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: from raising his Batson claim within sixty days thereafter. Appellee’s attempt to circumvent the statutory language by asserting that the factual predicate of his claim is actually the PCRA court’s ruling in Spence is specious. A PCRA petitioner cannot avoid the one-year time bar by tailoring the factual predicate of the claim pled in his PCRA petition in a way that unmistakably misrepresents the actual nature of the claim raised. See Commonwealth v. Fisher, 582 Pa. 276, 870 A.2d 864, 870 (2005) (rejecting PCRA petitioner’s attempt to invoke Section 9545(b)(1)(ii)’s exception to the time-bar based on the date of issuance of a study on FBI methodologies because the facts underlying the study were previously available); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 580 Pa. 594, 863 A.2d 423, 426-27 (2004) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Whitney, 572 Pa. 468, 817 Options: A. holding that cr 6002 allows appeals based upon claims of error that were unknown and could not have been known to the moving party by exercise of reasonable diligence and in time to have been otherwise presented to the court B. holding that contractor could not show that it reasonably relied upon alleged misrepresentation C. holding that inquiry notice triggers an investors duty to exercise reasonable diligence and that the statute of limitations period begins to run once the investor in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the facts underlying the alleged fraud D. recognizing an exception to the twoyear time bar imposed on rule 3850 claims when the claim asserted is based on facts that were unknown to the movant and could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence E. holding that section 9545b1h was not satisfied where pcra petitioner relied upon an affidavit containing facts that could have been previously ascertained upon the exercise of due diligence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that section 9545b1h was not satisfied where pcra petitioner relied upon an affidavit containing facts that could have been previously ascertained upon the exercise of due diligence
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: CapStar and Executive agree that this Agreement contains the complete agreement concerning the employment arrangement, written or oral, between them and that this Agreement supersedes all prior negotiations, practices and/or agreements, including the Prior Agreement. Neither party has made any representations that are not contained herein on which either party has relied in entering into this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Both Plaintiffs briefing and his testimony, consistent with Montgomery’s declaration, indicate that what precipitated Montgomery’s parking lot communication to Martin, that he wanted Plaintiff out of his section, was the revelation that after requesting the safety boots from Montgomery, Plaintiff had obtained approval elsewhere for the safety boots without Montgomery’s knowledge. Montgomery’s displeasure with how Plaintiff handled the boot situation, by going above or around Montgomery without Montgomery’s knowledge and bringing this to his attention in the parking lot discussion, provides a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for his request to Martin to move Plaintiff out of Montgomery’s section. See Slatkin v. Univ. of Redlands, 88 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1157, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 480 (2001) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). Martin, Options: A. recognizing that even a personal grudge can constitute a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse employment decision B. holding that termination of individuals employment for making personal phone calls was a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for discharge C. holding that even an incorrect belief that an employees performance is inadequate can be a legitimate reason for an adverse employment action D. holding that drugrelated misconduct is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination E. recognizing that an employers decision to eliminate a position is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for terminating a position or employee

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that even a personal grudge can constitute a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse employment decision
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 Borrowers shall use the proceeds of the Loans solely for working capital and other general corporate purposes, including, without limitation, to refinance certain existing Indebtedness of the Borrowers. No part of the proceeds of the Loans will be used, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of purchasing or carrying any margin stock within the meaning of Regulation U of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, to extend credit to others for the purpose of purchasing or carrying any such margin stock or for any purpose which violates, or which would be inconsistent with, the provisions of Regulation T, U or X of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

assistant: Use Of Proceeds
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 Member and Manager as a condition to admittance as a Member, or as a condition to acceptance of appointment as a Manager or as Manager hereby represents and warrants to the Company, the Manager and to each other Member that such person and its Principals and Affiliates, is or are not, nor have any of them ever been: (a) convicted of a felony or misdemeanor (other than a minor traffic violation); (b) a member, associate, affiliate, instrument of, or in any way, directly or indirectly, knowingly involved with organized crime or persons associated with organized crime; (c) disbarred, had an application for a license rejected, or suspended for more than one year, or had a license revoked, with respect to the practice of law, accounting or medicine, or in connection with the sale of securities; (d) the subject of an enforcement action by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, NASD or FINRA.

