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: misadvice by his attorney, not failure to advise, as to the potential for enhanced penalties for future criminal behavior. Although the question addressed in Major is different from the issue presented in this case, based upon the importance of this related issue, we also certify the following question of great public importance: WHETHER ALLEGATIONS OF AFFIRMATIVE MISADVICE BY TRIAL COUNSEL ON THE SENTENCE-ENHANCING CONSEQUENCES OF A DEFENDANT’S PLEA FOR FUTURE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IN AN OTHERWISE FACIALLY SUFFICIENT MOTION ARE COGNIZABLE AS AN INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIM. AFFIRMED; QUESTION CERTIFIED. PADOVANO, J., concurs; ALLEN, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part. 1 . Hallman has been abrogated on other grounds. See Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911 (Fla.1991)(<HOLDING>). 2 . Although we find the petition timely Options: A. holding that the defendants evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence B. holding that newly discovered evidence must be such that it would probably rather than conclusively produce an acquittal at trial C. holding that newly discovered evidence must be that which existed at the time of trial but for an excusable reason was not discoverable until later D. holding that posttrial discovery of asserted newly discovered evidence did not satisfy the requirement that the evidence must be such as with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and produced at trial E. holding that to justify a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence 1 the evidence must have been discovered after trial 2 the failure to discover this evidence must not be attributable to a lack of due diligence on the part of the movant 3 the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching 4 the evidence must be material and 5 the evidence must be likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is granted

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that newly discovered evidence must be such that it would probably rather than conclusively produce an acquittal at trial
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: within the res judicata.” Thus, privity centers on the closeness of the relationship in question. Courts have held that the attorney-client relationship itself establishes privity. See, e.g., Plotner v. AT & T Corp., 224 F.3d 1161, 1169 (10th Cir.2000) (citing Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1235 n. 6 (7th Cir.1986)) (“The law firm defendants appear by virtue of their activities as representatives of Green and AT & T, also creating privity.”); Henry, 808 F.2d at 1235 n. 6 (“Even though the Bank was the only actual party to the state court mortgage foreclosure proceedings, the other defendants, as directors, officers, employees, and attorneys of the Bank, are in privity with the Bank for purposes of res judicata.”); Verhagen v. Arroyo, 552 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (<HOLDING>); see also 47 Am.Jur.2d, Judgments § 617. But Options: A. holding that defendant in second suit was in privity for res judicata purposes because his interests were aligned with those of defendant in first suit which concerned same facts B. holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state C. holding that under florida law for the purposes of collateral estoppel an attorney is in privity with his or her client in a previous suit when the opposing party in that action brings a subsequent suit against the attorney based in the same facts D. holding that under texas law the mere representation of a party in a lawsuit does not establish privity between an attorney and his or her client E. holding that a prior suit and a subsequent suit between the same parties did not involve the same claim because the evidence necessary to sustain the subsequent suit was insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to relief in the prior suit

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that under florida law for the purposes of collateral estoppel an attorney is in privity with his or her client in a previous suit when the opposing party in that action brings a subsequent suit against the attorney based in the same facts
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: have shown that he signed in at his housing unit before proceeding to the canteen; therefore, it would have rebutted the librarian’s statement that Mitchell was at the canteen instead of checking in at his assigned housing unit. Due process requires a DHO to produce and review evidence alleged by a prisoner to be supportive of his defense unless do ing so would be “unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals.” Wolff, 418 U.S. at 566, 94 S.Ct. 2963; Howard v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 487 F.3d 808, 813-14 (10th Cir.2007). But assuming, without deciding, that the DHO in this case committed error by refusing to consider the work-crew log, the error was harmless to Mitchell and therefore cannot form the basis of a due process claim. See Howard, 487 F.3d at 814-15 & n. 5 (<HOLDING>); of. Grossman v. Bruce, 447 F.3d 801, 805 Options: A. holding that error will not be presumed from a silent record and that without the relevant transcript there is insufficient evidence to review the alleged error and the appellant carries the burden of demonstrating the alleged error in the record B. recognizing that a dhos unjustified refusal to review a videotape alleged to be exculpatory might constitute harmless error and remanding to the district court to make a determination of harmlessness on a fuller factual record C. holding that the district courts review of a partial and truncated record was error and remanding the case for review on the entire administrative record D. holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court E. holding that chapman harmless error review will be conducted when error is tested for harmlessness for the first time on habeas

