flwrlabs/fed-legal huggingface dataset:
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the civil rules to RCW 71.09.090(2)). But the majority turns its back on authority to deprive Young the protections contained in the civil rules for this “civil proceeding.” ¶30 Even were this novel application appropriate here, the majority is incorrect when it states, “CR 37(b)(2)(D) conflicts with the statutory contempt authority granted under chapter 7.21 RCW.” Majority at 693. As we have repeatedly held, “[a]pparent conflicts between a court rule and a statutory provision should be harmonized and both given effect, if possible.” State v. Thomas, 121 Wn.2d 504, 511, 851 P.2d 673 (1993) (citing se the SVP statute is civil, the accused has no protection against ex post facto punishments, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination); In re Det. of Stout, 159 Wn.2d 357, 150 P.3d 86 (2007) (<HOLDING>); In re Det. of Petersen, 138 Wn.2d 70, 980 Options: A. holding because the svp statute is civil the accused has no right to confront witnesses B. holding that an accused may not complain if the statute of limitations is extended so long as the period of time originally provided therein had not run at the time of such extension because an accused does not acquire any vested right in a statute of limitations until it has operated to bar the prosecution of the offense with which he has been charged C. holding because the svp is civil the accused has no constitutional right to counsel D. holding that an accused who has invoked the right to counsel is not subject to further interrogation unless the accused himself initiates further communication exchanges or conversations with the police E. holding that if the reason the victim cannot testify at trial is that the accused murdered her then the accused should be deemed to have forfeited the confrontation right even though the act with which the accused is charged is the same as the one by which he allegedly rendered the witness unavailable

assistant: The best answer is A. holding because the svp statute is civil the accused has no right to confront witnesses
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 traffic code; in the Section 1983 litigation, the relevant question is whether an objectively reasonable officer, knowing the facts known to defendant at the time of arrest, would be warranted in the belief that plaintiff had committed a crime. Escalera, 361 F.3d at 743; Pringle, 540 U.S. at 371, 124 S.Ct. 795. The absence of precise identity bars the application of collateral estoppel here. Barring plaintiff from contesting the circumstances surrounding his arrest in this civil rights lawsuit would also raise serious constitutional concerns. Such an approach would allow an administrative law judge to usurp the important fact-finding function that the Seventh Amendment properly vests with a jury. But see Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, Options: A. holding that issue preclusion extends to a matter that the court must necessarily albeit implicitly have decided B. holding that a state habeas proceeding decided on the merits precluded a section 1983 action in federal court C. holding that preclusion rules apply in 1983 actions D. holding issue preclusion bars section 1983 plaintiff from relitigating fourth amendment issue decided in state court criminal proceeding E. holding that preclusion rules apply in section 1983 actions

