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: to these professional duties, is not protected under the First Amendment. The fact that Haynes communicated solely to his superior also indicates that he was speaking in his capacity as a public employee ..., not as a member of the public writing a letter to the editor as in Pickering. At the time that Haynes sent his memo in February 2003, he was simply speculating that someday there could be a negative incident that might result from the reduction in canine training. Haynes’s memo focused on his discontent with the new program.... The memo thus reflect nothing more than the quintessential employee beef: management has acted incompetently. 474 F.3d at 364-65. (Citations and some internal punctuation omitted.) See also Mills v. City of Evansville, 452 F.3d 646, 648 (7th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528, 545-46 (9th Options: A. holding as not protected speech a prison guards internal complaints documenting her superiors failure to respond to inmates sexually explicit behavior toward her B. holding that a police sergeants speech was not protected under garcetti where the sergeant was on duty in uniform and engaged in a discussion with her superiors C. holding that informal complaints to superiors about discrimination constitute protected activity D. holding that pursuant to garcetti plaintiffs speech made in the course of his official duties was unprotected as a matter of law E. holding that after the district court determined that the plaintiffs speech was protected the court was required to inform the jury of its ruling that knapps speech was constitutionally protected

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a police sergeants speech was not protected under garcetti where the sergeant was on duty in uniform and engaged in a discussion with her superiors
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 job of a single guard as of the time of trial; all that has been required, according to the record, is some adjustments in scheduling and job assignments, adjustments that are no more burdensome than those required from time to time for a variety of other non-penological reasons. Superintendent Vail acknowledged reluctantly that the changes had been made without causing any significant disruptions, and did not suggest any reason that the changes could not remain in effect. The burden on the prison—enlisting the cooperation of the guards’ union, adjusting job responsibilities, calling female officers away from their on-duty meals to perform searches—is minor, and a minor burden must be endured in order to preserve constitutional rights. See Salaam v. Lockhart, 905 F.2d at 1171 (<HOLDING>). (2) While the prison’s penological interest Options: A. holding prison nurse was not entitled to official immunity related to allegations that she failed to follow the prison policy related to inmate prescriptions because the prison policy regarding the maintenance and administration of inmates prescriptions does not depend on discretionary judgment calls B. holding that state prison officials enjoy wide discretion in regards to a prison boards finding of guilt C. holding that prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the constitution D. holding required changes in prison policy not burdensome in light of the overall cost of operating the prison E. holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population

assistant: The best answer is D. holding required changes in prison policy not burdensome in light of the overall cost of operating the prison
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: in violation of the Eighth Amendment. An Eighth Amendment violation may be found only “ ‘in the rare case in which a threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross disproportionality.’ ” See Henderson v. Norris, 258 F.3d 706, 712 (8th Cir.2001) (quoting Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 1005, 111 S.Ct. 2680 (opinion of Kennedy, J.)); see also Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 73, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (noting that the “gross disproportionality principle ... [is] applicable only in ... ‘exceedingly rare’ and ‘extreme’ case[s].” (citation omitted)). This is not such a case. Because Whitehead had been convicted of five prior felony drug offenses, see Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 276, 284-85, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980) (<HOLDING>), and because cocaine distribution represents a Options: A. holding that a sentencing judge sitting without a jury may not find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty B. holding that restitution is a criminal penalty that negates the imposition of prejudgment interest C. holding that the penalty is applicable D. holding that recidivism may support the imposition of a severe penalty E. recognizing the unique and irrevocable nature of the death penalty and the consequently overarching need for reliability in the imposition of such a penalty