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that a dhos unjustified refusal to review a videotape alleged to be exculpatory might constitute harmless error and remanding to the district court to make a determination of harmlessness on a fuller factual record
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 consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement (the “ Closing ”) shall take place at the offices of EGS, 1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10105, at 10:00 a.m. local time, on the date hereof (the “ Closing Date ”). The parties need not be physically present at the Closing and may participate telephonically.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Plan, the Grant Notice and this Agreement (including any agreements referenced herein) constitute the entire agreement of the parties and supersede in their entirety all prior undertakings and agreements of the Company and Participant with respect to the subject matter 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: his grand jury testimony with respect to Rasanen’s position when he approached him by saying there is a difference between leaning forward and coming forward. (Tr. 1433-34.) Brown attributed most of the inconsistencies and lack of detail to the fact that the incident happened “all at once” and “in a matter of seconds”. (Tr. 1378, 1380, 1383, 1394, 1429.) The Court agrees with the Plaintiff that, despite Brown’s attempt to parse words and avoid providing detail, Brown’s trial testimony was inconsistent in several aspects from his previous statements. However, it is clearly and expressly the province of the jury, and not the judge, to assess a witness’s credibility when confronted with a prior inconsistent statement. See Kassim v. City of Schenectady, 415 F.3d 246, 251 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>) (citing Fed. R.Evid. 607, 613). Furthermore, Options: A. holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony B. holding that where a party has made a prior statement inconsistent with the one the party seeks to advance at trial a question of credibility arises which is for the jury not the judge to assess C. holding a party failed to preserve an objection to the jury instructions where the party objected prior to the court instructing the jury but not after D. recognizing that although the question of the credibility of witnesses is one for the jury alone such rule does not mean that the jury is at liberty under the guise of passing upon the credibility of a witness to disregard his testimony when from no reasonable point of view is it open to doubt E. holding that the burden of showing that a harm will result from disclosure is on the party that seeks nondisclosure rather than on the party that seeks access

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that where a party has made a prior statement inconsistent with the one the party seeks to advance at trial a question of credibility arises which is for the jury not the judge to assess
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: records and Suntharalinkam’s testimony, or whether there is a reasonable explanation to reconcile the two had the IJ simply adhered to his obligation to inquire into such an explanation, we will not uphold an adverse credibility finding. Contrary to the government’s argument, putting Suntharalinkam on notice that his credibility generally was left open to question is not sufficient. The IJ is required to give the petitioner the opportunity to explain specific perceived discrepancies. Otherwise, the IJ is free to base an adverse credibility finding on disparities that, if given an opportunity, could be explained credibly by the petitioner, and we are left to speculate as to whether there is some rational explanation for the discrepancy the IJ thinks he sees. See Chen, 362 F.3d at 618 (<HOLDING>). Singh v. Ashcroft, 367. F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Options: A. holding tenyearolds unequivocal testimony about her father touching her was sufficient to convict him for seconddegree criminal sexual conduct despite his claim that the story was fabricated B. holding that procedural due process requires that a student suspended for disciplinary reasons be given oral or written notice of the charges against her and if she denies them an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present her side of the story C. holding that plaintiffs evidence showing that defendant refused to allow her to work as flight attendant because of her weight failed to demonstrate that defendant perceived her as substantially limited in any major life activity D. holding that the ij erred by failing to consider an explanation offered by the petitioner for her brothers failure to appear and testify on her behalf E. holding that because petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to explain what the ij perceived as an inconsistency in her testimonythe ijs doubt about the veracity of her story cannot serve as a basis for the denial of asylum