assistant: Representations
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: exempt from levy; (4) Living Care Utica’s inability to pay the taxes is the result of extensive government regulation in the field; (5) the IRS wrongly rejected an offer in compromise; (6) the IRS should have accepted Living Care Utica’s plan to maintain the business and sell it as an ongoing concern; (7) the IRS abused its discretion in making a determi nation to sustain the levy and liens; (8) Living Care Utica’s plan to sell the business as an ongoing concern will net more tax revenue; and (9) Living Care Utica contests the underlying tax liability. (Utica J.A. 205-06). As the district court correctly identified, all of the claims presented to it by Living Care Utica, with the exception of the second claim, at l ed States, No. 03-0359, 2003 W L 23311523, *4 (S.D.Ohio Dec.12, 2003) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, as to the second part of Montana’s Options: A. holding that the tax was not direct even though the government imposed it on the estate rather than the recipient B. holding that even if the inability to pay was the result of government regulation it would not excuse the tax liability and that there is no requirement that the united states consider whether it will receive any revenue from the levy C. holding that sovereign immunity prevents mandamus action to compel state officers to levy a tax to pay bondholders D. holding that government regulation even extensive regulation and the receipt of federal funds such as medicare medicaid and hillburton funds are insufficient to establish that a hospital or other entity acted under color of state law E. holding that medicaid and medicare funds are subject to levy and that even if the inability to pay was the result of government regulation it would not excuse the tax liability

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that medicaid and medicare funds are subject to levy and that even if the inability to pay was the result of government regulation it would not excuse the tax liability
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: petition would operate to toll or stay the running of the redemption period under § 362 or § 108 and, if the redemption period were not so tolled, whether the application for and issuance of a tax deed would violate the automatic stay. Those courts uniformly held that the redemption period was not tolled, that upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition the right of redemption became property of the estate, and that the tax deed proceeding was not subject to the automatic stay since it was not “a proceeding to collect, harass or foreclose, but rather to provide for the tax certificate holder to obtain clear title to the property in question.” That holding is binding upon and was adopted by this Court in its ruling in In re Thompson, No. 89 B 17031, Order dated November 15, 1989 (<HOLDING>). These courts did not, however, address the Options: A. holding that the delivery of the deed following a foreclosure sale was a ministerial act that was not prohibited by the automatic stay B. holding that the automatic stay did not bar the filing of a proof of claim where the debtor actively litigated a separate action during the pending bankruptcy proceeding because to permit the automatic stay provision to be used as a trump card played after an unfavorable result was reached would be inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the automatic stay C. holding that the application for a tax deed upon expiration of the redemption period did not violate the automatic stay D. holding only one publication of notice of expiration of redemption period was required when county purchased lots at tax sale E. holding that the trial court erred in denying a tax purchasers application for a tax deed where the original owner of the property did not tender the required sum until three days after the period of redemption had expired

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the application for a tax deed upon expiration of the redemption period did not violate the automatic stay
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: contractor’s work is accepted and end day it is accepted and that, while one “who assumes control over a dangerous condition left by a contractor may be liable,” it “does not necessarily mean that he who creates the danger should escape liability”). Third, the defect in Preston— the design and construction of the pool— was “a patent one as a matter of law.” 227 Cal.Rptr. 817, 720 P.2d at 485. Moreover, other jurisdictions have faced more factually analogous circumstances and have rejected arguments similar to Occidental’s. These cases have imposed liability on former plant owners whose negligent design work resulted in an injury to a third-party after the sale of the plant to a new owner. See Stone v. United Eng’g, a Div. of Wean, Inc., 197 W.Va. 347, 475 S.E.2d 439, 443-44 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Dorman v. Swift & Co., 162 Ariz. 228, 782 Options: A. recognizing the general rule that a property owner is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor B. holding that the current property owner may not assert a public nuisance claim against the former owner C. holding that section 150002 was satisfied with respect to hotel owners claims against former owners architect for negligent design of foundation and drainage D. holding former plant owner liable for its negligent design of conveyor belt E. holding that in the context of construction litigation regarding the alleged negligence of design professionals a tort action for negligent misrepresentation alleging damages based purely on economic loss is not available to a party in privity of contract with a design professional