assistant: The best answer is D. holding issue preclusion bars section 1983 plaintiff from relitigating fourth amendment issue decided in state court criminal proceeding
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 HO’s decision that the October 23, 2002, IEP was inadequate to provide Grant with a FAPE. 5 . As stated previously, because of his ADD, Grant was found eligible for special education by the District under the Other Health Impairment ("OHI") category rather than qualification on the basis of a "specific learning disability.” See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26); Cal. Educ.Code §§ 56337, 56026(b) (setting forth the four eligibility criteria for a "specific learning disability”). Grant's parents contested the District's finding that Grant did not have a "specific learning disability” at the SEHO hearing, but did not contest this matter before this court. 6 . Other circuits have interpreted the standard in various ways. See, e.g., Fort Zumwalt Sch. Dist. v. Clynes, 119 F.3d 607, 610 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Hartmann v. Loudoun County Bd. of Educ., 118 Options: A. holding that the court of appeals must consider and weigh all of the evidence and may only set aside the finding if the evidence is so weak or if the finding is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is clearly wrong and unjust B. holding that if no evidence was presented to support the prevailing party there is no evidence upon which to apply the substantial evidence test and therefore the capricious disregard standard applies C. holding that the trial court can and should grant a new trial if the manifest weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict D. holding that a challenge to the weight of the evidence is waived for failure to present the issue first to the trial court E. holding that the weight due is less than that under the substantial evidence test but court should consider the state hearing panels expertise and opportunity to observe demeanor evidence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the weight due is less than that under the substantial evidence test but court should consider the state hearing panels expertise and opportunity to observe demeanor evidence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company represents and warrants that the undersigned has the authority to act on behalf of the Company and to bind the Company and all who may claim through it to the terms and conditions of this Retirement Agreement. You represent and warrant that you have the capacity to act on your own behalf and on behalf of all who might claim through you to bind them to the terms and conditions of this Retirement Agreement. Each Party warrants and represents that there are no liens or claims of lien or assignments in law or equity or otherwise of or against any of the claims or causes of action released herein.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The representations and warranties of the Seller made in connection herewith, including, without limitation, those in Article 5 and Section 8.1 hereof, shall be continuing representations and warranties, shall not merge with or into any deed of conveyance or other document or instrument delivered at or in connection with the Closing and shall survive the Closing for a period of one (1) year; provided, however, that such limitation shall not apply to (i) any intentional fraud; or (ii) any claim or cause of action initiated prior to the end of such one (1) year period but not settled prior to the end of such period.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a contract or statute, trial courts do not have inherent authority to require a losing party to pay the prevailing party’s fees.”). Although both the Builders’ answer and motion requested attorneys’ fees, neither pleading stated a statutory or contractual basis for the attorneys’ fees request. The Polanskys’ only claim was a breach-of-contract claim. In their petition, they sought attorneys’ fees under chapter 38 of the civil practices and remedies code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code § 38.001(8) (West 2008) (establishing that person may recover re , 910 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied) (“Section 38.001 does not provide for attorney’s fees in the pure defense of a claim.”); Energen Resources MAQ, Inc. v. Dalbosco, 23 S.W.3d 551, 558 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, even if it had been asserted, Options: A. holding that attorneys could not recover fees in excess of amount billed B. holding defendant could not recover attorneys fees under predecessor to statute 38001 when defendant did not present contract claim C. holding defendant that did not present its own claim under chapter 38 could not recover attorneys fees D. holding that chapter 38 permits an insured to recover attorney fees from the insurer E. holding trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded attorneys fees because the declaratory relief action addressed validity of note and was not used as a mere ploy to recover attorneys fees

assistant: The best answer is C. holding defendant that did not present its own claim under chapter 38 could not recover attorneys 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the rights and obligations hereunder shall not be assignable or transferable by any Party (including by operation of law in connection with a merger or consolidation of such Party) without the prior written consent of Parents and the Majority Member. Unless otherwise mutually agreed by the Parties, no such assignment shall relieve a Party from its obligations and duties hereunder. Any permitted assignee shall sign an agreement agreeing to be bound by the obligations and duties hereunder, in form and substance reasonably acceptable to the non-assigning Party. Any attempted assignment in violation of this Section 9.01 shall be void ab initio .

assistant: Assignments
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 section 776.012 (defense of person), section 776.013 (home protection or where person is standing in a place they have the right to be), and section 776.031 (defense of others). In granting the original motion to dismiss, the trial court erroneously concluded that Hill was entitled to the presumption of section 776.018(1) and immunity under section 776.032, despite the fact that he was a felon in possession of an illegal firearm which was used in response to his attack. We maintain our conclusion in State v. Hill that possession of a firearm by a convicted felon constitutes “unlawful activity” which makes Hill ineligible to receive the benefit of self-defense immunity from prosecution derived from section 776.013(3). Accord Little v. State, 111 So.3d 214, 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, Hill’s present motion for Options: A. holding that double jeopardy precludes dual convictions for felon in possession of a firearm and felon in possession of separate ammunition because section 790231 florida statutes prohibits possession of any firearm ammunition or electric weapon or device emphasis in original B. holding that dual convictions of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon violated double jeopardy C. holding that a person engaged in an unlawful activity such as possession of an illegal firearm by a felon would not be entitled to claim immunity under section 7760321 based on the use of force as permitted in section 7760133 D. holding that defendant need not establish that he was not engaged in unlawful activity under section 776012 E. holding that the application of section 776012 is not limited to persons not engaged in unlawful activity

