to the extent that the failure to be in compliance could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: withheld, “excepted out,” and not given the Legislature any power to enact retroactive laws. See Tex. Const, art. I, §§ 16, 29. Contrary to the dissent’s suggestion that section 29 is without meaning, Texas courts have attributed significance to this provision when addressed. See Republican Party, 940 S.W.2d at 89-90 (stating that article I, section 29 of the Texas Constitution expressly limits the power of Texas government by excepting everything in the Bill of Rights out of the general powers of government); City of Beaumont, 896 S.W.2d at 148-49 (stating that the guarantees found in the Bill of Rights are excepted from the general powers of government and that the state has no power to act in a manner contrary to the Bill of Rights); Travelers’ Ins. Co., 76 S.W.2d at 1010-11 (<HOLDING>). By its language in Mellinger, the supreme Options: A. holding that jurisdiction existed over nonresident printing customer despite the fact that texas printer solicited the business in alabama and nonresident sent no personnel to texas because nonresident placed additional orders from which it expected to profit sent payments to texas sent and received printing materials to and from texas paid for shipping of printed goods from texas and sent payments to texas the transactions were governed by texas law and substantial part of performance occurred in texas B. holding that texas legislature has no police power to violate article i section 16 of the texas constitution because section 29 emphatically and unambiguously excepts this power from the powers of the government of the state of texas C. holding that jurisdiction existed over two georgia residents who leased a machine from a texas resident because they 1 solicited and negotiated the lease agreement by two telephone calls to texas 2 sent correspondence and payments by mail to texas 3 paid for the transfer of the machine from texas and 4 caused their insurance agent to contact the texas resident in texas to arrange coverage for the machine D. holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law not arizona law should be applied E. recognizing this texas rule

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that texas legislature has no police power to violate article i section 16 of the texas constitution because section 29 emphatically and unambiguously excepts this power from the powers of the government of the state of texas
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, the Pari Passu Intercreditor Agreement and the other First Lien Documents represent the entire agreement of the Grantors, the Collateral Agent and the Secured Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and thereof, and there are no promises, undertakings, representations or warranties by the Collateral Agent or any Secured Party relative to subject matter hereof and thereof not expressly set forth or referred to herein, in the Pari Passu Intercreditor Agreement or in the other First Lien Documents.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE A CONTRACT MADE UNDER AND GOVERNED BY THE INTERNAL LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (INCLUDING FOR SUCH PURPOSE SECTIONS 5-1401 AND 5-1402 OF THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK) EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE VALIDITY OR PERFECTION OF A SECURITY INTEREST OR REMEDIES HEREUNDER, IN RESPECT OF ANY PARTICULAR COLLATERAL ARE GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF A JURISDICTION OTHER THAN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding or agreement between the Company and the Employee relating to the subject matter hereof and there is no understanding or agreement, oral or written, which is not set forth herein. This Agreement supersedes and replaces any prior employment agreement or understanding, oral or written, between the Company and the Employee including, without limitation, that certain employment agreement between the Company and the Employee dated July 25, 2014. This Agreement may only be amended by a writing signed by the Company and the Employee.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: not a first degree murder case. PCRA Court Order, dated May 24, 2014, at 4. Regardless of whether the PCRA court conflated trial counsel’s opening and closing remarks in its discussion of this claim, we find no error in the court’s ultimate conclusion that Appellant is not entitled to relief. We agree with the Commonwealth that the ineffectiveness claim fails for lack of arguable merit because the challenged closing remarks of trial counsel did not concede that Appellant committed first degree murder. Rather, when read in their entirety, the remarks supported the defense theory that Appellant committed the offense of criminal homicide, but was not culpable of first degree murder because he lacked the specific intent to kill. See Commonwealth v. Reid, - Pa. -, 99 A.3d 470, 507 (2014) (<HOLDING>). Trial counsel’s statement, in context, is as Options: A. recognizing that trial courts have discretion in regulating comments to be made in closing arguments B. holding that when determining the adequacy of a jury charge an appellate court should look to the record and the closing arguments to place the words of the judge in context C. recognizing that a lawyers comments during closing argument may explain away the alleged prejudicial effect of the opposing parties closing argument comments D. holding that because closing arguments do not constitute evidence a prosecutors statement did not implicate the confrontation clause E. holding that to obtain the proper context of a challenged statement made during closing arguments the court must recount in its entirety the portion of the closing argument wherein those statements appear

