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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which taken together shall constitute but one and the same instrument. The transmission or receipt of a facsimile or similar communication being a reproduction of a party’s signature or initial shall produce the same legal result as the transmission or receipt of an original signature or initial.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice or other communication to any party in connection with this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be sent by manual delivery, telegram, telex, facsimile transmission (with machine or oral confirmation of delivery), overnight courier or United States mail (postage prepaid) addressed to such party at the address specified on the signature page hereof, or at such other address as such party shall have specified to the other party hereto in writing delivered as required as required under this Section 15. All periods of notice shall be measured from the date of delivery thereof if manually delivered, from the date of sending thereof if sent by telegram, telex or facsimile transmission (with machine or oral confirmation of delivery), from the first business day after the date of sending if sent by overnight courier, or from four days after the date of mailing if mailed.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any amounts payable to Aron under this Section 14 or otherwise under this Agreement if not paid upon demand shall bear interest from the date of such demand until paid in full, at the rate of interest set forth in Section 10.6 of the S&O Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 2008, Seibert then filed the present appeal, raising five claims, and the State filed a cross-appeal, raising one claim. Seibert also filed the present habeas petition, raising seven claims. II. RULE 3.851 PROCEEDING Claim 1 In this claim, Seibert asserts that the postconvietion court erred in summarily denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective with respect to the suppression hearing and the guilt phase of his trial. He asserts that he is entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing on this claim. We disagree. Because a court’s decision whether to grant an evidentiary hearing on a rule 3.851 motion is ultimately based on written materials before the court, its ruling is tantamount to a pure question of law, subject to de novo review. See State v. Coney, 845 So.2d 120, 137 (Fla.2003) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, when reviewing a court’s summary Options: A. holding that whether statements are testimonial is a legal issue subject to de novo review B. holding questions of law related to class certification are reviewed de novo C. holding that pure questions of law that are discernible from the record are subject to de novo review D. holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review E. recognizing that the constitutionality of a statute is a question of law subject to de novo review

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that pure questions of law that are discernible from the record are subject to de novo 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: their responsibilities. He explained how they were supposed to use the electronic transit device; each step that the operator of the device, Mr. Davis, was required to take; what each step was expected to achieve; what they could do to double-check their results; and what the result should have been if they performed as anticipated. This testimony was sufficient to establish the standard of care. State v. Linney, 138 N.C. App. 169, 183, 531 S.E.2d 245, 256 (“whether or not a witness has been formally tendered as an expert is not controlling” if the witness may appropriately be considered an expert based on qualifications), disc. review dismissed and appeal dismissed, 352 N.C. 595, 545 S.E.2d 214 (2000). See also Noell v. Kosanin, 119 N.C. App. 191, 196, 457 S.E.2d 742, 745 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, expert testimony “ ‘is not required Options: A. holding expert testimony is generally required to establish proximate cause in medical malpractice cases B. holding that allowing the statute of limitations to run on the clients claim is an example of obvious malpractice that does not require expert testimony to establish a standard of care C. holding that defendant moving for summary judgment in a legal malpractice claim need not present expert testimony establishing a standard of care even though a plaintiff in that position would need to do so because the case law establishing the plaintiffs duty to provide expert testimony cannot fairly be characterized as applying to a defendants motion under rule 56 D. holding expert testimony is ordinarily required in legal malpractice cases to establish the standard of care E. holding expert testimony not required to defeat summary judgment in medical malpractice suit because defendant doctors admissions were sufficient to establish the standard of care