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a person engaged in an unlawful activity such as possession of an illegal firearm by a felon would not be entitled to claim immunity under section 7760321 based on the use of force as permitted in section 7760133
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 Plaintiffs, as masters of the complaint, have pled their claims such that each claim required exhaustion of the IDEA’S administrative remedies. Ill The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 1 . The Honorable Sarah H. Hays, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 2 . For the first time on appeal, the Plaintiffs urge us to adopt a “relief-centered” test to determine whether claims are subject to the IDEA exhaustion requirement, assert claims of psychological harm, and characterize their claims as constitutional violations. We do not address these issues in this opinion. See, e.g., Lopez v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 690 F.3d 869, 875 (8th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). They also argue the court should rule whether Options: A. holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be asserted for the first time on appeal B. holding issues not raised to and ruled upon by the trial court are not preserved for appellate review C. holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal D. holding issues not raised before the district court are not preserved for appeal E. holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court

assistant: The best answer is D. holding issues not raised before the district court are not preserved for appeal
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: HS Parent is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of its incorporation and is in good standing and is authorized to transact business in each state in which if conducts business. HS Parent has all requisite corporate right, power, authority and legal capacity to execute and deliver this Agreement, to perform its obligations hereunder, and to consummate the transactions contemplated herein.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: asserting the duty to warn is in a better position because of expertise to discern and appreciate the danger.” Meyers v. M/V Eugenio C, 919 F.2d 1070, 1072 (5th Cir.1990) (citing Polizzi v. M/V Zephyros II Monrovia, 860 F.2d 147 (5th Cir.1988); Casaceli v. Martech Int’l, Inc., 774 F.2d 1322 (5th Cir.1985)). However, while such claims may demonstrate that Roulston’s injuries were caused, at least in part, by his own negligence, they do not operate to absolve Ya-zoo River of all liability in the event that it was also negligent. See Miles v. Melrose, 882 F.2d 976, 984 (5th Cir.1989) (stating that comparative negligence principles apply in Jones Act cases and prevents an “injured party from recovering for the damages sustained as a result of his own fault”); Gautreaux, 107 F.3d at 335-37 (<HOLDING>). Should the plaintiff present sufficient Options: A. recognizing pro se litigants pleadings are held to a less stringent standard B. holding that premises owner had duty to use degree of care in performing activities that owner of ordinary prudence would use under same or similar circumstances C. holding that it is inconsistent with ordinary business care and prudence to rely unquestioningly on advice about an extended deadline D. holding employers to an ordinary prudence standard of care E. holding that seamen are also held to a standard of ordinary prudence to avoid injury