assistant: The best answer is D. holding former plant owner liable for its negligent design of conveyor belt
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York. The parties hereto intend that the provisions of Section 5-1401 of the New York General Obligations Law shall apply to this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: case was submitted, we issued our opinion in S.J., holding that “for a petitioner to be entitled to expunction under article 55.01, all charges arising from the arrest must meet that article’s requirements.” 438 S.W.3d at 845. In S.J., the petitioner was arrested for a single offense — aggravated assault — but pleaded nolo contendere to terroristic threat in exchange for dismissal of the aggravated assault charge. Id. at 839. Although the case did not involve a multi-charge arrest like we have in this case, we find our holding in S.J. equally applicable here. Our sister courts have also reached the same conclusion as we did in S.J. in multi-charge arrest situations. See In re D.W.H., No. 08-12-00031-CV, — S.W.3d -,-, 2014 WL 5798204, at *3 (Tex. App.-El Paso Oct. 22, 2014, no pet. h.) (<HOLDING>); Dicken, 415 S.W.3d at 480 (holding that Options: A. holding a limitation on damages arising out of bodily injury to one person involved in an accident applies to all claims arising from the death of that person B. holding that nature of alleged bias must be personal and not arising out of litigation C. holding that expunction unavailable for individual charge arising out of arrest for improper relationship between an educator and student when petitioner convicted of possessing illegal firearms arising out of the same transaction D. holding that all claims arising from the same employment relationship constitute the same transaction or series of transactions for claim preclusion purposes E. holding that an arising out of exclusion applies to claims flowing from or growing out of the excluded activity

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that expunction unavailable for individual charge arising out of arrest for improper relationship between an educator and student when petitioner convicted of possessing illegal firearms arising out of the same transaction
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 trial court is properly presented to this Court. Because we find the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction with respect to the permanent injunction and the order was interlocutory with respect to the preliminary injunction, we vacate in part and remand in part for further proceedings. I. Permanent Injunction “A permanent injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy and may only properly issue after a full consideration of the merits of a case.” Shishko v. Whitley, 64 N.C. App. 668, 671, 308 S.E.2d 448, 450 (1983). “A judge conducting a hearing to determine whether a temporary restraining order should be continued as a preliminary injunction . . . has no jurisdiction to determine a controversy on its merits.” Everette v. Taylor, 77 N.C. App. 442, 444, 335 S.E.2d 212, 214 (1985) (<HOLDING>). “[Where] the judgment entered [is] beyond the Options: A. holding it was error for the court to issue a permanent injunction at a hearing to show cause why a temporary restraining order should not be continued via a preliminary injunction B. holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction C. holding that the standard for permanent injunction is the same as that for preliminary injunction with the one exception being that the plaintiff must show actual success on the merits rather than likelihood of success D. holding preliminary injunction improper where it exceeded the relief sought and granted the same relief which would have been given in a final order of permanent injunction E. holding that a hearing must be held to determine credibility in preliminary injunction cases