assistant: The best answer is E. holding expert testimony not required to defeat summary judgment in medical malpractice suit because defendant doctors admissions were sufficient to establish the standard of care
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 parties signing on behalf of each party hereby represent and warrant that such parties have the capacity set forth on the signature pages hereof and have full power and authority to bind Tenant or Landlord, as applicable, to the terms hereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company hereby agrees to and shall indemnify Indemnitee and hold Indemnitee harmless, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, from and against any and all Expenses and Liabilities actually and reasonably incurred by Indemnitee or on Indemnitee's behalf in connection with a Proceeding. The phrase "to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law" shall include, to the fullest extent permitted by the DGCL as in effect on the date of this Agreement, and to the fullest extent authorized or permitted by any amendments to or replacements of the DGCL adopted after the date of this Agreement that increase the extent to which a corporation may indemnify its officers and directors. The parties hereto intend that this Agreement shall provide to the fullest extent permitted by law for indemnification in excess of that expressly permitted by statute, including, without limitation, any indemnification provided by the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation, By-Laws, vote of its stockholders or disinterested directors or applicable law.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and turn over the proceeds in service of the restitution judgment. Doc. 163 at ¶ 3. The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (“MVRA”) authorizes the United States to enforce restitution awards “in accordance -with the practices and procedures for the enforcement of a civil judgment under Federal law or State law.” 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a). The MVRA provides, however, that the Government may not enforce an award in a way that violates “section 303 of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1673),” 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(3), which provides in turn that “the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subjected to garnishment may not exceed ... 25 per centum of his disposable earnings 6 F.2d 107, 110-11 (9th Cir.1978) (Kennedy, J.) (<HOLDING>). And by specifying that “earnings” include Options: A. recognizing that district court may take into account adverse impact on incarceration caused by status as deportable alien B. holding that filing an answer does not invoke the status as a defendant in plaintiffs lawsuit C. holding that pro se petitioners need not raise issues in ins terms but may raise them as they may have understood them D. holding that plaintiffs status as thirdparty beneficiaries cannot be used as both a sword to reap the benefits and a shield to protect them E. holding that wages lose them status as earnings when deposited in a savings account

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that wages lose them status as earnings when deposited in a savings account
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: retroactive deadline by requiring hospitals to have appealed the exclusion of expansion waiver days before October 15, 1999 — two months prior to the PM’s issuance on December 15, 1999. Pl.’s SJM at 32-33. This argument assumes, however, that hospitals were entitled to include expansion waiver days in the DSH calculation prior to the PM’s issuance. Indeed, they were not. The Secretary’s policy prior to January 2000 was to exclude expansion waiver days from the DSH calculation. Cookeville, 531 F.3d 844, 848 (2008). Furthermore, hospitals— including those in Tennessee — were “on notice that the expansion population might not be included.” Id. PM A-99-62 merely clarified the Secretary’s existing policy. See United Hosp. v. Thompson, No. 02-3479, 2003 WL 21356086, *5 (D.Minn. June 9, 2003) (<HOLDING>). PM A-99-62 served a limited purpose— to hold Options: A. holding an endorsement to an existing insurance policy which added a new vehicle did not create a new contract of insurance but was merged with and became a part of the original policy B. holding that pm a9962 was not a policy change requiring notice to hospitals but a clarification of existing policy C. holding that the plain meaning of the uim policy language was clear and not contrary to public policy D. holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth E. holding that absent follow form language provision that excess policy would continue as underlying policy did not impose coverage as provided in underlying policy

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that pm a9962 was not a policy change requiring notice to hospitals but a clarification of existing policy
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: As an employee of the Company, you will also be eligible to participate in such life insurance, hospitalization, major medical and other health benefits generally offered by the Company to its employees in your general job classification level. This presently includes participation in the Company's medical and dental insurance plans, however, these benefit programs are subject to termination or modification from time-to-time. You will also be eligible for a $1,000 per month car allowance benefit and to participate in the Company’s 401K plan, subject to its terms.

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: Indemnitee . Indemnitee shall, as a condition precedent to his right to be indemnified under this Agreement, give the Company notice in writing as soon as practicable of any claim made against Indemnitee for which indemnification will or could be sought under this Agreement. Notice to the Company shall be directed to the Chief Executive Officer of the Company at the address shown on the signature page of this Agreement (or such other address as the Company shall designate in writing to Indemnitee). Notice shall be deemed received three business days after the date postmarked if sent by domestic certified or registered mail, properly addressed; otherwise notice shall be deemed received when such notice shall actually be received by the Company. In addition, Indemnitee shall give the Company such information and cooperation as it may reasonably require and as shall be within Indemnitee’s power.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any payment of cash or any issuance or transfer of shares of Stock or other property to Employee or to Employee’s legal representative, heir, legatee or distributee, in accordance with the provisions hereof, shall, to the extent thereof, be in full satisfaction of all claims of such persons hereunder. The Corporation may require Employee or Employee’s legal representative, heir, legatee or distributee, as a condition precedent to such payment or issuance, to execute a release and receipt therefor in such form as the Corporation shall determine.