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that because petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to explain what the ij perceived as an inconsistency in her testimonythe ijs doubt about the veracity of her story cannot serve as a basis for the denial of asylum
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: Gore, 761 F.2d 1549, 1552 (11th Cir.1985) (“[T]he plaintiff cannot use an independent action as a vehicle for the relitigation of issues.”); Bankers Mortgage Co., 423 F.2d at 79 (5th Cir.1970) (“The independent action can not be made a vehicle for the relitigation of issues.”); Donovan v. Sovereign Sec. Ltd., 726 F.2d 55, 60 (2d Cir.1984) (“[Litigants] may not use proceedings seeking relief from or modification of a judgment under F.R. Civ. P. 60 simply to relitigate matters settled by the original judgment....”); Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc., 247 F.Supp.2d 1233, 1235 (D.Kan.2003) (“Like a motion to reconsider, a motion under Rule 60(b) is not a second opportunity for the losing party to make its strongest case, to rehash arguments, or to dress up arguments th .1996) (<HOLDING>). The Second Circuit, on the other hand, Options: A. holding that a certificate of appealability is unnecessary where a district court dismisses a rule 60b motion as an unauthorized successive habeas motion B. holding that a habeas corpus petitioner who did not raise an ineffective assistance claim in his first state habeas petition satisfied the cause prong of the cause and prejudice test when counsel on the first state habeas petition was also trial counsel whose performance was allegedly inadequate C. holding that district courts may properly treat rule 60b motions as successive habeas petitions D. holding that a rule 60b motion ordinarily should be treated as a successive habeas petition but declining to adopt a bright line rule equating all rule 60b motions with successive habeas petitions E. holding in a preaedpa context that a rule 60b motion is the practical equivalent of a successive habeas corpus petition and therefore is subject to a cause and prejudice analysis

assistant: The best answer is E. holding in a preaedpa context that a rule 60b motion is the practical equivalent of a successive habeas corpus petition and therefore is subject to a cause and prejudice analysis
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 MORTGAGOR AND MORTGAGEE HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVES TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS MORTGAGE OR ANY TRANSACTION CONTEMPLATED HEREBY OR THE SUBJECT MATTER OF ANY OF THE FOREGOING.

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: If the Asset Representations Reviewer resigns or is removed, the Asset Representations Reviewer will cooperate with the Issuer and take all actions reasonably requested to assist the Issuer in making an orderly transition of the Asset Representations Reviewer’s rights and obligations under this Agreement to the successor Asset Representations Reviewer. The Asset Representations Reviewer will pay the reasonable expenses of transitioning the Asset Representations Reviewer’s obligations under this Agreement and preparing the successor Asset Representations Reviewer to take on the obligations on receipt of an invoice with reasonable detail of the expenses from the Issuer or the successor Asset Representations Reviewer.

assistant: Expenses
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: whether the DOC’s policies requiring all of the ISC’s commitments to undergo a visual strip and body cavity search comports with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches. Upon careful review of the stipulated facts and relevant policies, the Court finds those policies to be unconstitutional. Any analysis of the policies in issue necessarily begins with Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). In that case, the Supreme Court of the United States considered whether a policy requiring pretrial detainees at a federal detention facility to expose their body cavities to visual inspection after contact visits with persons outside the institution was constitutional. Id. at 558, 99 S.Ct. 1861. In holding that the policy did not (7th Cir.1983)(<HOLDING>); Logan v. Shealy, 660 F.2d 1007 (4th Options: A. holding a visual strip and visual cavity search unreasonable when done beside a police car B. holding that prison officials may conduct visual body cavity searches in a reasonable manner C. holding probable cause to be required for strip and visual body cavity searches D. holding unconstitutional city policy of subjecting all females arrested and detained to strip and visual body cavity searches E. holding unconstitutional blanket jail policy of subjecting all arrestees to strip and visual body cavity searches

assistant: The best answer is D. holding unconstitutional city policy of subjecting all females arrested and detained to strip and visual body cavity searches
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: by submitting user submissions on the site or otherwise through the service , you hereby do and shall grant vivino a worldwide , non-exclusive , royalty-free , fully paid , sublicensable and transferable license to use , copy , edit , modify , reproduce , distribute , prepare derivative works of , display , perform , and otherwise fully exploit the user submissions in connection with the site , the service and vivino 's ( and its successors and assigns ' ) business , including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the site ( and derivative works thereof ) or the service in any media formats and through any media channels ( including , without limitation , third party websites and feeds ) .

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: (a) Neither the Company nor any of its Subsidiaries is in material default under any material insurance policy of the Company, (b) all material claims made thereunder have been properly and timely filed, and (c) no written notice of cancellation or termination of coverage has been received by the Company or its Subsidiaries with respect to any such material insurance policy, other than in connection with ordinary renewals. Each material insurance policy of the Company is in full force and effect and is the valid and binding obligation of the Company or its applicable Subsidiary named as the insured therein, subject, as to enforceability, to the Bankruptcy and Equity Exception.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: 13.3 you understand that any appropriate governmental agency , department and/or authority ( `` tax authority '' ) where your accommodation is located may require taxes to be collected from guests or hosts on listing fees , and to be remitted to the respective tax authority .