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that seamen are also held to a standard of ordinary prudence to avoid injury
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 Transactions (a) do not require any consent or approval of, registration or filing with, or any other action by, any Governmental Authority, except such as have been obtained or made and are in full force and effect, (b) will not violate (i) any applicable law or regulation or (ii) the charter, by-laws or other organizational documents of the Borrower or any of the Subsidiaries or (iii) any order of any Governmental Authority, (c) will not violate or result in a default under any indenture or other agreement or instrument binding upon the Borrower or any Subsidiary or its assets (excluding the Acquired Business) providing for committed or funded Indebtedness in an aggregate principal amount for all such Indebtedness of $150,000,000 or more, or give rise to a right thereunder to require any payment to be made by the Borrower or any Subsidiary, (d) will not violate or result in a default under any indenture or other agreement or instrument binding upon the Borrower or any Subsidiary or its assets, or give rise to a right thereunder to require any payment to be made by the Borrower or any Subsidiary, and (e) will not result in the creation or imposition of any Lien on any asset of the Borrower or any Subsidiary, other than, in the case of clauses (b)(i), (b)(iii), (d) and (e), any such violations, conflicts, breaches or liens that individually or in the aggregate would not have a Material Adverse Effect.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Seller and Purchaser acknowledge ARA, a Newmark company, is a transaction broker in this transaction (“ Agent ”), which shall be paid a commission by Seller pursuant to the terms and provisions of a separate written agreement. Other than the Agent, no party shall be entitled to a fee or commission in connection with the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. Each party agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other party and all shareholders, employees, officers and directors of the other party or the other party’s parent or affiliate (each of the above is individually referred to as an “ Indemnitee ”) from all claims, including attorney’s fees and costs incurred by an Indemnitee as a result of anyone’s claiming by or through any party any fee, commission or compensation on account of this Agreement, its negotiation or the sale hereby contemplated.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that law. Jenkins’ will does not reflect any intent to include his daughters’ adopted children as beneficiaries of his testamentary trust, much less his daughters’ equitably adopted children. Although Jenkins’ will refers to his daughters’ “children,” the will does not expressly use the term “adopted children.” In the absence of explicit language expressing JenMns’ intent to include his daughters’ adopted children, the law at the time Jenkins executed his will prevents including adopted children as beneficiaries to his testamentary trust. Moreover, the doctrine of equitable adoption was not recognized by Colorado until more than twenty years after Jenkins died. See Barlow v. Barlo cipal Subdistrict Northern Colorado Water Conservancy Dist., 198 Colo. 352, 355, 610 P.2d 81, 83 (1979) (<HOLDING>). The probate court ruled that, based on the Options: A. holding that clearly erroneous standard of review governs district courts factual findings based on state record documentary evidence and inferences from other facts B. holding that the finding of intent to discriminate is a factual determination subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review C. holding that the clearly erroneous standard of review applies to 3bllc determinations D. holding that the clearly erroneous standard of review applies unless judgment is entered on the basis of documentary evidence alone E. holding that pretext is subject to the clearly erroneous standard

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the clearly erroneous standard of review applies unless judgment is entered on the basis of documentary evidence 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: The Corporation shall reasonably determine the amount of any federal, state, local or other income, employment, or other taxes which the Corporation or any of its affiliates may reasonably be obligated to withhold with respect to the grant, vesting, payment or other event with respect to the Stock Units. Except for any employment taxes becoming due as a result of the vesting of any Stock Units, the Corporation shall withhold a sufficient number of shares of Common Stock in connection with the vesting or payment of the Stock Units at the then fair market value of the Common Stock (determined either as of the date of such withholding or as of the immediately preceding trading day, as determined by the Corporation in its discretion) to satisfy any applicable withholding obligations that arise with respect to the vesting or payment of such Stock Units. Except for any employment taxes becoming due as a result of the vesting of any Stock Units, the Corporation may take such action(s) without notice to the Grantee and shall remit to the Grantee the balance of any proceeds from withholding such shares in excess of the amount reasonably determined to be necessary to satisfy such withholding obligations. The Grantee shall have no discretion as to the satisfaction of tax withholding obligations in such manner. Upon the vesting of any Stock Units or if any withholding event occurs with respect to the Stock Units other than the vesting or payment of such units, or if the Corporation for any reason does not satisfy the withholding obligations with respect to the vesting or payment of the Stock Units as provided above in this Section 9, the Corporation shall be entitled to require a cash payment by or on behalf of the Grantee and/or to deduct from other compensation payable to the Grantee the amount of any such withholding obligations.