assistant: Releases
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: Nevada Board of Medical Examiners are entitled to absolute immunity for their quasi-judicial acts. ' C. Scope of Absolute Immunity for the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners Even if the Board Members generally function in capacities comparable to those of judges and prosecutors, the protections of absolute immunity reach only those actions that are judicial or closely associated with the judicial process. See Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273, 113 S.Ct. 2606, 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993) (“A prosecutor’s administrative duties and those investigatory functions that do not relate to an advocate’s preparation for the initiation of a prosecution or for judicial proceedings are not entitled to absolute immunity.”); Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 229, 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988) (<HOLDING>). There is no question that acts occurring Options: A. holding selsky entitled to absolute immunity B. holding that an officer applying for a warrant without probable cause may be entitled to qualified immunity but is not entitled to absolute immunity C. holding that a judge was not entitled to absolute immunity for firing an employee D. holding selsky not entitled to absolute immunity E. holding by a 21 vote that an ohio probate judge was entitled to absolute immunity for filing a criminal complaint

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a judge was not entitled to absolute immunity for firing an employee
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any decision by Lender not to require payment of any interest, fee, cost or other amount payable hereunder or under any other document, instrument or agreement at any time executed in connection herewith on any occasion shall in no way limit or be deemed a waiver of Lender’s right to require payment of any such amount on any subsequent occasion.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: On the Closing Date, immediately before the transactions to be consummated pursuant to this Agreement, UMHL shall have authorized (a) 500,000,000 shares of Common Stock, par value $.00001 per share, of which 58,319,100 shares shall be issued and outstanding, all of which are duly authorized, validly issued and fully paid; and (b) 10,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock, $.00001 par value, of which no shares are issued or outstanding and the detailed shareholdings of which are more particularly set out in Exhibit B hereto.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the District Court.” Holland v. Nat’l Mining Ass’n, 309 F.3d 808, 814 (D.C.Cir.2002). We review de novo the Commission’s interpretation of FOIA. Al-Fayed v. CIA, 254 F.3d 300, 307 (D.C.Cir.2001). We will uphold the Commission’s application of Exemption 7(B) to the facts here unless its decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Ill FOIA “requires government agencies to make public virtually all information that is not specifically exempted from disclosure under the Act.” North v. Walsh, 881 F.2d 1088, 1093-94 (D.C.Cir.1989). Government agencies must generally release requested records without regard to the identity or motive of the re-questor. See, e.g., NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 n. 23, 98 S.Ct. 2311, 57 L.Ed.2d 159 (1978) (<HOLDING>). In consequence, FOIA sometimes enables Options: A. holding that civil forfeitures are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause B. holding that findings of fact and legal conclusions are neither necessary nor proper in summary judgment proceeding C. holding that a foia requestors rights are neither diminished nor enhanced in light of a particular litigationgenerated need for these materials D. holding that neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are persons under 1983 E. holding that designation is neither a sentence nor a punishment

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a foia requestors rights are neither diminished nor enhanced in light of a particular litigationgenerated need for these materials
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: is necessarily correct, for probable cause may be founded upon hearsay and upon information received from informants, as well as upon information within the affiant’s own knowledge that sometimes must be garnered hastily. But surely it is to be ‘truthful’ in the sense that the information put forth is believed or appropriately accepted by the affiant as true.’ Id. at 164-65. Franks clearly establishes, therefore, that an officer of the law may not make affirmative or reckless misrepresentations to the court in a warrant affidavit. The Eleventh Circuit has noted, since the O’Ferrells’ ease began, that Franks clearly established, for qualified immunity purposes, that an officer may not make an “affirmative misstatement” in ‘applying for a warrant. See Kelly v. Curtis, 21 F.3d at 1555 (<HOLDING>). The Eleventh Circuit ’interpreted Franks to Options: A. holding that where a public official takes discretionary action that the official knows will directly benefit a financial interest that the official has concealed in violation of a state criminal law that official has deprived the public of his honest services under 1346 B. holding the right to record police activity on public property was not clearly established C. holding that franks had clearly established that a public official could not intentionally perjure himself in seeking warrant D. holding that if official has violated clearly established law he is entitled to qualified immunity only if reasonable official could have believed conduct was lawful E. holding police officer is a public official