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 Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: these terms of use ( `` terms '' ) govern the access or use by you , an individual , from within any country in the world ( excluding the united states and its territories and possessions and mainland china ) of applications , websites , content , products , and services ( the `` services '' ) made available by uber b.v. , a private limited liability company established in the netherlands , having its offices at vijzelstraat 68 , 1017 hl , amsterdam , the netherlands , registered at the amsterdam chamber of commerce under number 56317441 ( `` uber '' ) .

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: Seller has good and marketable title to the Original Note, free and clear of all liens, restrictions, pledges, and encumbrances of any kind. The Seller is not now, and has not been during the preceding 90 days, an officer, director, 10% or more shareholder of the Company or in any other way an "affiliate" of Company, as that term is defined in Rule 144(a)(1) adopted pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act").

assistant: Titles
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: failure to assert , at any time , any right , or require performance in regard to this agreement by or on behalf of the company shall not constitute concession , yield , waiver or relinquishment of any sort , and shall not limit the company 's rights with respect to such breach or any subsequent breaches .

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: (a) The Company and each Guarantor, jointly and severally, agree to indemnify and hold harmless each Initial Purchaser and each Holder, their respective affiliates, directors and officers and each Person, if any, who controls any Initial Purchaser or any Holder within the meaning of Section 15 of the Securities Act or Section 20 of the Exchange Act, from and against any and all losses, claims, damages and liabilities (including, without limitation, legal fees and other expenses reasonably incurred in connection with any suit, action or proceeding or any claim asserted, as such fees and expenses are incurred), joint or several, that arise out of, or are based upon, (1) any untrue statement or alleged untrue statement of a material fact contained in any Registration Statement or any omission or alleged omission to state therein a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein not misleading, or (2) any untrue statement or alleged untrue statement of a material fact contained in any Prospectus, any Free Writing Prospectus or any “issuer information” (“ Issuer Information ”) filed or required to be filed pursuant to Rule 433(d) under the Securities Act, or any omission or alleged omission to state therein a material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, in each case except insofar as such losses, claims, damages or liabilities arise out of, or are based upon, any untrue statement or omission or alleged untrue statement or omission made in reliance upon and in conformity with any information relating to any Initial Purchaser or information relating to any Holder furnished to the Company in writing through J.P. Morgan or any selling Holder, respectively, expressly for use therein. In connection with any Underwritten Offering permitted by Section 3, the Company and the Guarantors, jointly and severally, will also indemnify the Underwriters, if any, selling brokers, dealers and similar securities industry professionals participating in the distribution, their respective affiliates and each Person who controls such Persons (within the meaning of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act) to the same extent as provided above with respect to the indemnification of the Holders, if requested in connection with any Registration Statement, any Prospectus, any Free Writing Prospectus or any Issuer Information.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: 9.1 hosts and guests are responsible for any modifications to a booking that they make via the airbnb platform or direct airbnb customer service to make ( `` booking modifications '' ) , and agree to pay any additional listing fees , host fees or guest fees and/or taxes associated with such booking modifications .

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: of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.’ ” Coming Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 195, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 2228, 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1)). “Equal work” does not require that the jobs be identical, but only that there exist “substantial equality of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions.” Odomes v. Nucare, Inc., 653 F.2d 246, 250 (6th Cir.1981). Whether the work of two employees is substantially equal “must be resolved by an overall comparison of the work, not its individual segments.” Id. The plaintiff may meet her prima facie burden by demonstrating a wage differential between herself and her predecessor. See Gandy v. Sullivan County, Tenn., 24 F.3d 861 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). An overall comparison of the work performed Options: A. holding that removal of job responsibility did not constitute an adverse employment action because there was no change in the plaintiffs job position grade pay or benefits B. holding that evidence that male employees consistently called plaintiff whore floor whore curb whole curb side cunt and bitch a male employee pushed plaintiff against a wall and placed his knee between her legs and other men made comments to plaintiff that a woman had no place in a car dealership was sufficient to establish sexual harassment C. holding that a job transfer was not an adverse employment action because the plaintiff enjoyed the same rate of pay and benefits and her duties were not materially modified D. holding that an individual is not qualified for a job if there is a genuine substantial risk that he could be injured or could injure others and the employer cannot modify the job to eliminate that risk E. holding that there was substantial similarity between plaintiff and her male predecessors job