assistant: The best answer is A. holding it was error for the court to issue a permanent injunction at a hearing to show cause why a temporary restraining order should not be continued via a preliminary injunction
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 has noted, “[cjommon sense suggests that the existence of an association-in-fact is often-times more readily proven by what it does, rather than by abstract analysis of its structure.” Coo-nan, 938 F.2d at 1559 (emphasis in original) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The evidence at trial clearly established that the drug taxing and drug trafficking conspiracies were undertaken by individuals on behalf of the enterprise, and were in fact an integral part of the conduct of the Erne’s affairs. Additionally, the murder conspiracies were proof of the existence of an enterprise, because the dispute was between different factions of the enterprise struggling for position within and control of the organization. Cf. United States v. Amato, 15 F.3d 230, 234 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). In this case there was evidence of more than Options: A. holding civil factual sufficiency preservation requirements do not apply in criminal context B. holding in context of criminal prosecution of members of one faction within a criminal enterprise that rivalry and dissension however violent do not necessarily signify dissolution of a conspiracy C. holding probation revocation is not a stage of a criminal prosecution D. holding that simultaneous civil and related criminal proceedings do not constitute unfairness and want of consideration of justice requiring reversal of a criminal conviction E. holding that in the conviction and sentencing for criminal offenses committed in the course of one criminal episode it is the intent of the legislature that there be a separate conviction and sentence for each criminal offense unless one of the offenses is a degree of the other a necessarily included lesser offense subsumed in the other or both offenses are identical

assistant: The best answer is B. holding in context of criminal prosecution of members of one faction within a criminal enterprise that rivalry and dissension however violent do not necessarily signify dissolution of a conspiracy
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: regarding PECO’s pension plan. The action against PECO was grounded on its alleged violation of fiduciary obligations in its capacity as plan administrator. The district court granted summary judgment for PECO and the plaintiffs appealed. The Fischer panel began its analysis by recognizing that well established case law provides that plan administrators have a fiduciary obligation not to affirmatively misrepresent material facts to plan participants. Fischer, 994 F.2d at 135 (citing Eddy v. Colonial Life Ins. Co., 919 F.2d 747, 751 (D.C.Cir.1990) (“This duty to communicate complete and correct material information about a beneficiary’s status and options is not a novel idea.”)); see also Bixler v. Central Penn. Teamsters Health-Welfare Program, 12 F.3d 1292, 1300 (3d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). The panel restated this obligation in the Options: A. recognizing that plan participants should be able to access information about the plan administrators fiduciary duties from the plan administrators counsel B. recognizing that pension plan administrators have the ability to fashion their own plan formulas C. recognizing that when a beneficiary requests information from an erisa fiduciary who is aware of the beneficiarys status and situation the fiduciary has an obligation to convey complete and accurate information material to the beneficiarys circumstance even if that requires conveying information about which the beneficiary did not specifically inquire D. holding that in a recovery of benefits claim only the plan and the administrators and trustees of the plan in their capacity as such may be held liable E. recognizing that plan administrators have an obligation to convey complete and accurate information material to the beneficiarys circumstances

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that plan administrators have an obligation to convey complete and accurate information material to the beneficiarys circumstances
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: conduct constitutes sex discrim ination.” La Day v. Catalyst Technology, Inc., 302 F.3d 474, 478 (5th Cir.2002). If this determination is answered in the affirmative, the court must decide whether the challenged conduct meets the applicable standards for either a quid pro quo or hostile environment claim. For example, same-sex harassment that is ‘severe or. pervasive’ enough to create a hostile environment ... might be excluded from the coverage of [T]itle VII because it was not discriminatory on the basis of sex. On the other hand, same-sex harassment that is indisputably discriminatory might not be serious enough to make out either a quid pro quo or hostile environment claim. Id. (citation omitted). See, e.g., Davis v. Coastal Int’l Security, Inc., 275 F.3d 1119, 1126 (D.C.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). The Court’s first task is to determine Options: A. holding that transsexuals are not a protected class under title vii in response to the plaintiffs argument that because a persons identity as a transsexual is directly connected to the sex organs she possesses discrimination on this basis must constitute discrimination because of sex B. recognizing that a plaintiff can demonstrate that samesex harassment is because of sex by showing that the conduct was motivated by the coworkers sexual desire for persons of the same sex C. holding that retaliation claim was reasonably related to prior sex discrimination claim D. holding discrimination based on pregnancy was not sex discrimination E. holding that actions of plaintiffs coworkers which included slashing plaintiffs tires grabbing their crotches and making kissing gestures and uttering a phrase used to describe oral sex however vulgar did not constitute discrimination because of sex