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that franks had clearly established that a public official could not intentionally perjure himself in seeking warrant
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: motion for partial summary judgment is granted. SO ORDERED. 1 . The Malley plaintiffs have fully settled and compromised their claims against the defendants and their joint motion to dismiss their action with prejudice was granted by an Order dated September 16, 2003. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide no mechanism by which a ruling that issues exist for trial can be obtained. The plaintiffs’ motion seeking that ruling will be regarded as in furtherance of their opposition to the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. 2 . On May 6, 2002, the Seventh Circuit affirmed Judge Kocoras’s grant of the wholesaler's motion for summary judgment, which dismissed the individual plaintiffs’ claims against them. In re BNPD Antitrust Litig., 288 F.3d 1028, 1032-35 (7th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). 3 . However, the individual plaintiffs raise Options: A. holding plaintiffs 19853 claim alleging a conspiracy among a corporation and its directors to discriminate against her on the basis of sex was barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine B. holding that evidence tending to show knowing participation in the conspiracy is sufficient to sustain conspiracy conviction C. holding that the notion of enterprise conspiracy has largely rendered the old distinction between single conspiracy and multiple conspiracy irrelevant to rico conspiracy charges D. holding evidence insufficient to show that wholesalers knew of manufacturers alleged conspiracy to price discriminate between retailers and hospitals and hmos via chargeback system E. holding that evidence was insufficient to prove a conspiracy where the evidence did not show that individuals who sold drugs to the defendant knew that the drugs were meant to be resold

assistant: The best answer is D. holding evidence insufficient to show that wholesalers knew of manufacturers alleged conspiracy to price discriminate between retailers and hospitals and hmos via chargeback system
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: Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the Plan, the Company will withhold that portion of the Appreciation Value to cover the minimum statutory tax liability for any applicable federal, state and local withholding obligations of the Company unless the Participant notifies the Company in the exercise notice that the Participant elects to pay the applicable withholding tax liability by delivering to the Company previously owned and unencumbered shares of Company common stock and delivers such shares to the Company on or before the date of exercise.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: A Participant who has been absent for more than 52 weeks on account of Disability (but who has not experienced a Severance from Employment) and whose Disability continues through the date of withdrawal under this Section 9.9 may withdraw all or any portion of his or her Account, other than the Self-Managed Account, at any time by submitting a request for withdrawal in accordance with the procedures adopted by the Committee for this purpose. Such withdrawal shall be subject to any additional restrictions, uniformly applied with respect to Participants similarly situated, as are prescribed by the Committee regarding the frequency and minimum amount of such withdrawal.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 420 U.S. 139 95 S.Ct. 853. 43 L.Ed.2d 85 James P. LEE, Jr., and Ronald Richv.William THORNTON, District Director, United States Customs Service, et al. No. 73—7006. Feb. 18, 1975. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellants brought actions in the District Court for the District of Vermont that challenged the constitutionality, facially and as applied, of various provisions of the customs laws, 46 Stat. 717 and 757, as amended, 19 U.S.C. §§ 1460 and 1618, that mandate procedures to effect forfeiture and remission or mitigation of penalties imposed after Border Patrol agents apprehended them and seized their vehicles when they crossed the border from Canada without passing through a customs station. The complaints sought (1) declaratory judgments that the challenged provisions were unconstitutional, (2) injunctions against their enforcement, (3) mandamus relief requiring the return of moneys paid as mitigated forfeitures or penalties based on violations of the customs laws, and (4) damages. A three-judge court was convened. The court held that it had jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), rejected appellants' constitutional claims, enjoined appellees from applying the customs laws except as construed by the court, declined to remit appellants' fines, and returned to the single-judge District Court the question of damages. 2 The District Court held that it had jurisdiction of the complaints under the Tucker Act, and did not address other alternative bases of jurisdiction asserted in the complaints. The jurisdiction of the district courts under the Tucker Act over '(a)ny . . . civil action or claim against the United States . . . founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress . . .' does not include jurisdiction over appellants' claims to enjoin enforcement of the challenged provisions of the customs laws. The Tucker Act empowers district courts to award damages but not to grant injunctive or declaratory relief. Richardson v. Morris, 409 U.S. 464, 93 S.Ct. 629, 34 L.Ed.2d 647 (1973); United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 89 S.Ct. 1501, 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969); United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 589—591, 61 S.Ct. 767, 771—772, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941). It follows that the three-judge court was improperly convened, and this Court therefore has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal based on the District Court's refusal to grant injunctive relief founded on appellants' additional constitutional claims. Appellants' motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the judgment of the District Court is vacated, and the case is remanded for consideration of appellants' other asserted bases of jurisdiction. 3 So ordered. 4 Vacated and remanded. 5 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr. Justice MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