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that to obtain the proper context of a challenged statement made during closing arguments the court must recount in its entirety the portion of the closing argument wherein those statements appear
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: Schedule 3.14 sets forth a description of all insurance maintained by or on behalf of the Loan Parties as of the Third Restatement Date. As of the Third Restatement Date, all premiums in respect of such insurance have been paid. The Borrowers believe that the insurance maintained by or on behalf of the Loan Parties is adequate.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: only if the circumstances alleged to be in aggravation ... are found to be true by the trial judge ... and factual findings and reasons in support of such findings are set forth on the record at the time of sentencing.”). In effect, the State suggests that even though the fact-finder did not validly find any aggravating factor that exposed a defendant to an aggravated sentence, a sentence should be upheld if an appellate court could find in the record some aggravating factor that could expose the defendant to a greater sentence and thus allow the sentencing judge to consider other facts not found by the jury in imposing a sentence within the higher range. ¶ 18 The State misapprehends the role of a reviewing court in non-capital criminal sentencing. When a trial court im (3d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). The State also assumes that an unenumerated Options: A. holding that juvenile adjudications are prior convictions for purposes of the apprendi exception and indicating that the main concern in apprendi was whether the prior convictions procedural safeguards ensured a reliable result not that there had to be a right to a jury trial B. holding that a juvenile adjudication may be used as a prior conviction for apprendi purposes C. holding that the prior conviction exception should not extend to nonjury juvenile adjudications D. holding that a juvenile adjudication should not be counted as a prior conviction for apprendi purposes E. holding that a nonjury juvenile adjudication that afforded all constitutionallyrequired procedural safeguards can properly be characterized as a prior conviction for apprendi purposes

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a nonjury juvenile adjudication that afforded all constitutionallyrequired procedural safeguards can properly be characterized as a prior conviction for apprendi purposes
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 binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns permitted hereby, except that the Borrower may not assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the Administrative Agent and each Lender and no Lender may assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights or obligations hereunder except (i) to an assignee in accordance with the provisions of Section 11.8.2 [Assignments by Lenders], (ii) by way of participation in accordance with the provisions of Section 11.8.4 [Participations], or (iii) by way of pledge or assignment of a security interest subject to the restrictions of Section 11.8.5 [Certain Pledges; Successors and Assigns Generally] (and any other attempted assignment or transfer by any party hereto shall be null and void). Nothing in this Agreement, expressed or implied, shall be construed to confer upon any Person (other than the parties hereto, their respective successors and assigns permitted hereby, Participants to the extent provided in Section 11.8.4 [Participations] and, to the extent expressly contemplated hereby, the Related Parties of each of the Administrative Agent and the Lenders) any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Agreement.

assistant: Successors
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 shall indemnify you to the fullest extent allowed under applicable law. In connection therewith, the Company and you shall enter into an indemnification agreement, in substantially the form attached hereto as Appendix A , on the execution date of this Agreement.

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: employment. However, this limitation/reduction does not apply to any liability incurred by you or a relative.”). Accordingly, the Court finds the exclusion of employer-owned cars in the definition of non-owned cars to be plain and clear. Accordingly, the contract excludes coverage for the tow truck that was driven by Marentes through language that is conspicuous, plain, and clear. The Court next considers whether, at any time, a potential for coverage existed under the State Farm Policy. 4. Potential for Coverage As described above, an insurer still has a duty to defend if, despite an eventual finding that an insurance policy does not provide coverage, the insurer is in possession of facts showing a potential for coverage. Montrose I, 6 Cal.4th at 296, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467, 861 P.2d 1153 (<HOLDING>); Buss, 16 Cal.4th at 47-48, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d Options: A. holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify B. holding that where claims are cast wholly within policy exclusion there is no duty to defend C. holding that duty to defend ends when it is apparent there is no potential for coverage D. holding the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend E. holding that an insurer can normally dispute coverage even after a court determines there is a duty to defend