assistant: Tax 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: Employee intends this Release to cover any and all such Released Claims, whether they are contract claims, equitable claims, fraud claims, tort claims, discrimination claims, harassment claims, whistleblower or retaliation claims, personal injury claims, constructive or wrongful discharge claims, emotional distress claims, pain and suffering claims, public policy claims, claims for debts, claims for expense reimbursement, wage claims, claims with respect to any other form of compensation, claims for attorneys’ fees, other claims or any combination of the foregoing, and whether they may arise under any employment contract (express or implied), policies, procedures, practices or by any acts or omissions of any of the Releasees or whether they may arise under any state, local or federal law, statute, ordinance, rule or regulation, including all Texas employment discrimination laws, the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, the Texas Labor Code, all U.S. federal discrimination laws, the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964, the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1991, the U.S. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the U.S. Equal Pay Act, the U.S. National Labor Relations Act, the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act, the U.S. Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, the U.S. Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the U.S. Family and Medical Leave Act, the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 or common law, without exception. As such, it is expressly acknowledged and agreed that this Release is a general release, representing a full and complete disposition and satisfaction of all of the Company’s and any Releasee’s real or alleged legal obligations to Employee, with the only exceptions being as expressly stated in the proviso to Section 1(a) hereof. Employee understands and agrees, in compliance with any law, statute, ordinance, rule or regulation which requires a specific release of unknown claims or benefits, that this Release includes a release of unknown claims, and Employee hereby expressly waives and relinquishes any and all Released Claims and any associated rights or benefits that Employee may have, including any that are unknown to Employee at the time of the execution this Release.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All historical financial statements relating to Loan Parties and their Restricted Subsidiaries that have been delivered by the Borrower to the Agent have been prepared in accordance with GAAP (except, in the case of unaudited financial statements, for the lack of footnotes and being subject to changes resulting from audit and year-end audit adjustments) and present fairly in all material respects, the Loan Parties’ and their Restricted Subsidiaries’ consolidated financial condition as of the date thereof and results of operations for the period then ended. Since December 31, 2017, no event, circumstance, or change has occurred that has or would reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect with respect to the Loan Parties and their Restricted Subsidiaries.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in the statute refers directly to the common law D’Oench doctrine. The only language in the statute even relevant to the issue presented by Mo-torcity — the range of oral agreements with respect to which the FDIC will be protected — is found in § 1823(e)(1), and its language was merely carried over intact from prior law. As in Texas, our conclusion is supported by the evident purpose of FIRREA — to enhance the FDIC’s ability, to address the problems created by the increasing number of financial institutions in default. As in Texas, Motorc (“Section 1823(e) requires an identifiable ‘asset’ which is acquired by the bank and then transferred to the regulatory agency, and to which the unenforceable agreements must relate.”); Murphy v. FDIC, 38 F.3d 1490, 1500 (9th Cir.1994) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Thigpen v. Sparks, 983 F.2d 644, 648-49 (5th Options: A. holding that a party providing a letter of credit fails at its peril to include in the letter language restricting honor and payment of the credit B. holding that 1823e does not apply to a claim relating to a letter of credit a letter of credit is a liability not an asset C. holding that documents did not substantially comply where copies of letter of credit and promissory note were submitted and letter of credit required originals D. holding that section 1823e applies only to assets and does not apply to claims regarding letters of credit because letters of credit are liabilities rather than assets E. holding that plaintiff had standing where the beneficiary of a letter of credit had assigned to plaintiff its cause of action for wrongful dishonor of the letter of credit