assistant: 9
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: themselves to be aggrieved by any final agency action either in the implementation of the regulation or in having any offers-in-compromise denied”. Id. at 659. They lacked standing because they posited a “highly speculative and uncertain” injury “based on the Secretary not having written the regulation in the way they believe it should have been written.” Id. Brooks, however, is not controlling and, in any event, distinguishable. First, unlike the plaintiffs in Brooks, this plaintiff has alleged that he applied for a refund and was denied. Am. Compl. ¶ 22. He hasn’t reapplied under the Notice procedure, but the law does not require him to reapply every time the IRS changes its mind or superceding case law appears. See Starkey v. United States, 635 F.Supp. 1007, 1009 (W.D.Ark.1986) (<HOLDING>); Scully v. United States, 108 Ct.Cl. 310, 70 Options: A. holding that a change in the law of sentencing does not constitute a new factor B. holding that because plaintiffs claims were presented as a single claim based on the same facts and based on the same alleged damages multiple awards would be duplicative C. holding under section 7422a that the district court lacked jurisdiction over a taxpayers refund claim because the taxpayer failed to file a refund claim before the statute of limitations had run D. holding that the injunction did not constitute a claim E. holding that a second refund claim based on a change in the law does not constitute a different claim and that congress did not intend for taxpayers to file successive claims based on the same facts

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a second refund claim based on a change in the law does not constitute a different claim and that congress did not intend for taxpayers to file successive claims based on the same facts
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: even if the 1993 assignment were valid, it was rescinded by the parties in 1997. Plaintiff contends that in 1997, a dispute arose between Animatronics and ME due to ME’s failure to make payments under the Development Agreement. There is no evidence of a written rescission of the patent assignment or a separate assignment of the patent from ME back to Animatronics. Defendants argue that § 261 requires that the rescission of any patent assignment be in writing. While not speaking to rescissions, § 261 provides that “[applications for patent, patents, or any interest therein, shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing.” 35 U.S.C. § 261. Federal Circuit case law lends support to defendants’ argument. See Enzo Apa & Son, Inc. v. Geapag A.G., 134 F.3d 1090, 1094 (Fed.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). MHL however argues that Michigan and Options: A. holding in a patent infringement case that plaintiff lacked standing where it held a conditional right to license a patent and enforce license agreements but did not have the right to transfer the patent B. holding that the assignor of a patent retained substantial rights in the patent and must be added as an indispensable party C. holding that if property description is to be supplied by writing to which reference is made in deed reference must be adequate to identify writing D. holding that although a valid patent license may be written verbal or implied an assignment that would allow the assignee to assert standing must be in writing E. holding plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the validity of an assignment from mers to bac because she was not a party to the assignment and the assignment did not affect her underlying obligation to make timely payments