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that recidivism may support the imposition of a severe penalty
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice, consent, demand, offer, acceptance or other communication required or permitted under this Agreement will be made in writing and will be deemed to have been duly given if: (i) sent by personal delivery, which will be deemed given upon confirmation of receipt, (ii) mailed by first class registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, which will be deemed delivered three days after the date received for delivery by the United States Postal Service, whether or not accepted by the addressee, (iii) sent by nationally recognized next-day delivery courier that guarantees delivery within 24 hours, charges prepaid, which will be deemed delivered one day after delivery to said courier, or (iv) by facsimile transmission, electronic mail or other electronic delivery medium, which will be deemed delivered on the date of transmission, addressed to the receiving party at the address set forth on the sending party’s books and records or such other address or to the attention of such other person as the recipient party will have specified by prior written notice to the sending party.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the costs associated with these actions prohibitive and would effectively preclude plaintiffs from bringing such claims. Id. Second, a number of Circuits have altered or invalidated arbitration agreements where they interfered with the recovery of statutorily authorized damages. See, e.g., Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 446 F.3d 25, 47-48 (1st Cir.2006) (severing as unenforceable a provision of an arbitration agreement limiting availability of treble damages under the Sherman Act); Hadnot v. Bay, Ltd., 344 F.3d 474, 478 n. 14 (5th Cir.2003) (severing a restriction on available remedies from an arbitration agreement after finding that a “ban on punitive and exemplary damages is unenforceable in a Title VII case”); Paladino v. Avnet Computer Techs., Inc., 134 F.3d 1054, 1062 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Parisi asserts Title VII claims and, as a Options: A. holding an entire arbitration clause is void and arbitration cannot be compelled where contract contained unconscionable clause and has a nonseverability clause B. holding that nothing necessarily prevents a court from finding an arbitration clause unenforceable in a contract that it later finds is enforceable C. holding that the best way to harmonize a choice of law clause and an arbitration clause is to apply the substantive case law of the named state to the entire agreement including the arbitration clause D. holding that there was no conflict between a contracts arbitration clause and its venue clause E. holding that when an arbitration clause has provisions that defeat the remedial purpose of the statute the arbitration clause is not enforceable and that the language insulating an employer from damages and equitable relief renders the clause unenforceable

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that when an arbitration clause has provisions that defeat the remedial purpose of the statute the arbitration clause is not enforceable and that the language insulating an employer from damages and equitable relief renders the clause unenforceable
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 capitalization of the Company is as set forth in the SEC Reports. The Company has not issued any capital stock since its most recently filed SEC Report, other than pursuant to the exercise of employee stock options under the Company’s stock option plans, the issuance of grants of Common Stock Equivalents pursuant to the Company’s incentive plans and pursuant to the conversion and/or exercise of Common Stock Equivalents outstanding as of the date of the most recently filed SEC Report. No Person has any right of first refusal, preemptive right, right of participation, or any similar right to participate in the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. Except as a result of the purchase and sale of the Shares or as set forth in the SEC Reports, there are no outstanding options, warrants, scrip rights to subscribe to, calls or commitments of any character whatsoever relating to, or securities, rights or obligations convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for, or giving any Person any right to subscribe for or acquire, any shares of Common Stock, or contracts, commitments, understandings or arrangements by which the Company or any Subsidiary is or may become bound to issue additional shares of Common Stock or Common Stock Equivalents. The issuance and sale of the Shares will not obligate the Company to issue shares of Common Stock or other securities to any Person (other than the purchasers of the Shares) and will not result in a right of any holder of Company securities to adjust the exercise, conversion, exchange or reset price under any of such securities. All of the outstanding shares of capital stock of the Company are duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable, have been issued in compliance with all federal and state securities laws, and none of such outstanding shares was issued in violation of any preemptive rights or similar rights to subscribe for or purchase securities. Other than specified in Section 3.1(f), no further approval or authorization of any stockholder, the Board of Directors or others is required for the issuance and sale of the Shares. Other than as described in the SEC Reports, there are no stockholders agreements, voting agreements or other similar agreements with respect to the Company’s capital stock to which the Company is a party or, to the knowledge of the Company, between or among any of the Company’s stockholders.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: I agree that the terms of this Agreement may not be modified except by a written agreement signed by both me and the Company. This Agreement shall not supersede any other restrictive covenants to which I may be subject under an employment contract, benefit program or otherwise, such that the Company may enforce the terms of any and all restrictive covenants to which I am subject. The obligations herein are in addition to and do not limit any obligations arising under applicable statutes and common law.

assistant: Modifications
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: These terms constitute a part of the Declaration. The Sponsor will provide a copy of the Declaration, the Guarantee, and the Indenture to a Holder without charge on written request to the Sponsor at its principal place of business.

assistant: Miscellaneous
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 amendment or modification to any terms or provisions of this Agreement, waiver of any covenant, obligation, breach or default under this Agreement or termination of this Agreement, shall be valid unless in writing and executed and delivered by each of the Parties.

assistant: Modifications
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: the licensor does not warrant against interference with the licensee 's enjoyment of the service , that the functions contained in , or services performed or provided by , the service will meet the requirements of the licensee , that the operation of the service will be uninterrupted or error-free , or that defects in the service will be corrected .