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that duty to defend ends when it is apparent there is no potential for coverage
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: disabilities. Sanders Brine Shrimp v. Audit Div., 846 P.2d 1304, 1306 (Utah 1993). Thus, where the statute allows an exemption for a sale to the state, a rule enacted pursuant to statute cannot confer a broader exemption. See Utah Concrete Prods. Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n, 101 Utah 513, 125 P.2d 408 (1942). The correct interpretation of rule 42S acknowledges that the first sentence requires a sale to the state or its political subdivisions. Accordingly, RME’s transaction does not qualify under the exemption. RME’s sale of slag was clearly to L.A. Young. It did not negotiate with UDOT nor was it a party to the contract between L.A. Young and UDOT. Thus, because RME did not make a sale to the state, the sale of slag to L.A. Young is a taxable transaction. See id. at 519,125 P.2d at 411 (<HOLDING>). PENALTY In addition to the delinquent tax, Options: A. holding that conditional sales of patented devices are not per se illegal but remanding to the district court to determine if the sales at issue were actually conditional B. holding that sales made to contractor who builds roads for the state are not sales to the state and therefore are not exempt C. holding that the fact that defendants sales in forum were less than 5 percent of its total sales volume was irrelevant so long as its sales were part of a regular course of dealing and were not isolated or exceptional events D. holding opinion testimony of sales should have been excluded because opinion not based on comparable sales E. holding that exercising general jurisdiction over defendant was improper where its actual sales in florida were a small percentage of the total sales and therefore these sales were de minimis