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that although a valid patent license may be written verbal or implied an assignment that would allow the assignee to assert standing must be in writing
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: “because the defendant wanted to make an argument that he offered to take the test. That can be argued to the jury.” Id. at 225. Consequently, in his closing argument, trial counsel urged the jury to consider that Elliott never confessed to the crime and, in fact, agreed to take a lie detector test. N.T., Oct. 27, 1994, at 214-16. Elliott now -asserts that the trial court’s instruction to the jury — that his willingness to take a lie detector test was irrelevant — denied his constitutional rights to confrontation, to present a defense, and to due process because the instruction prevented the jury from considering evidence of his lack of consciousness of guilt. Revised Brief of Appellee/Cross Appellant at 64 (citing Commonwealth v. Wagner, 383 Pa.Super. 128, 556 A.2d 462, 464-65 (1989) (<HOLDING>)). Regardless of the fact that the Commonwealth Options: A. holding that a party failed to present any evidence to rebut inference that delay was unreasonable and inexcusable B. holding defendants false exculpatory statements admissible to show consciousness of guilt C. holding that evidence of threats or intimidation of a witness is admissible under rule 404b to show consciousness of guilt D. holding that under rule 401 of the north carolina rules of evidence ejvidence that another committed the crime for which the defendant is charged generally is relevant and admissible as long as it does more than create an inference or conjecture in this regard it must point directly to the guilt of the other party under rule 401 such evidence must tend both to implicate another and be inconsistent with the guilt of the defendant E. holding that where the commonwealth offers evidence of flight to demonstrate a consciousness of guilt the defendant must be permitted to rebut that inference by introducing evidence that he fled for another reason that was consistent with his innocence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that where the commonwealth offers evidence of flight to demonstrate a consciousness of guilt the defendant must be permitted to rebut that inference by introducing evidence that he fled for another reason that was consistent with his innocence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to the subdivision 6 distribution formula. Hodder, 426 N.W.2d at 838. II. Against this backdrop, we begin with Certified Question No. 1 and determine whether Conwed may seek payment from Union Carbide for compensation that may eventually be payable to employees who have settled workers’ compensation claims subject to reopening if their conditions should worsen. Union Carbide has acknowledged that “[t]o the extent there are any cases where Conwed has paid claimants but not fully settled the existing injury,” Conwed can recover future “payable” benefits for those workers if Conwed can provide sufficient evidence of the benefits it will have to pay. Based on our prior case law, we conclude that this is the correct result. See Aetna Life & Cas. v. Anderson, 310 N.W.2d 91, 95 (Minn.1981) (<HOLDING>); see also Wilken v. Int’l Harvester, 363 Options: A. holding that a workers compensation insurer is entitled to share in a thirdparty settlement under the statutory formula unless it stipulates otherwise B. holding that notwithstanding fact that employer brought suit in its own name pursuant to ocga 349111 c only for the liquidated amount that had been paid to the employee in workers compensation benefits after employee failed to file his own tort action within one year of injury employee was not precluded from bringing his own separate action to recover for personal injuries and loss of consortium but noting that employee received notice of employers suit only after filing his own action suggesting that court in which employers action was pending had wrongly denied the employees motion to intervene to which motion employer had objected noting that if employee had not moved to intervene in other action employees separate action would have been barred by laches and holding that thirdparty tortfeasor could move for mandatory joinder of the employer in the employees action C. holding that employers insurer who provided workers compensation benefits to employee but did not consent to employees settlement with thirdparty tortfeasor may maintain an action for payments that become payable in the future D. holding that injured employee has right to settle with thirdparty tortfeasor claims not covered by minnesota workers compensation act E. holding that thirdparty tortfeasor has right to contribution from employer up to amount of employers workers compensation liability

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that employers insurer who provided workers compensation benefits to employee but did not consent to employees settlement with thirdparty tortfeasor may maintain an action for payments that become payable in the future
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 Optionee acknowledges that a waiver by the Company of breach of any provision of the Agreement shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of any other provision of the Agreement, or of any subsequent breach by the Optionee or any other participant.

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: of the defendant’s product. The court held: We decline to so hold [that evidence of deliberate copying shifts the burden of proof on the issue of secondary meaning]. Competitors may intentionally copy product features for a variety of reasons. They may, for example, choose to copy wholly functional features that they perceive as lacking any secondary meaning because of those features’ intrinsic economic benefits. 826 F.2d at 844-45. Several other circuits have concurred in this analysis. See Thomas & Betts v. Panduit Corp., 65 F.3d 654, 663 (7th Cir.1995) (“Copying is only evidence of secondary meaning if the defendant’s intent in copying is to confuse customers and pass of his product as plaintiffs.”); Brooks Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Suave Shoe Corp., 716 F.2d 854, 859-60 (11th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>) Here, it is undisputed that Nowcom engaged in Options: A. holding that the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof applicable in fraud actions does not apply to the proof of misrepresentations under ors 743612 B. holding that the standard of proof in revocation proceedings is a preponderance of the evidence C. holding that proof of intentional copying in the absence of additional evidence of actual deception does not eliminate the need for proof of secondary meaning D. holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant E. holding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that proof of intentional copying in the absence of additional evidence of actual deception does not eliminate the need for proof of secondary meaning
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: court’s legal conclusions de novo, including “state law legal issues.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). III. For its first argument, the Glasser Pension Plan asks this court to dismiss the appeal outright for alleged fraud on the court relating to the bankruptcy court’s order permitting the Brocks to withdraw the settlement agreement. There is no merit to this argument, which is nothing more than an end run on an order that has not been appealed to either the BAP or this court. As to the merits, the parties agree that Colorado law applies. They also agree that Colorado law recognizes the general rule that a creditor can reach a debtor’s assets placed in trust to the same extent that the debtor is entitled to reach such assets. See, e.g., In re Cohen, 8 P.3d 429, 433 (Colo.1999) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). They Options: A. holding that the beneficiary of a trust was not the real party in interest regarding rights owned by the trust B. holding that the creditors had standing because the plan eliminated their interests in the borrower notes and deeds of trust and disposed of the assets in the estate from which they seek to be paid C. holding creditors can reach assets of trust to the same extent as the maximum amount that would be payable to the beneficiary in the trustees discretion D. holding that creditors of a trust beneficiary were prohibited from intervening in an action involving a dispute between the trustee and a beneficiary concerning distribution of the trust corpus E. holding that a constructive trust had arisen on a third partys house due to her use of trust assets which had been diverted by the paca trustee to pay the mortgage and finding that the trust beneficiary plaintiffs are entitled to a lien on the property in the amount of the diverted funds