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that actions of plaintiffs coworkers which included slashing plaintiffs tires grabbing their crotches and making kissing gestures and uttering a phrase used to describe oral sex however vulgar did not constitute discrimination because of sex
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: neither violated the Minnesota Statutes nor been threatened by Appellees with prosecution should they engage in the proposed activity, Appellants’ fear of prosecution is not imaginary or speculative. The Minnesota Statutes, on their face, prohibit corporate political expenditures of money or service for the purpose of promoting or defeating a candidate for federal office, and the penalty provisions apply both to the corporations and their agents. While Appellees assert that they have never prosecuted anyone under the Minnesota Statutes or “made any public statements threatening to do so,” Brief of Appellees at 9, Appellees have not disavowed an intent to enforce the statutes in the future. See United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l Union v. IBP, Inc., 857 F.2d 422, 429 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, as counsel conceded at oral argument, Options: A. holding that plaintiffs had standing to challenge stops by the united states border patrol because plaintiffs could be stopped without engaging in illegal conduct B. holding that representation by state officials that they have no present plan to enforce a statute does not divest plaintiffs of standing to challenge the statute because the states position could well change C. holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract D. holding that when a statute is patterned after a similar provision in another states statute it is proper to resort to judicial constructions placed on the statute by the courts of the state whose statute provided the model in determining the proper construction E. holding that a plaintiffs reference to himself and all similarly situated future petitioners did not change the essence of his action from a particularized challenge of the state courts decision against him to a general challenge of a statute

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that representation by state officials that they have no present plan to enforce a statute does not divest plaintiffs of standing to challenge the statute because the states position could well change
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: at 621 (“We have not yet determined which pleading standard best effectuates Congress’s intent.”). And there are at least three different standards currently “in play” among our sister circuits. At one end of the spectrum is the relatively lenient standard espoused by the Second Circuit. Under that standard, a plaintiff may plead scienter by alleging specific facts that either (1) establish “both motive and opportunity to commit fraud” or (2) constitute “strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness.” See Kalnit v. Eichler, 264 F.3d 131, 138-39 (2d Cir.2001). At the other end of the spectrum is the relatively strict “deliberate recklessness” standard espoused by the Ninth Circuit. See In re Silicon Graphics Inc. Secs. Litig., 183 F.3d 970, 974 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). In between is an intermediate standard Options: A. holding that particular facts giving rise to a strong inference of deliberate recklessness at a minimum is required to satisfy the heightened pleading standard under the pslra B. holding that the fact that federal rule of civil procedure 9b requires a heightened pleading standard for some claims but not for a section 1983 claim against a municipality means that the rules do not require a heightened pleading standard for such a claim C. holding that the pslra particularity requirement compels plaintiffs to allege severe recklessness D. holding that the pslra imposes a more rigorous pleading standard than applied by any of the courts of appeals prior to the enactment of the statute E. recognizing that the federal pleading standard is a less stringent standard than the delaware pleading standard