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: property. Therefore, the trial court’s imposition of prison terms of three years for the failure-to-comply conviction, 17 months for the conviction on the first count of receiving stolen property and 11 months on the second count of receiving stolen property are all constitutionally permissible under Apprendi and, by extension, Blakely. {¶ 26} Turning to Taylor’s main argument, both Blakely and Apprendi can be distinguished from the instant case, as they deal with the issue of sentencing for a single crime. Courts in Ohio have consistently held that Apprendi does not apply to consecutive sentencing as long as the sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum for each individual underlying offense. See State v. Carter, 6th Dist. No. L-00-1082, 2002-Ohio-3433, 2002 WL 1436019, at ¶ 25 (<HOLDING>) Accord State v. Gambrel (Feb. 2, 2001), 2nd Options: A. holding that appellants two eightyear consecutive sentences for rape because they were each within the tenyear statutory range for a single offense did not violate apprendi B. holding that the crime of rape is a lesser included offense of the crime of felony murder in the perpetration of rape and that since the latter crime included all of the elements of the former consecutive sentences were therefore improper C. holding the courts consecutive sentences at the statutory maximum on each count were reasonable because of the gravity of the offense D. holding apprendi does not apply to consecutive sentencing E. holding that no apprendi violation shown when trial court cumulated sentences for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child when appellant did not dispute that sentence for each count was within statutory range

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that appellants two eightyear consecutive sentences for rape because they were each within the tenyear statutory range for a single offense did not violate apprendi
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: justices who reached the issue were split as to whether the RIA Employees were offered comparable employment with a “successor” of Tyco and, in turn, whether Tyco breached the RIAs. Id. at 774; see also id. at 779-80 (Sharp, J., dissenting in part). One justice would have held that the claims were preempted by ERISA and thus concurred in the court’s take-nothing judgment for Tyco. Id. at 777 (Massengale, J., concurring). We granted the Gimpel Employees’ petition for review. II. ERISA Preemption of State-Law Claims We first address whether ERISA preempts the Gimpel Employees’ breach-of-contract claims. As applied to this case, ERISA preemption is an affirmative defense on which Tyco bore the burden of proof at trial. See Gorman v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 811 S.W.2d 542, 546 (Tex.1991) (<HOLDING>); 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), (e)(1) (giving Options: A. holding that when erisas preemptive effect results in change of applicable law rather than choice of forum preemption is an affirmative defense that must be set forth in defendants answer or it is waived B. holding that erisas preemption of state contract claims in a benefitsdue action is an affirmative defense subject to waiver C. recognizing that federal preemption is affirmative defense as to which defendant has burden of proof D. holding that the state law of preclusion must be followed even when federal jurisdiction over the subject matter of a claim is exclusive E. holding that erisa preemption is an affirmative defense where erisas preemptive effect would result only in a change of the applicable law and would not subject the claim to exclusive federal jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that erisa preemption is an affirmative defense where erisas preemptive effect would result only in a change of the applicable law and would not subject the claim to exclusive federal jurisdiction
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In connection with the Fourth Closing, the Borrowers shall pay to YA Global II SPV LLC (as designee of the Investor) a commitment fee in the amount equal to $150,000, of which $100,000 shall be due and payable in cash on the date hereof, and the remaining $50,000 shall be due and payable in cash on the date 120 days from the date hereof.

assistant: Fees
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: 5.6.1 in a very limited number of countries , and for defined internet communications software versions and platforms only , skype will try to provide limited emergency calling as a stand-alone feature but can provide no commitment in this respect .

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: se admissibility rule. “The waiver of the attorney-client privilege, however, results from the ACRD’s public disclosure of its attorney’s legal conclusions, not the admissibility of the reasonable cause determination into evidence.” (Doc. 83 at 16 n. 3). The ACRD’s argument makes no effort to establish that, under state law, the ACRD did not waive any attorney-client privilege it may have had in the reasonable cause determination. As a result, the Motion does not meet the standard required for this Court to reconsider its order. II. Motion For Stay After consideration, Plaintiffs Motion for Stay is denied in part and granted in part. Pursuant to Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Norman Carpenter, Plaintiffs motion to stay pending appeal is denied. — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 599, 175 L.Ed.2d 458 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Further the Court declines to certify the Options: A. holding that the information is not protected by attorneyclient privilege B. holding that orders overruling claims of privilege and requiring disclosure are immediately appealable as collateral orders C. holding that disqualification orders do not fall in the collateral order exception D. holding that disclosure orders adverse to the attorneyclient privilege do not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine E. recognizing the collateral order doctrine for the first time