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that 1823e does not apply to a claim relating to a letter of credit a letter of credit is a liability not an asset
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 Grantor hereby waives, to the extent permitted by applicable Laws, all rights of redemption, appraisement, valuation, stay, extension or moratorium now or hereafter in force under any applicable Laws in order to prevent or delay the enforcement of this Agreement or the absolute sale of the Collateral or any portion thereof. In the event that the proceeds of any sale, collection or realization are insufficient to pay all amounts to which the Administrative Agent or the Secured Parties are legally entitled, the Grantors shall be jointly and severally liable for the deficiency, together with interest thereon at the Default Rate, together with the costs of collection and the fees, charges and disbursements of counsel. Any surplus remaining after the full payment and satisfaction of the Secured Obligations shall be returned to the Grantors or to whomsoever a court of competent jurisdiction shall determine to be entitled thereto.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: out, however, that the jury convicted him of violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii), which requires a showing of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base. The only evidence with respect to the 625 grams of crack at issue is the testifying probation officer’s discussion with Jackson who testified directly at trial only with respect to one-half ounce (approximately fourteen grams) of crack. The probation officer does not appear to discuss at the sentencing hearing how Jackson came up with the figure of 125 grams of crack per week in July of 1993, nor does the presentence investigation report provide any further basis. See J.A. at 2128 (PSR at ¶ 82). See also United States v. Frazier, 89 F.3d 1501, 1506 (11th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied sub nom. Hutchinson, 520 U.S. Options: A. holding that an indictment that referred to wholesale quantities of cocaine and cocaine base was sufficiently broad to include the specific quantities of drugs actually found by the jury B. holding that extrapolation of drug quantities from general evidence of selling quantities and periods of time is insufficient for sentencing without more specific evidence of the number of transactions and quantities of drug involved C. holding that a defendant can only be sentenced for misprision of felony based on drug quantities that he knew or should have known or foreseen were involved in the conspiracy D. holding that evidence supported conspiracy with an unnamed drug supplier where inter alia defendant purchased wholesale quantities of drugs from the supplier E. holding firearms large sums of cash and uncharged quantities of illegal drugs are admissible to show a defendant is involved in the distribution of illegal drugs

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that extrapolation of drug quantities from general evidence of selling quantities and periods of time is insufficient for sentencing without more specific evidence of the number of transactions and quantities of drug involved
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: (finding objections on hearsay and foundational ground sufficient to preserve a Sixth Amendment claim for appeal because of the close relationship between hearsay and confrontation), aff'd 933 N.E.2d 1271 (Ind.2010). The best practice is for attorneys to make both objections when applicable. The failure to do so in this case is not particularly egregious; because the trial court concluded that the testimony was not hearsay, it seems unlikely that the trial court would have sustained an objection based on the Confrontation Clause. Regardless, we agree with the State that Officer Thompson’s testimony was not “testimonial hearsay,” the type of hearsay barred pursuant to the Confrontation Clause. See Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 821, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006) (<HOLDING>). Davis described the distinction between Options: A. holding that the admission of testimonial statements against a defendant is unconstitutional when the declarant does not appear at trial unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for crossexamination B. holding that the confrontation clause bars admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless the witness was unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity for crossexamination C. holding that the admission of prior testimony that had been subjected to crossexamination violated the confrontation clause because the state did not prove that the witness was unavailable D. holding that outofcourt statements by witnesses that are testimonial in nature are barred under the confrontation clause unless witnesses are unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to crossexamine them E. holding the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial statements

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the confrontation clause bars admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless the witness was unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity for crossexamination
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: not violate Glenn’s Fourth Amendment rights. See Matlock, 415 U.S. at 171, 94 S.Ct. at 993 (“Permission to search [may be] obtained from a third party who possesses] common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.”). However, I must part company with the majority with respect to whether the grandfather’s consent to the search of Ms home also vested the officers with the authority to open and search Glenn’s backpack. See Randolph, 126 S.Ct. at 1522 (noting, for example, that, “when it comes to searching through bureau drawers, there will be instances in wMch even a person clearly belonging on the premises as an occupant may lack any perceived authority to consent”); United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, 725, 104 S.Ct. Cir. 1977) (<HOLDING>); see also Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, Options: A. holding that a mother had apparent authority to consent to a search of her adult sons bedroom including a closed vinyl bag found in the bedroom B. holding that a defendants sister could consent to a search of only the common areas of their shared house and her own bedroom and explicitly stating that the sister could not consent to search the defendants bedroom because the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her own bedroom C. holding that appellants father had authority to consent to search of defendants bedroom where house defendant lived in was owned by his parents room was not locked and defen dants family was not denied access to bedroom D. holding that child cannot consent to search of parents bedroom E. holding that a woman can consent to a search of a bedroom shared by herself and the man she lived with including the closet