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that there was substantial similarity between plaintiff and her male predecessors job
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that “[i]n my observation a well-regulated firearms registration process increases, the likelihood that law enforcement may successfully trace guns they recover”). Plaintiffs’ concerns about the conclusions these experts’ experience led them to, and the believability of those conclusions, go to the weight of the testimony and can be appropriately addressed through cross-examination. See U.S. v. H & R Block, Inc., 831 F.Supp.2d 27, 34 (D.D.C.2011) (noting that “technical deficiencies that can be adequately explored on cross-examination generally go to the weight, rather than the admissibility, of the evidence, unless the methodological deficiencies are so sweeping or fundamental as to render the survey wholly unreliable and therefore inadmissible”); see also Groobert, 219 F.Supp.2d at 9 (<HOLDING>) (quoting Ambrosini, 101 F.3d at 141); Barnes Options: A. holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law B. holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony C. recognizing that the dc circuit has stated that by attempting to evaluate the credibility of opposing experts and the persuasiveness of competing studies the district court conflates the questions of the admissibility of expert testimony and the weight appropriately to be accorded such testimony by a factfinder D. holding that once an expert has passed rule 702s threshold of admissibility lingering questions or controversy concerning the quality of the experts conclusions go to the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility E. holding the resolution of questions regarding credibility and the weight given to testimony is a function of the family court judge who heard the testimony

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that the dc circuit has stated that by attempting to evaluate the credibility of opposing experts and the persuasiveness of competing studies the district court conflates the questions of the admissibility of expert testimony and the weight appropriately to be accorded such testimony by a factfinder
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise provided in this Article 11, any Non-Qualified Stock Option granted under this Article 11 shall be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in Sections 6.3 and 12.3, and any Restricted Stock Unit granted under this Article 11 shall be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in Sections 9.2 and 12.3.

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: would be required if there were no allegation of a conspiracy.” Ibid. Further, Justice Stevens chides us for citing cases in which the court allowed recovery. But in two of these cases the court explicitly grounded its decision on the fact that the plaintiff had identified an actionable independent tort on which the conspiracy claim could be based. See Cohen v. Bowdoin, 288 A. 2d 106, 110 (Me. 1972) (“[I]f [the plaintiff’s conspiracy claim] is to be upheld as stating a claim upon which relief can be granted, it must be on the ground that the complaint sufficiently alleges the actual commission of the separate and independent tort of defamation against the plaintiff”); Middlesex Concrete Products & Excavating Corp. v. Carteret Indus. Assn., 37 N. J. 507, 516, 181 A. 2d 774, 779 (1962) (<HOLDING>). In short, we think that there is ample Options: A. recognizing that although civil conspiracy is a separate actionable tort a conspiracy claim is barred where the underlying tort is barred by the applicable statute of limitations B. holding that an actionable 20a claim must be preceded by an actionable primary violation under 10b C. holding that the plaintiffs stated a claim for conspiracy because they alleged an actionable tort D. holding that economic loss rule precluded the plaintiffs tort claims because they only alleged injuries to the subject of the contract itself E. holding defendants were properly joined because they are alleged to have participated in the underlying conspiracy

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the plaintiffs stated a claim for conspiracy because they alleged an actionable tort
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: None of the Borrower or any of its Subsidiaries, nor, to the knowledge of the Borrower, any director, officer, employee, agent or controlled Affiliate of the Borrower or any of its Subsidiaries (a) is, or is owned or controlled by Persons that are, included on the list of “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons”, (b) is otherwise currently the subject of any Sanctions or (c) is located in a jurisdiction that is the subject of Sanctions.