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that disclosure orders adverse to the attorneyclient privilege do not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine
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: ALJ Krappa concluded that Plaintiff could perform jobs that are “simple and repetitive” but does not explain how she arrived at that conclusion. (R. 18.) The ALJ stated that Plaintiffs impairments “have been described in various terms: depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder,” but did not consider the effects and limitations of each mental illness separately. (R. 20.) She also failed to address Plaintiffs GAF assessment of 50, which indicates serious symptoms or difficulty in social and occupational functioning. (R. 257.) Overall, the reference that Plaintiff can perform simple and repetitive tasks does not “specifically convey” her mental limitations and “greater specificity is required.” See Burns v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 113, 122 (3d Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>). Because the ALJ did not clearly evaluate all Options: A. holding employees inability to do repetitive work with hands and arms extended at or above shoulder levels was not sufficient proof that she was substantially limited in major life activity of performing manual tasks B. holding that where male teacher asked female teacher out for a drink asked her to perform tasks she perceived as secretarial and struck her in a fight purported harassment was not genderbased and was not sufficiently severe or pervasive C. holding that the finding that plaintiff could perform simple repetitive one twostep tasks was not sufficiently descriptive to encompass her limitation D. recognizing that where a plaintiff failed to perform because of the defendants breach the plaintiff could recover damages caused by the defendants breach E. holding that the word interfere in the regulation could not p 7 fairly be interpreted to encompass the respondents failure to unlock her door and her remonstrances on constitutional grounds

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the finding that plaintiff could perform simple repetitive one twostep tasks was not sufficiently descriptive to encompass her limitation
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth in Schedule 4.2 , no Governmental Authorization is required to be obtained or made by or with respect to Shentel in connection with the execution, delivery and performance of the Transaction Documents or the consummation of the Transactions.

assistant: No Conflicts
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: Circuit held similarly, but the court granted rehearing en banc, simultaneously vacating the panel opinion. See United Slates v. Dews, 551 F.3d 204 (4th Cir.2008), reh’g en banc granted, No. 08-6458 (4th Cir. Feb. 20, 2009). The en banc court later dismissed the appeal as moot, and the panel opinion is no longer good law. See United Stales v. Cook, 594 F.3d 883, 888 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.2010). 3 . To some extent, this conclusion was adumbrated by our earlier decision in Caraballo. There, we wrote that "if an amended guideline does not have the effect of lowering the sentencing range actually used at sentencing, the defendant’s sentence was not based on that range within the intendment of [section 3582(c)(2)].” 552 F.3d at 10; see also United States v. Cardosa, 606 F.3d 16, 21 (1st Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original). Even though these Options: A. holding that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under 856 where premises contained two white envelopes containing thirtytwo packs of crack cocaine equipment required for the manufacture and packaging of crack cocaine fortyone white envelopes containing particles of crack cocaine and crack cocaine stored in a laundry bag in the bathroom B. holding that the defendants sentence was based on the career offender guidelines despite the fact that the district court calculated an offense level pursuant to the crack guidelines C. holding that a district court resentencing a defendant based on the retroactive change in the crack cocaine guidelines pursuant to 3582c2 lacks authority to sentence a defendant below the newly calculated guidelines range and need not hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue D. holding that district court did not err in determining that cocaine base was crack cocaine based on chemical analysis identifying cocaine base together with competent lay testimony bridging the evidentiary gap between cocaine base and crack cocaine and refusing to require showing of smokeability ie water solubility or melting point for purposes of establishing crack cocaine under the guidelines since smokeability distinguishes cocaine base from powder cocaine not from crack E. holding that where the defendants existing sentence was ultimately determined by the old crack cocaine guidelines resentencing is within the discretion of the district court

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that where the defendants existing sentence was ultimately determined by the old crack cocaine guidelines resentencing is within the discretion of the district court
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Loan Amount shall bear interest (“Interest”) at an annual rate of 3% (three percent) (calculated on the basis of the actual number of days elapsed and a 360 (three hundred and sixty) day year).