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that particular facts giving rise to a strong inference of deliberate recklessness at a minimum is required to satisfy the heightened pleading standard under the pslra
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: Based on the financial condition of the Company as of the Closing Date (and assuming that the Closing shall have occurred), (i) the Company’s fair saleable value of its assets exceeds the amount that will be required to be paid on or in respect of the Company’s existing debts and other liabilities (including known contingent liabilities) as they mature, (ii) the Company’s assets do not constitute unreasonably small capital to carry on its business for the current fiscal year as now conducted and as proposed to be conducted including its capital needs taking into account the particular capital requirements of the business conducted by the Company, and projected capital requirements and capital availability thereof, and (iii) the current cash flow of the Company, together with the proceeds the Company would receive, were it to liquidate all of its assets, after taking into account all anticipated uses of the cash, would be sufficient to pay all amounts on or in respect of its debt when such amounts are required to be paid. The Company will not incur debts beyond its ability to pay such debts as they mature (taking into account the timing and amounts of cash to be payable on or in respect of its debt).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: courts have, has repeatedly lamented the tragedy. See Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432, 439, 77 S.Ct. 408, 412, 1 L.Ed.2d 448 (1957) (“The increasing slaughter on our highways, most of which should be avoidable, now reaches the astounding figures only heard of on the battlefield”); Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 401, 91 S.Ct. 668, 672, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971) (BLACKMUN, J., concurring) (deploring “traffic irresponsibility and the frightful carnage it spews upon our highways”); Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637, 657, 672, 91 S.Ct. 1704, 1715, 1722, 29 L.Ed.2d 233 (1971) (BLACKMUN, J., concurring) (footnote omitted) (“The slaughter on the highways of this Nation exceeds the death toll of all our wars”); Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 17-19, 99 S.Ct. 2612, 2620-2621, 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Neville, 459 U.S. at 558-59, 102 S.Ct. at Options: A. recognizing the public interest exception B. holding that the government interest in preventing crime is compelling C. holding that an order compelling arbitration in an independent proceeding is appealable as a final order because in that context the order compelling arbitration resolves the sole issue before the court D. recognizing the compelling interest in highway safety E. holding grandparent visitation statute serves compelling state interest in maintaining grandparentgrandchild relationship where grandparents had raised child for period of time but agreeing with trial court that something more than childs best interest must be established to serve compelling state interest

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing the compelling interest in highway safety
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: point that its "holding must be overturned.” (Def.’s Supp. Brief at 2.) The defendant has attempted to convince the court that it simply cannot comply with Orthopaedic Hospital's requirement of conducting cost studies, declaring that “Orthopaedic is an example of the impractical and unreasonable requirement of relying upon cost studies as a basis for rate setting.” (Opp'n to CMA’s Mot. at 27.) If the defendant wishes to argue the impracticably or invalidity of Orthopaedic Hospital, she must do so before the Ninth Circuit. 20 . Both plaintiffs and defendant make eviden-tiary objections to each others' submissions. The objections either lack merit or do not affect the court's overall assessment of the record. See also Flynt Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389, 1394 (9th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). 21 . In 2001, the Legislative Analyst Options: A. holding that a trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment B. holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction C. holding that a court may rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence including hearsay evidence at the preliminary injunction stage D. holding that court can consider inadmissible evidence in the context of a motion for preliminary injunction E. holding that a motion for a preliminary injunction and a hearing on that motion were insufficient to prevent the plaintiff from dismissing by notice

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that court can consider inadmissible evidence in the context of a motion for preliminary injunction
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 Borrower shall give the Administrative Agent prompt written notice of any event that (i) could reasonably be expected to result in the imposition of a Lien on any Borrower Collateral under Section 430(k) of the IRC or Section 303(k) or 4068 of ERISA, or (ii) could reasonably be expected to result in the incurrence by Borrower of any liabilities under Title IV of ERISA (other than premium payments arising in the ordinary course of business).

assistant: Erisa
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: part of the crime is that the defendant was legally called under the terms of his bail bond or promise to appear); Trice v. United States, 525 A.2d 176, 178-80 (D.C.1987) (affirming conviction where the defendant failed to appear for a court date, holding that willfullness was properly inferred from the defendant having received written notice, and stating that the defendant must have been required to appear in court on a specified date); Raymond v. United States, 396 A.2d 975, 976-77 (D.C.1979) (affirming conviction where the defendant failed to appear at scheduled status hearing, stating that one on when the trial court’s order specifying the required appearance date was too vague. See Ellmore, supra, § 25[h], at 1137 (citing State v. Mouttet, 372 N.W.2d 121, 123 (S.D.1985) (<HOLDING>)). {19} Referring specifically to the failure Options: A. holding that the defendant was denied due process because the procedural rule was not followed in any respect by the trial court B. holding that even if the calculation commenced on the date of the first indictment the defendants right to a speedy trial was not violated C. holding that the trial courts order violated due process because it was unclear whether or not the defendant was required to appear on the date in question D. holding that due process was violated where a death sentence was imposed based on information in a presentence report and the defendant was not given an opportunity to deny or explain the information E. holding that petitioners reliance on a case which concluded that a defendants right to a fair trial was violated was insufficient to place court on notice that petitioner was advancing a constitutional due process claim because the decision was based on state law