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that sales made to contractor who builds roads for the state are not sales to the state and therefore are not exempt
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 that where the record is sufficient to allow appellate review of a claim, the failure to raise that claim on appeal precludes subsequent collateral review of the claim, applies to bar collateral review where the facts underlying an ineffective assistance claim appear on the record. See, e.g., People v. Cooks, 67 N.Y.2d 100, 103-04, 500 N.Y.S.2d 503, 491 N.E.2d 676 (N.Y.1986); People v. Jossiah, 2 A.D.3d 877, 877, 769 N.Y.S.2d 743 (App.Div.2d Dept.2003); People v. Skinner, 154 A.D.2d 216, 221, 552 N.Y.S.2d 932 (App.Div. 1st Dept.1990). Federal courts in turn have denied habe-as review on the basis of similar state court rulings that ineffective assistance claims were procedurally barred by C.P.L. § 440.10(2)(c). See, e.g., Reyes v. Keane, 118 F.3d 136, 139 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Witt v. Walker, No. 92 CIV.2085(MBM), 1993 WL Options: A. holding that right to appeal claim of ineffective assistance of counsel alleging that counsel failed to convey plea negotiations timely and adequately inform of consequences of pleading guilty to jury for sentencing waived because plea of guilty to jury was independent of and not supported by alleged ineffective assistance of counsel claims B. holding that the failure of defense counsel to object to erroneous punishment charge authorizing an illegal sentence is ineffective assistance of counsel C. holding where defendant challenged jury instruction and also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel based upon his counsels failure to object to instruction because we find no error in the instructions defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel must also be rejected D. holding that cpl 440102c was adequate and independent state ground to deny ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on failure to object to jury charge E. holding that failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that cpl 440102c was adequate and independent state ground to deny ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on failure to object to jury charge
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: upholding Nevada statute requiring individual to provide name in the course of a valid Terry stop based upon specific objective facts establishing reasonable suspicion). After the Court’s ruling, section 38.02(a)-(b) was amended, effective September 1987, to read as follows: (a) A person commits [the] offense [of failure to identify] if he intentionally refuses to report or give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information. (b) A person commits an offense , at 388-89 & n. 158 (stating, “it is to be doubted whether there is any valid reason for automatic warrant checks on mere passengers”). 59 . Kothe, 152 S.W.3d at 64; see Tucker v. State, 183 S.W.3d 501, 509 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Petty v. State, 696 S.W.2d 635, 638 Options: A. holding police officers making a traffic stop could order passengers out of the stopped car B. holding that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to exit the car pending completion of the stop C. holding that passengers of a vehicle which they did not own had standing to challenge the validity of a traffic stop D. holding officers had reasonable suspicion to identify passengers and check for outstanding warrants after traffic stop when the officers previously had been notified that car contained named felony parole violator E. holding that an officers reasonable mistake of law can give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a traffic stop under the fourth amendment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding officers had reasonable suspicion to identify passengers and check for outstanding warrants after traffic stop when the officers previously had been notified that car contained named felony parole violator
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 Disciplinary Enforcement Rules for its contrary decision because, in its view, enforcement of the Disciplinary Enforcement Rules falls within the exclusive authority of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the Disciplinary Board. Id. at 321, citing Pa.R.D,E. 201(a) (exclusive disciplinary jurisdiction of Supreme Court and Disciplinary Board under these rules extends to attorney admitted to practice law in Commonwealth and formerly admitted attorney). The court acknowledged this Court previously held a suspended attorney in contempt for violation of Disciplinary Enforcement Rule 217(j) for representing claimants in unemployment proceedings. Powell, 128 A.3d at 321, citing In the Matter of David Louis Bargeron, No. 1073 DD3, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 1695, at *1 (Pa. July 27, 2011) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). The Commonwealth Court nevertheless concluded Options: A. holding that an order imposing sanctions against an attorney for one of the parties in a pending case is final and therefore immediately appealable by the attorney B. holding suspended attorney in contempt of rule 217j and ordering attorney to immediately cease and desist from all activities in connection with representation of claimants and employers in unemployment compensation proceedings and comply with all provisions of rule 217 C. holding that a suspended attorney should not be permitted to have contact with clients D. holding that in a case where a suspended attorney commingled funds between his attorney trust account and attorney business account and the funds could not be traced claimants state of new jersey and clients security fund reached an amicable agreement to divide the funds equally E. holding that the trial judge must comply with rule 3172c8 and advise all defendants in all cases that the plea may subject him or her to deportation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding suspended attorney in contempt of rule 217j and ordering attorney to immediately cease and desist from all activities in connection with representation of claimants and employers in unemployment compensation proceedings and comply with all provisions of rule 217
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 Restricted Share Units earned by you in accordance with Section 3 below shall vest on January 1, «Year_Following_End_of_Performance_Period» (the “Scheduled Vesting Date”) if your employment continues uninterrupted through such date.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of its business, and the act of every partner, including the execution in the partnership name of any instrument, for apparently carrying on in the usual way the business of the partnership of which he is a member binds the partnership, unless the partner so acting has in fact no authority to act for the partnership in the particular matter, and the person with whom he is dealing has knowledge of the fact that he has no such authority. N.J.S.A. 42:1-9(1) (emphasis added); see also 42:1A-13 N.J.S.A. New Jersey courts interpreting this provision have held that the acts of a partner bind the partnership only when those acts are for the purpose carrying on the ordinary business of the partnership. See, e.g., Citizens First Nat. Bank v. Bluh, 281 N.J.Super. 86, 656 A.2d 853, 858 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Bramblewood v. C and G Assoc., 262 N.J.Super. Options: A. holding that a partnership agreement that contained prohibitions against the sale or assignment of a partners interest in the partnership without the others consent would be enforced B. holding that absent an agreement to the contrary any partner can act as an agent of the partnership when apparently carrying on in the usual way the business of the partnership C. holding that a partner who is without actual authority has no power to bind the partnership in a transaction that is not within the ordinary and apparent scope of the partnership business any person dealing with a partner can only rely on the partners acts if they are within the ordinary and apparent scope of the partnership business D. holding a mechanic working in a garage owned by a partnership is an employee of the partnership not the individual partner E. holding one partner can not sic maintain an action at law against another partner to recover an amount claimed by him by reason of partnership transactions until there has been a final settlement of the affairs of the partnership

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that absent an agreement to the contrary any partner can act as an agent of the partnership when apparently carrying on in the usual way the business of the partnership
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: we want to know if you have a problem so we encourage you to contact our customer support team if you have any concerns with respect to the operation of the service or any evernote software , as we want to ensure that you have an excellent experience .