assistant: Interests
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 a lesser included offense of another). Furthermore, we note that the age requirements contained in each offense prevents recognition of assault on a female as a lesser included offense. For example, an indecent liberties conviction requires that the victim be under sixteen years old, and that the offender be at least sixteen years old and at least five years older than the victim. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.1 (1993). In comparison, assault on a female requires that the offender be at least eighteen years old. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-33(b)(2) (1993). It follows that assault on a female is not a lesser included offense of taking indecent liberties with a child because assault on a female contains elements not present in the greater offense. See Weaver, 306 N.C. at 636, 295 S.E.2d at 379 (<HOLDING>). Based on the foregoing, we hold that the Options: A. holding that the defendant did not need to have physically touched the victim in order to be convicted of taking indecent liberties with a child in violation of ncgs 142021a2 B. holding that an offense is factually lesser included if the charging instrument alleges that the means used to commit the crime charged include all of the elements of the alleged lesser included offense C. holding that the crime of rape is a lesser included offense of the crime of felony murder in the perpetration of rape and that since the latter crime included all of the elements of the former consecutive sentences were therefore improper D. holding that taking indecent liberties with a child is not a lesser included offense of statutory rape given the differing age elements E. holding that the state felony offense of taking indecent liberties with a child categorically constituted a crime of violence for purposes of the career offender sentencing guidelines

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that taking indecent liberties with a child is not a lesser included offense of statutory rape given the differing age elements
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: under Minn.Stat. § 117.52, review denied (Minn. June 23, 1995). Naegele argues that certiorari is inappropriate because “[i]t is questionable under existing authority whether review by cer-tiorari can correct errors of law.” Certiorari, however, is certainly appropriate to review questions of law. See, e.g., Dietz, 487 N.W.2d at 239 (stating that certiorari is limited to determining, among other things, whether a decision was issued “under an erroneous theory of law”). We believe the law is now well settled. In the absence of explicit “bright line” authority for review of a local agency’s quasi-judicial decision in district court, a party’s sole remedy is to appeal to this court by writ of certiorari. See Toby’s of Alexandria, Inc. v. County of Douglas, 545 N.W.2d 54 (Minn.App.1996) (<HOLDING>); Neitzel, 521 N.W.2d at 76 (stating that where Options: A. holding that the longer appeal period from a judgment controlled over the shorter appeal period in a certiorari proceeding when the two proceedings were consolidated in the district court and the certiorari proceeding was not an independent proceeding B. recognizing that either statute or ordinance enacted within power granted by enabling statute may authorize appeal to district court absent such authority party must appeal by certiorari C. holding it is settled that the supreme court may consider questions raised on the first appeal after which the court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari as well as those that were before the court of appeals upon the second appeal after which the court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari internal quotation marks omitted D. holding that writ of certiorari could not be used to appeal property tax assessment decision to circuit court because specific statute provided for appeal E. holding a judgment of a district court does not become final by appeal within the meaning of the statute providing for registration of such judgments in another district until the case has been disposed of by appeal

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that either statute or ordinance enacted within power granted by enabling statute may authorize appeal to district court absent such authority party must appeal by certiorari
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: as it was possible to do so. This understanding meant that for each majority-black district, the drafters adopted a district-specific racial quota. For example, if the 2010 census data indicated that a particular district as drawn in 2001 was 75% black in 2010, then the drafters believed that § 5 required them to draw that district’s new boundaries such that it remained 75% black. These quotas, supposedly required by § 5, posed a challenge for the drafters. Many of the majority-black districts as drawn in 2001 were ‘under-populated’ once the 2010 census data were applied. ‘Under-population’ refers to a district which has fewer residents than is required by the constitutional principle of one-person-one-vote. See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964) (<HOLDING>). This meant that if no changes were made to Options: A. holding that the state law violated equal protection principles B. holding that the cap does not violate equal protection C. holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection D. holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection E. holding that equal protection requires that state legislative districts be roughly equal in population

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that equal protection requires that state legislative districts be roughly equal in population
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 corporate action on the part of the Company and its directors necessary for the authorization, execution, and delivery of this Note and the performance of all obligations of the Company hereunder and thereunder, has been taken. This Note and the other documents delivered in connection herewith or therewith to which it is a party, when executed and delivered, shall be valid and binding obligations of the Company enforceable against it in accordance with their respective terms.