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the trial courts order violated due process because it was unclear whether or not the defendant was required to appear on the date in question
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 and other communications given or made pursuant hereto shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given or made if in writing and delivered personally or 7 days after being sent by registered or certified mail (postage prepaid, return receipt requested) to the parties at the addresses set forth in the Preamble of this Agreement, or to such other persons or at such other addresses as shall be furnished by any party by like notice to the others, and such notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given or made as of the date so delivered or mailed. No change in any of such addresses shall be effective insofar as notices under this Section 9.3 are concerned unless notice of such change shall have been given to such other party hereto as provided in this Section 9.3.

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 trial court denied the request to require the Department to pay travel costs that “are made to foster the attorney/client relationship.” Although not requested by the Attorney Ad Litem, the court ordered the Department to “fund any visits [by the pro bono Attorney Ad Litem] that are therapeutically recommended by the therapeutic staff of the Alexander Youth Network.” The Department appealed. ANALYSIS The issue presented is whether the trial court’s order violated the separation of powers doctrine by requiring the Department, an executive agency, to pay for the travel of the pro bono Attorney Ad Litem for the purpose of facilitating the minor child’s therapy. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families v. Y.C., 82 So.3d 1139, 1141 n. 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (<HOLDING>); Dep’t of Corrs. v. Harrison, 896 So.2d 868, Options: A. recognizing the right to petition for writ of certiorari as a form of appellate review B. holding in a similar case that certiorari was the proper vehicle for review C. holding that discovery of financial information was not in and of itself the type of irreparable harm necessary for certiorari review D. holding that certiorari petition is appropriate to review nonfinal pretrial evidentiary order in criminal case E. holding that previous legal ruling granting certiorari was law of the case in subsequent proceedings

assistant: The best answer is B. holding in a similar case that certiorari was the proper vehicle for review
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: On the Restatement Effective Date, the Borrower shall pay (i) to the Administrative Agent, for the accounts of the Lenders, the fees payable pursuant to Section 2.5 and the first sentence of Section 3.3 of the Existing Credit Agreement which have accrued for the period from the last date such fees were paid to but excluding the Restatement Effective Date and (ii) for the account of the Administrative Agent and the Lenders entitled thereto, the fees referred to in Section 5.1(h) of the Restated Credit Agreement. The fees described in this Section 7 shall be payable in immediately available funds. Once paid, such fees shall not be refundable under any circumstances.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No failure by any Agent or any Lender to exercise any right, remedy, or option under this Agreement or any other Loan Document, or delay by any Agent or any Lender in exercising the same, will operate as a waiver thereof. No waiver by any Agent or any Lender will be effective unless it is in writing, and then only to the extent specifically stated. No waiver by any Agent or any Lender on any occasion shall affect or diminish each Agent’s and each Lender’s rights thereafter to require strict performance by Borrower of any provision of this Agreement. Each Agent’s and each Lender’s rights under this Agreement and the other Loan Documents will be cumulative and not exclusive of any other right or remedy that any Agent or any Lender may have.