assistant: The best answer is C. holding creditors can reach assets of trust to the same extent as the maximum amount that would be payable to the beneficiary in the trustees discretion
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 audited consolidated balance sheets of the Company as at December 31, 2015 and the related consolidated statements of operations and of cash flows for the fiscal year then ended, accompanied by a report thereon by Hein & Associates LLP (collectively, the “ Financial Statements ”), present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of the Company and its consolidated Subsidiaries as of the dates shown and their results of operations and cash flows for the periods shown. All such Financial Statements, including the related schedules and notes thereto, have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“ GAAP ”) on a consistent basis.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to the provisions and time limits of Section 38.7, any dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement, including the breach, termination or validity thereof, shall be finally resolved by arbitration in accordance with the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution Rules for Non-Administered Arbitration by three arbitrators, of whom each Party shall designate one in accordance with Rule 5.1. The arbitration shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered by any court having jurisdiction thereof. The place of the arbitration shall be Atlanta, Georgia. The arbitration shall consider the Contract Claim(s) involved de novo , provided that the applicable DRB Determination(s) respecting such Contract Claim(s) shall be admissible in evidence and given such weight as the arbitrators may determine.

assistant: Arbitration
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 Side Letter constitute the entire agreement between Seller and Purchaser with respect to the Property and shall not be modified or amended except in a written document signed by Seller and Purchaser. Any prior agreement or understanding between Seller and Purchaser concerning the Property is hereby rendered null and void.

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: (S.D.N.Y.1989); see also Wechsler v. Bowman, 285 N.Y. 284, 291, 34 N.E.2d 322, 326 (1941) (“Anyone who knowingly participates with a fiduciary in a breach of trust is liable for the full amount of the damage caused thereby to the cestuis que trust.”). Liability for punitive damages, however, is several only. See Rodick v. City of Schenectady, 1 F.3d 1341, 1349 (2d Cir.1993); see also Felice v. Delporte, 136 A.D.2d 913, 914, 524 N.Y.S.2d 919, 920 (4th Dep’t 1988) (“[T]rial court erred in adjudging that defendants were jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the punitive damage award. Such damages are in the nature of a penalty and contribution among tortfeasors is not permissible.”); Staudacher v. City of Buffalo, 155 A.D.2d 956, 956, 547 N.Y.S.2d 770, 771 (4th Dep’t 1989) (<HOLDING>). C. Application The Court concludes that the Options: A. recognizing that joint and several liability of 107 seems unfair but the solution is found in apportionment and contribution B. holding that even if the trial court had erred in denying the defendants motion for a directed verdict on punitive damages the error was harmless because the jury found in favor of the defendant and never reached the punitive damages claims C. holding that contribution will lie where no statute precludes recovery from the joint tortfeasor against whom contribution is sought D. holding that a lump sum verdict on punitive damages against all defendants was improper since there can be no joint and several liability or contribution E. recognizing forfeiture liability among criminal confederates to be joint and several

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a lump sum verdict on punitive damages against all defendants was improper since there can be no joint and several liability or contribution
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event of a breach or threatened breach by You of any of the above provisions, the Company shall be entitled to an injunction restraining You from such breach, in addition to all other remedies which the Company shall be entitled to in law or equity. The Company also shall be entitled to recover from You all litigation costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by the Company in any action or proceeding relating to this Agreement in which the Company prevails, including, but not limited to, any action or proceeding in which the Company seeks enforcement of this Agreement or seeks relief from Your violation of this Agreement. Nothing herein shall be construed as prohibiting the Company from pursuing any other remedies available for such breach, threatened breach, or any breach of this Agreement.

assistant: Remedies