assistant: Authorizations
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: Employee agrees that in light of the money and benefits conferred to her under this Agreement, the narrow nature of the restrictive covenants imposed under Sections 11(b) and 11(c) are reasonable and will not result in any hardship to her. Further, Employee acknowledges and agrees that her breach of any obligation under this Section 11 would cause irreparable harm to the Pentair Entities and that such harm may not be compensable entirely with monetary damages. If Employee violates her obligations under this section, the aggrieved Pentair Entities may, but shall not be required to, seek injunctive relief and/or any other remedy allowed at law, in equity, or under this Agreement. Any injunctive relief sought shall be in addition to and not in limitation of any monetary relief or other remedies or rights at law, in equity, or under this Agreement. In connection with any suit at law or in equity under this Agreement, the Pentair Entities shall be entitled to an accounting, and to the repayment of all profits, compensation, commissions, fees, or other remuneration which Employee or any other entity or person has either directly or indirectly realized on its behalf or on behalf of another and/or may realize, as a result of, growing out of, or in connection with the violation which is the subject of the suit. Further, in the event of Employee’s breach of this section, Employee shall disgorge the value of all payments and benefits conferred to her by virtue of this Agreement, including the Separation Payment. In addition to the foregoing, the Pentair Entities shall be entitled to collect from Employee any reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing any action against Employee or otherwise to enforce the terms of this Agreement. The parties agree that it is their intent that the restrictions in this Section 11 be enforced to the maximum allowable extent or modified to permit enforcement to the maximum allowable extent under the laws of Minnesota as determined by a court of appropriate jurisdiction in Minnesota, and the parties further agree to and acknowledge the sufficiency of the parties’ contacts with the State of Minnesota in order to confer exclusive jurisdiction of Minnesota courts applying Minnesota law.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 369 U.S. 654 82 S.Ct. 993 8 L.Ed.2d 176 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.DIEBOLD, INCORPORATED. No. 286. Argued April 23, 1962. Decided May 14, 1962. Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for the appellant. William L. McGovern, Washington, D.C., for the appellee. PER CURIAM. 1 This is a civil antitrust suit by the Government challenging Diebold's acquisition of the assets of the Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Company as being violative of § 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 18. On motion of Diebold the District Court entered summary judgment against the Government on the ground that the acquired firm was a 'failing company' under the doctrine of International Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 280 U.S. 291, 50 S.Ct. 89, 74 L.Ed. 431 (1930). The case is here on direct appeal. 368 U.S. 894, 82 S.Ct. 171, 7 L.Ed.2d 91. 2 In determining that the acquisition of the assets of Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Company was not a violation of § 7, the District Court acted upon its findings that 'HHM was hopelessly insolvent and faced with imminent receivership' and that 'Diebold was the only bona fide prospective purchaser for HHM's business.' The latter finding represents at least in part the resolution of a head-on factual controversy as revealed by the materials before the District Court of whether other offers for HHM's assets or business were actually made. In any event both findings represent a choice of inferences to be drawn from the subsidiary facts contained in the affidavits, attached exhibits, and depositions submitted below. On summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in such materials must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. A study of the record in this light leads us to believe that inferences contrary to those drawn by the trial court might be permissible. The materials before the District Court having thus raised a genuine issue as to ultimate facts material to the rule of International Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Comm'n, it was improper for the District Court to decide the applicability of the rule on a motion for summary judgment. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 56(c), 28 U.S.C.A. 3 Reversed and remanded. 4 Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