assistant: Sanctions
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: Section 2 of this article is void to the extent of the conflict.”). 10 . 29U.S.C. § 1144(b)(2)(B). 11 . See generally FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 498 U.S. 52, 61, 111 S.Ct. 403, 112 L.Ed.2d 356 (1990) ("[E]mployee benefit plans that are insured are subject to indirect state insurance regulation. An insurance company that insures a plan remains an insurer for purposes of state laws ‘purporting to regulate insurance’ after application of the deemer clause. The insurance company is therefore not relieved from state insurance regulation. The ERISA plan is consequently bound by state insurance regulations insofar as they apply to the plan’s insurer."). 12 . UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Ward, 526 U.S. 358, 376 n. 7, 119 S.Ct. 1380, 143 L.Ed.2d 462 (1999); see also id. at 372-73, 119 S.Ct. 1380 Options: A. holding that insurers failure to deny existence of insurance coverage under policy at issue was to admit that coverage existed B. holding evidence including that insurer only charged life insurance premium that would ordinarily apply to onehalf the amount of coverage actually permitted by policy as written did not warrant retroactive reformation of policy to reduce coverage amount because it did not demonstrate mistake on insureds part and insurance company did not present evidence on what parties agreed to before the policy was issued C. holding that when an insurer denies coverage on grounds unrelated to late notice a strong presumption arises that the insurer has not suffered prejudice from the late notice D. holding that an insurance company which chose not to defend its insured could not later deny coverage by asserting the legally obligated to pay provision in the policy after the insured reached a settlement where the injured party agreed to collect only against insurance proceeds E. holding that a california commonlaw requirement that insurers show prejudice before they may deny coverage because of late notice regulated insurance and was saved from preemption the insurance company that issued a group disability policy as an insured employee benefit plan could not rely on the notice provisions to deny coverage unless there was prejudice

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a california commonlaw requirement that insurers show prejudice before they may deny coverage because of late notice regulated insurance and was saved from preemption the insurance company that issued a group disability policy as an insured employee benefit plan could not rely on the notice provisions to deny coverage unless there was prejudice
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: it is also your responsibility to terminate the premium service before the end of a free or discounted period if you do not want to continue with a premium service at the regular price .

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: At any time or from time to time after the date hereof, the Parties agree to cooperate with each other, and at the request of any other Party, to execute and deliver any further instruments or documents and to take all such further action as the other Party may reasonably request in order to evidence or effectuate the transactions contemplated hereby and to otherwise carry out the intent of the Parties hereunder.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: but the indeterminate time Emerson requested simply introduced too much uncertainty into NSP’s handling of emergency calls. NSP appropriately declined Emerson’s suggestion to route safety-sensitive calls away from her. An employer is not obligated to change the essential functions of a job to accommodate an employee. See Cochrum v. Old Ben Coal Co., 102 F.3d 908, 913 (7th Cir.1996) (“In short, reason able accommodation does not encompass reallocation of essential job functions.”). Emerson further suggested that in case of a panic attack, a supervisor could handle her safety-sensitive calls. NSP rejected this option because it did not always staff a supervisor and would have had to create new supervisor shifts to accommodate Emerson, which the ADA does not require. See id. at 912 (<HOLDING>). Emerson does not bring any evidence tending Options: A. holding it is not reasonable to require an employer to hire a helper to do overhead work for a miner who cannot perform this essential job function alone B. holding that ada may obligate employer to reassign disabled employee who can no longer even with reasonable accommodation perform the essential functions of her job C. holding an employee must be able to perform essential job functions at the time of termination D. holding that the ada does not require an employer to hire an assistant to help a disabled employee fulfill his work responsibilities E. holding that coming to work regularly is an essential function

assistant: The best answer is A. holding it is not reasonable to require an employer to hire a helper to do overhead work for a miner who cannot perform this essential job function alone
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: Upon the exercise of an Option requiring tax withholding, Participant will be required to pay to the Company for remittance to the appropriate taxing authorities an amount necessary to satisfy the employee’s portion of federal, state and local taxes, if any, incurred by reason of the exercise of an Option.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any term, provision, covenant or restriction of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction or other authority to be invalid, void, unenforceable or against its regulatory policy, the remainder of the terms, provisions, covenants and restrictions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated, and this Agreement shall be reformed, construed and enforced in such jurisdiction such that the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision or portion thereof shall be interpreted to be only so broad as is enforceable.