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a woman can consent to a search of a bedroom shared by herself and the man she lived with including the closet
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 provided under the Credit Agreement, each Subordinated Creditor hereby waives any and all notice of the incurrence of the Senior Debt or any part thereof and any right to require marshaling of assets.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: assure that material testimony in a criminal case is presented at the trial. The majority argues that the arrest of a material witness and the continued detention of a material witness cannot be governed under different standards. They maintain, “It logically follows that if the basis for the arrest of a material witness is eliminated, there can be no basis for a continued detention.” But why? The two fact-specific cases cited by the majority do not support their broader proposition. In reality, it happens all the time that a person is arrested for one criminal charge but is then detained because of a different criminal charge even though the original grounds for arrest turned out on further investigation to be unsupported. See, e.g., State v. Bradford, 620 N.W.2d 503, 508 (Iowa 2000) (<HOLDING>). “Catch and release” is not required here. The Options: A. holding that reference to termination based on race in charge did not reasonably relate to unmentioned racial harassment B. holding that defendant was arrested when the police officer took physical custody of him by grabbing his arm and returned him to the hotel for detention there C. holding that a charge that alleged discrimination on the basis of sex did not support a complaint for hostile environment sexual harassment D. holding that the initial stop by officer was based on reasonable suspicion that defendant was impersonating a police officer although another officer arrested defendant for privacy act violation E. holding police properly arrested defendant for harassment and noting propriety of subsequent detention based on different charge

assistant: The best answer is E. holding police properly arrested defendant for harassment and noting propriety of subsequent detention based on different charge
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: namely the three landfills. Pl’s Mem. in Supp. of Summ. J., at 25. In this regard, Icarom claims that “all-risks” insurance covers only those losses of a “fortuitous,” “accidental” nature, citing, inter alia, Compagnie des Bauxites v. Insurance Co. of North America, 724 F.2d 369, 372 (3rd Cir.1983) (stating that “accident” is a synonym for “fortuitous event”); U.S. Gypsum Co., 678 F.Supp. at 141 (“Some courts have found it helpful to interpret fortuitous as analogous to the insurance policy term ‘accident.’ In construing the word ‘accident,’ the emphasis focuses on the unplanned and unintentional nature of the damage rather than the fact that it is a physical certainty, or something that is inevitable.”); Avis v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 283 N.C. 142, 195 S.E.2d 545, 548 (1973) (<HOLDING>). According to Icarom, because Howard County Options: A. holding that all risks coverage extends only when the loss is fortuitous B. holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage C. holding that causation is a coverage question for the court when an insurer wholly denies that there is a covered loss and an amountofloss question for the appraisal panel when an insurer admits that there is a covered loss the amount of which is disputed D. holding that contract language referring to amount of loss authorized appraiser only to place dollar value on loss and not to determine cause of damage or other coverage issues E. recognizing that a provision insuring against all risks of physical loss or damage from external cause would provide coverage against conversion