assistant: 9
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 notices, requests, consents, claims, demands, waivers and other communications hereunder (each, a “ Notice ”) shall be in writing and addressed to the Parties at the addresses set forth on the books and records of the Company (or to such other address that may be designated by the receiving Party from time to time in accordance with this section). All Notices shall be delivered by personal delivery, nationally recognized overnight courier (with all fees pre-paid), facsimile or e-mail of a .PDF document (with confirmation of transmission) or certified or registered mail (in each case, return receipt requested, postage prepaid). Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, a Notice is effective only (i) upon receipt by the receiving Party, and (ii) if the Party giving the Notice has complied with the requirements of this Section 17.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The guarantees made hereunder (a) shall terminate when all of the Guaranteed Obligations have been paid and performed in full, and (b) shall continue to be effective or be reinstated, as the case may be, if at any time payment, or any part thereof, of any Guaranteed Obligation is rescinded or must otherwise be restored by any Lender or Guarantor upon the bankruptcy or reorganization of Borrower, Guarantor or otherwise.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980). Whether an encounter is consensual depends on the officers’ objective behavior. Waldon, 206 F.3d at 603. The officers’ subjective beliefs are irrelevant, unless communicated to the defendant. Id.; see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) (stating that “subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause, Fourth Amendment analysis”). The district court correctly ruled that the initial encounter — when the officers approached and asked Mitchell if he heard shots and if he had a gun — was a consensual encounter. There was no “physical force or show of authority.” See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n. 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); see also Drayton, 536 U.S. at 203-04, 122 S.Ct. 2105 (<HOLDING>); Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 553, 100 S.Ct. 1870 Options: A. holding that where no factual dispute is raised no hearing is required B. holding no remand required where no fundamental rights are implicated C. holding no irreparable harm and thus no jurisdiction where no existing employeeemployer relationship D. holding that no seizure occurred where officers boarded bus and began questioning passengers gave passengers no reason to believe that they required an answer and tjhere was no application of force no intimidating movement no overwhelming show of force no brandishing of weapons no blocking of exits no threat no command not even an authoritative tone of voice E. holding that a plaintiff had no injury in fact and consequently no standing when it had no enforceable contract right against the defendant

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that no seizure occurred where officers boarded bus and began questioning passengers gave passengers no reason to believe that they required an answer and tjhere was no application of force no intimidating movement no overwhelming show of force no brandishing of weapons no blocking of exits no threat no command not even an authoritative tone of voice
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: in the event that you are eligible for a `` game time adjustment , '' blizzard entertainment shall credit your account with four ( 4 ) times the amount of time that the service was interrupted .

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: The Evaluation Material will be kept confidential by Investor in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and will not be disclosed to any person, except that Investor may disclose the Evaluation Material or portions thereof to those of its employees, officers, directors, partners, members, affiliates, accountants, attorneys, agents, consultants and advisors (these persons being collectively called “Representatives”) who (a) need to know such information in order for Investor to be able to evaluate a possible Transaction and (b) have been directed by Investor to treat the Evaluation Material in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.

assistant: Yes
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 Committee shall have exclusive authority to operate, manage and administer the Plan in accordance with its terms and conditions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in its absolute discretion, the Board may at any time and from time to time exercise any and all rights, duties and responsibilities of the Committee under the Plan, including establishing procedures to be followed by the Committee, but excluding matters which under any applicable law, regulation or rule, including any exemptive rule under Section 16 of the Exchange Act (including Rule 16b-3), are required to be determined in the sole discretion of the Committee. If and to the extent that the Committee does not exist or cannot function, the Board may take any action under the Plan that would otherwise be the responsibility of the Committee, subject to the limitations set forth in the immediately preceding sentence.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: internally inconsistent, as well as his demeanor on the witness stand. The court concluded that the United States’ levy on the automobiles was justified because TAFF was the alter ego of Towe. Alternatively, the court determined that TAFF was the nominee of Towe and that the alleged conveyance of the cars was fraudulent under Montana’s Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act. The district court reserved judgment on whether Towe had effected a valid transfer of the cars to TAFF because such a finding was not “critical to the outcome in this matter.” II. Ordinarily, courts are called upon to apply the alter ego doctrine in eases where a party seeks to hold an individual liable for a business entity’s debts. See Drilcon, Inc. v. Roil Energy Corp., Inc., 280 Mont. 166, 749 P.2d 1058, 1064 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Here, the United States used a “reverse Options: A. holding shareholder liable for his corporations contractual obligations using an alter ego theory of liability B. holding that corporate officer and majority shareholder could be held liable for acting in a manner that served his interests at the expense of the other shareholders because his interests and the corporations were not necessarily aligned C. holding that plaintiff an officer and shareholder of a corporation with signatory authority over the corporations checking account was not a customer of the bank and could not file suit for wrongful dishonor of the corporations checks D. holding that a subsidiary is not an alter ego of its parent even when the corporations are closely tied through stock ownership shared officers financing arrangements and the like E. holding guarantors of a family trust liable for the trusts debts under an alter ego theory

assistant: The best answer is A. holding shareholder liable for his corporations contractual obligations using an alter ego theory of liability