assistant: No 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: for a loss covered by the policy. The Court dismissed plaintiffs negligence claim, and declined to consider the claim as one for “professional negligence”, applying the economic loss doctrine. Applying these holdings to the case at bar, it is clear that Plaintiff cannot maintain its negligence claim against [the broker]. Numerous courts have held that negligence claims for economic loss do not survive the economic loss doctrine. See Chemtrol [Adhesives, Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mwt. Ins. Co., 42 Ohio St.3d 40, 537 N.E.2d 624, 629-30 (Ohio 1989) ] (explaining that “a plaintiff who has suffered only economic loss due to another’s negligence has not been injured in a manner which is legally cognizable or compensable”); All Erection & Crane Rental Corp., 1:01-cv-1282, at 7 (N.D.Ohio Apr. 9, 2004) (<HOLDING>). Meskill, 2006 WL 903207 *4-5, 2006 U.S. Dist. Options: A. holding that the key question in deciding whether the economic loss doctrine applies to a negligence claim is whether the negligence was extrinsic to the subject matter of the contract B. holding that economic loss rule barred claim for breach of fiduciary duty where plaintiffs claim arose solely as a result of the existence of a contract between the parties C. holding cause of action for negligence against manufacturer of defective buses was barred by the economic loss rule notwithstanding absence of privity D. holding economic loss doctrine bars negligence claim based on service contract E. holding that the economic loss doctrine barred a negligence claim without regard to whether the parties were in privity of contract

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the economic loss doctrine barred a negligence claim without regard to whether the parties were in privity of contract
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: Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, § 1487 (1990 & Supp.1997); here the district court never intimated a concern either with bad faith or with prejudice. Alternatively, C&W might be arguing that the district court’s reference to the “entire lengthy record” is an allusion to our suggestion in Firestone, following Foman, 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, that a plaintiffs failure to cure a defect in its complaint after repeated amendments is at some point sufficient to warrant denying it leave to amend yet again. But we Ml not infer such an acute point from such an oblique reference— if it is a reference at all — particularly in light of the policy in favor of hearing cases on their merits. See, e.g., Poloron Prods., Inc. v. Lybrand Ross Bros. & Montgomery, 72 F.R.D. 556, 561 (S.D.N.Y.1976) (<HOLDING>); Rosen v. TRW, Inc., 979 F.2d 191, 194 (11th Options: A. holding plaintiffs five previous attempts to state cognizable claim did not preclude amendment because federal rules suggest artless drafting of a complaint should not allow for the artful dodging of a claim B. holding claim is cognizable C. holding that plaintiffs complaint did not invoke federal courts arising under jurisdiction because it put forth alternate state and federal policies to support its state law claim D. holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act E. holding claim is not cognizable

assistant: The best answer is A. holding plaintiffs five previous attempts to state cognizable claim did not preclude amendment because federal rules suggest artless drafting of a complaint should not allow for the artful dodging of a claim
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 term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall end on May 31, 2021, unless terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions of Section 6 or extended in accordance with Section 6(e)(v) (as applicable, the “ Term ”).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the many variations in which it is possible to take indecent liberties with a child are restricted to those founded on an assault or battery, then many debasing acts which are detrimental to the morals of a minor are not proscribed. The necessity for the law was to throw a cloak of protection around minors and to discourage sexual deviates from performing with, or before them. Assuredly, our interpretation is not inconsistent with that need. The remedy for the evil, if any, is to provide substantial punishment for those who perform indecent and immoral acts which cause shame, embarrassment, and humiliation to children, or lead them further down the road to delinquency. Brown, 3 USCMA at 457, 461, 13 CMR at 13, 17. Cf. United States v. Knowles, 15 USCMA 404, 405, 35 CMR 376, 377 (1965) (<HOLDING>). Paragraph 87b(l), Part IV, Manual, supra, Options: A. holding that under iowa code 7098 the offense of lascivious acts with a child was a crime of violence because it involved a substantial risk that physical force would be used against the child victim in the course of committing the offense B. 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 C. holding indecency instructions sufficient to determine indecent acts with a child D. holding military offense of indecent acts with a child must be done in presence of victim E. holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction

assistant: The best answer is D. holding military offense of indecent acts with a child must be done in presence of victim
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 may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which when taken together shall constitute a single contract, and shall become effective as provided in Section 11. Delivery of an executed signature page to this Agreement by facsimile transmission shall be as effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Agreement.

assistant: Counterparts