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: still come to the correct conclusion. Looking at those prior cases, there is nothing about erroneous self-defense jury instructions, in whatever form, automatically putting them in the group of cases where we reviewed the error as compared to the group where we did not. ¶24 In addition to not having precedential support, the statement in LeFaber has since created a logically problematic situation for appellate courts. Given other jury instruction errors are not automatically of a constitutional magnitude or presumptively prejudicial, the trial court could provide an erroneous instruction on the definition of an element of a crime and not have the error reviewed by an appellate court because it is not of a constitutional magni tude or actually prejudicial. See Scott, 110 Wn.2d at 691-92 (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, pursuant to LeFaber, Options: A. holding that it was prejudicial error to fail to give such a cautionary instruction even where the defendant did not object at trial to the lack of such an instruction when the accomplice testimony was uncorroborated B. holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given C. holding that district courts incomplete 404b limiting instruction did not warrant reversal because district court told defense counsel what limiting instruction it would give and defense counsel did not object or request a more specific instruction D. holding an incomplete instruction of the definition of knowledge in an instruction on accomplice liability for burglary did not amount to a manifest error affecting a constitutional right E. holding that the failure to object to an instruction constitutes a waiver of error

assistant: The best answer is D. holding an incomplete instruction of the definition of knowledge in an instruction on accomplice liability for burglary did not amount to a manifest error affecting a constitutional right
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: is engaged in the performance of any one of the acts which such intent requires for its full execution, and, while so engaged, and within the res gestae of the intended crime, and in consequence thereof, the killing results. It must appear that there was such actual legal relation between the killing and the crime committed or attempted, that the killing can be said to have occurred as a part of the perpetration of the crime, or in furtherance of an attempt or purpose to commit it. In the usual terse legal phraseology, death must have been the probable consequence of the unlawful actX] ” Id. at 131 (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Diebold, 152 Wash. 68, 72, 277 P. 394 (1929) (quoting 13 Ruling Case Law 845)); see also State v. Dudrey, 30 Wn. App. 447, 450, 635 P.2d 750 (1981) (<HOLDING>). The Golladay court reasoned that for a Options: A. holding that proof of an agreement to commit a felony is not a necessary element in a conviction for the commission of the felony B. holding in the context of the criminal false claims act that to prove falsity the government only had to prove that the statement was known to be untrue at the time the defendant made it C. holding the state must prove that at the time of the homicide the defendant was engaged in the commission of the felony D. holding that a defendant may be convicted of felony murder when the death of his accomplice was a reasonably foreseeable result of their commission of a felony E. holding that for facilitation of a felony the state must prove the commission of a specified felony and the assistance the accused gave to the person committing the specified felony

assistant: The best answer is C. holding the state must prove that at the time of the homicide the defendant was engaged in the commission of the felony
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 Dean of Students at Virginia Tech offer “programs primarily engaged in providing services to” disabled students. It is also undisputed that these programs are “State-funded” by the Commonwealth through the “Higher Education Student Services” appropriation made by the General Assembly. Virginia does not suggest any issue of material fact that would preclude summary judgment regarding these two institutions. See Appellee’s Br. at 4 (“There [a]re no disputed issues of material fact”). Accordingly, on remand the district court is to grant partial summary judgment for NCSD, declaring that the Office of the Vice Pre sity control and are segregated from other university funds, they may not be considered as state funds. Cf. Schiff v. Williams, 519 F.2d 257, 262 & n. 2 (5th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>); cf. also Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors Options: A. holding proper remedy when a christian student newspaper was denied student activities funds was to make funds available to the religious paper not to deny funds to nonreligious student groups B. holding state university is not a person under 1983 C. holding that student activity fees collected under authority of state law and disbursed at direction of board of trustees are university funds D. holding student activity fees not to be state funds when they were segregated from university funds and the state treasury E. holding constitutional the granting of student activity funds to the campus newspaper

assistant: The best answer is D. holding student activity fees not to be state funds when they were segregated from university funds and the state treasury
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) Attached hereto as Schedule 9(a ) is a schedule setting forth all of each Company’s patents and trademarks applied for or registered with the USPTO, including the name of the registered owner or applicant and the registration, application, or publication number, as applicable, of each such patent or trademark owned by each Company.

assistant: Intellectual Property
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: All consolidated financial statements for Borrower and its Subsidiaries, delivered to Collateral Agent fairly present, in conformity with GAAP, in all material respects the consolidated financial condition of Borrower and its Subsidiaries, and the consolidated results of operations of Borrower and its Subsidiaries as of the dates and for the periods presented. There has not been any material deterioration in the consolidated financial condition of Borrower and its Subsidiaries since the date of the most recent financial statements submitted to any Lender.

assistant: Financial Statements