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 Company and each of the Company Subsidiaries are presently insured, and have been insured for at least the past two years, for reasonable amounts with financially sound and reputable insurance companies against such risks as companies engaged in a similar business would, in accordance with good business practice, customarily be insured. All of the policies, bonds and other arrangements providing for the foregoing (the “ Company Insurance Policies ”) are in full force and effect, the premiums due and payable thereon have been or will be timely paid through the Closing Date, and there is no material breach or default (and no condition exists or event has occurred that, with the giving of notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute such a material breach or default) by the Company or any of the Company Subsidiaries under any of the Company Insurance Policies or, to the Knowledge of the Company, by any other party to the Company Insurance Policies. Neither the Company nor any of the Company Subsidiaries has received any written notice of cancellation or non-renewal of any Company Insurance Policy nor, to the Knowledge of the Company, is the termination of any such policies threatened in writing by the insurer, and there is no material claim for coverage by the Company, or any of the Company Subsidiaries, pending under any of such Company Insurance Policies as to which coverage has been denied or disputed by the underwriters of such Company Insurance Policies or in respect of which such underwriters have reserved their rights.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: submitted a proposed order along with the application. Bayouth and Hastings filed an objection, summarily stating that the proposed order “deprives them of due process,” “represents collusion between [Nautilus] and [ reasons. First, Ba-youth and Hastings said nothing about necessary parties when they objected to Nautilus’s proposed order for a declaratory judgment. See Hill v. Kansas Gas Serv. Co., 323 F.3d 858, 866 (10th Cir.2003) (stating that we generally do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal). Second, to the extent that the insurance coverage issue between Nautilus and Banana Joe’s created an actual controversy between Nautilus and Bayouth and Hastings, see Maryland Cas. Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 274, 61 S.Ct. 510, 85 L.Ed. 826 (1941) (<HOLDING>), that controversy was resolved by the Options: A. holding that an injured party in an underlying tort action was not a necessary party in an action by an insurer for declaratory judgment of nonliability where the injured person had not obtained judgment against the insured B. holding despite a reservation of rights that when the insurer provides a defense to its insured the insured has no right to interfere with the insurers control of the defense and a stipulated judgment between the insured and the injured claimant without the consent of the insurer is ineffective to impose liability upon the insurer C. holding that if the insured is only partially compensated by the insurer both the insurer and the insured are real partiesininterest D. holding that there is an actual controversy between an insurer and the party injured by the insured E. holding that if counsel retained by an insurer acts as an investigator and not as an attorney then the communications between the insured and insurer are not privileged

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that there is an actual controversy between an insurer and the party injured by the insured
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: Tenant represents and warrants to Landlord that Tenant has not had any dealings with any real estate broker, agent or finder in connection with the negotiation of this Lease or the introduction of the parties to this transaction, except for Broker, and that it knows of no other real estate broker, agent or finder who is or might be entitled to a commission or fee in connection with this Lease. In the event of any additional claims for brokers' or finders' fees with respect to this Lease, Tenant shall indemnify, hold harmless, protect and defend Landlord from and against such claims if they shall be based upon any statement or representation or agreement made by Tenant, and Landlord shall indemnify, hold harmless, protect and defend Tenant from and against such claims if they shall be based upon any statement, representation or agreement made by Landlord.

assistant: Brokers
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: subject to your full compliance with all of the terms of this agreement and the privacy policy , we hereby grant you a limited , personal , non-commercial , non-exclusive , revocable , non-sub-licensable , non-transferable , non-assignable , free of charge , license to download , access and use the service on a device you own or control , for the sole purpose of your personal use of the service in connection with terms provided herein .

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 following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 394 U.S. 848 89 S.Ct. 1623 23 L.Ed.2d 31 John MONTGOMERY, Director, California Department of Social Welfare, et al.v.Fannie Mae Burns et al. No. 438. Supreme Court of the United States May 5, 1969 Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of California, and Elizabeth Palmer and Donald B. Day, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellants. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion of appellees for leave to proceed in forma paupris is granted. The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. 2 Mr. Justice BLACK dissents for the reasons given in the dissenting opinion of The Chief Justice in Shapior v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600. 3 Mr. Justice HARLAN dissents for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 655, 89 S.Ct. 1342.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: At all times during the Term of each Device Lease, Lessees and Servicer shall not directly or indirectly give or allow another Person to give any interest in or Lien over the Device subject to such Device Lease or over such Device Lease, other than Permitted Device Liens. At all times during the Upgrade Holding Period, if any, with respect to each Exchanged Device, Lessees and Servicer shall not directly or indirectly give or allow another Person to give any interest in or Lien over such Exchanged Device, other than Permitted Device Liens. Lessees shall promptly, at their own cost and expense, take such action as may be necessary to duly discharge or eliminate any such Liens (other than Permitted Device Liens) upon obtaining Knowledge thereof.

assistant: Liens