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that all risks coverage extends only when the loss is fortuitous
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 Andeavor Group and the General Partner will each provide such suitably qualified and experienced Seconded Employees as they are reasonably able to make available to the General Partner and the Andeavor Group, respectively. To the extent that the Seconded Employees are required to undergo any training or certification to perform Seconded Services, the Secondment Provider shall be responsible for ensuring that such Seconded Employees have obtained such training and certifications, unless otherwise specified in a Service Order. The General Partner will have the right to approve such Andeavor Seconded Employees and the applicable entity in the Andeavor Group will have the right to approve such Partnership Seconded Employees.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: To the extent Executive meets the eligibility requirements for such arrangements, plans or programs, Executive shall be entitled to: (i) participate in such health (medical, hospital and/or dental) insurance (“ Medical and Health Benefits ”), retirement, life insurance, disability insurance, flexible benefits arrangements and accident insurance plans and programs as are maintained in effect from time to time by the Company for its senior executive officers; (ii) participate in other non-duplicative benefit programs which the Company may from time to time offer generally to senior executive officers of the Company; and (iii) take vacations and personal time in accordance with the Company’s Paid Time Off (“ PTO ”) policy, except that Executive will accrue 120 hours of PTO per year; provided however, that the total amount of PTO that Executive may have accrued during any one year shall be capped at 2 00 hours, with any hours in excess of 200 paid out in the first pay period of December of each year during the Term. In the event of short-term illness, Executive will be provided time to convalesce at home and will be paid Executive’s regular salary for this time. Sick time is not accrued but rather is taken as needed.

assistant: Vacations
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: from behind the bench in the robe is protected by the First Amendment, even if his use of the trappings of judicial office were notprotected by First Amendment); Halleck v. Berlinger, 427 F. Supp. 1225, 1241 (D.D.C. 1977) (applying the First Amendment in disciplinary proceeding to comments made from the bench, but finding the particular comments outside of its protection); Mississippi Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Boland, 975 So.2d 882, 891-92 (Miss. 2008) (applying First Amendment to ajudge acting in her “capacity as a justice court judge” at a conference seeking certification to start a drug court, but held that First Amendment did not apply because judge’s insulting comments were not matters of “legitimate public concern.”); In re Rome, 218 Kan. 198, 542 P.2d 676, 684 (1975) (<HOLDING>). 11 As indicated in the Gentile syllabus, Options: A. holding that free speech protection of new jersey constitution requires subject to reasonable restrictions privatelyowned shopping centers to permit speech on political and societal issues on premises unlike first amendment of federal constitution B. recognizing that code is speech C. holding that first amendment protections apply to compelled speech as well as restrictions on speech D. holding that although ajudge has the right of free speech any restrictions placed by the code of professional responsibility are acceptable limits and prevent the first amendment from exempting a judge from discipline for proven judicial misconduct E. holding that the first amendment limits judicial discretion to seal documents in a civil case

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that although ajudge has the right of free speech any restrictions placed by the code of professional responsibility are acceptable limits and prevent the first amendment from exempting a judge from discipline for proven judicial misconduct
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: 223, 230 (Mo.1982)(en banc) (“Notice and an opportunity to be heard must be provided by the state in a meaningful manner prior to deprivation of a protected interest. This rule is not necessarily applied when there is a temporary taking, as is the case here. Due process is a flexible concept.”) (citations omitted); see also State v. Doe, 46 Conn.Supp. 598, 765 A.2d 518, 523-29 (2000) (concluding defendant had not been prejudiced by issuance of initial protective order without an attorney where he had the order modified with the aid of counsel). Notably, appellate courts from other jurisdictions have held that statutes similar to this state’s Protection from Domestic Abuse Act are not violative of due process. See, e.g., Paschal v. Hazlinsky, 803 So.2d 413, 417-19 (La.Ct.App.2001) (<HOLDING>); Kampf v. Kampf, 237 Mich.App. 377, 603 N.W.2d Options: A. holding that there are two standards in review of orders on motions to vacate defaults simple abuse of discretion for orders denying relief and gross abuse of discretion for orders granting relief B. holding that protective orders in the landlord and tenant branch are distinguishable from ordinary prejudgment security devices because protective orders are not statutory creations and because a tenant who fails to pay a protective order may suffer the irreparable consequence of losing possession of the property C. holding that mere neglect for prisoners safety does not amount to a substantive due process violation implying that intent to do harm would be an abuse of government power and amount to a substantive due process violation D. holding that in similar factual situation no due process violation occurred E. holding no due process violation with respect to hearings for protective orders against domestic abuse

assistant: The best answer is E. holding no due process violation with respect to hearings for protective orders against domestic abuse