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: or photograph is not closely related to a controlling issue. Pa.R.E. 1004. If the originals are not available at trial in criminal cases, through no fault of the Commonwealth, secondary evidence is permissible. Fisher, supra; Binder on Pennsylvania Evidence § 10.04 at 622 (discussing burden of proof with respect to unavailability of evidence). As to the admissibility of “other evidence” of contents of writings, recordings, or photographs, Rule 1008 also provides: Rule 1008. Functions of court and jury When the admissibility of other evidence of writings, recordings, or photographs under these rules depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the question of whether the condition has been fulfilled is ordi (Pa.Super.2000), appeal denied, 566 Pa. 662, 782 A.2d 545 (2001) (<HOLDING>). But see Lewis, supra (reversing and remanding Options: A. holding that best interest of child need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence B. recognizing the right of a defendant to comment upon the failure of the state to produce evidence C. holding eyewitness testimony obviates need to produce videotape made simultaneously videotape evidence does not rise to level of best evidence when eyewitness testifies from personal knowledge D. holding any improper delegation did not rise to level of plain error E. holding that to be credible a petitioner must support his allegations of innocence with new rehable evidence whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence trustworthy eyewitness accounts or critical physical evidence that was not presented at trial

assistant: The best answer is C. holding eyewitness testimony obviates need to produce videotape made simultaneously videotape evidence does not rise to level of best evidence when eyewitness testifies from personal knowledge
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 shall bear all fees and expenses attendant to registering the Registrable Securities (except any underwriters' discounts and commissions and fees of any of the Holders' own professionals, if any; it being understood that the Company shall not be obligated to pay the fees and expenses of Holder's counsel). The Company agrees to use its best efforts to cause the filing required herein to become effective promptly and to qualify to register the Registrable Securities in such States as are reasonably requested by the Holder; provided, however, that in no event shall the Company be required to register the Registrable Securities in a State in which such registration would cause (A) the Company to be obligated to register or license to do business in such State, (B) subject the Company to any material tax where it is not then so subject, (C) require the Company to file a general consent to service of process in such jurisdiction, or (D) the principal stockholders of the Company to be obligated to escrow any of their shares of capital stock of the Company.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the evidence of Robertson’s alleged prior threat to his ex-wife as Williams rule evidence, the State cannot rely on the law of impeachment to introduce the same evidence through the back door by asking an impermissible question regarding an alleged prior crime. Finally, we address whether the admission of this collateral-crime evidence constitutes reversible error. This Court has held that the erroneous admission of irrelevant collateral crimes evidence “is presumed harmful error because of the danger that a jury will take the bad character or propensity to crime thus demon strated as evidence of guilt of the crime charged.” Castro v. State, 547 So.2d 111, 115 (Fla.1989) (quoting Straight v. State, 397 So.2d 903, 908 (Fla.1981)); accord Czubak v. State, 570 So.2d 925, 928 (Fla.1990) (<HOLDING>). In this case, given the highly inflammatory Options: A. holding that a district court may not rely on a charging document without first establishing that the crime charged was the same crime for which the defendant was convicted B. holding that counsel did not admit the defendant was guilty of a crime when counsel noted that if the evidence established the commission of any crime that crime was voluntary manslaughter not murder C. holding that where court informed jurors that the defendant had escaped from custody the trial judge acted within his judicial capacity and did not testify D. holding collateral crime evidence that defendant was an escaped convict was presumptively harmful E. holding it is fundamental error to convict a defendant of crime not charged and which is not a lesser included offense of the charged crime

assistant: The best answer is D. holding collateral crime evidence that defendant was an escaped convict was presumptively harmful
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: annual fee. “The Maintenance Plan shall be renewable annually after the initial 90 day Warranty period, and Customer shall pay therefor in advance according to the then current Maintenance Fee ...” (Appendix to Plaintiffs Response, Exhibit 2 ¶ 8). The Court finds that the 90 day warranty covers defects which appear within the 90 day period following installation. Since no defects appeared in the software prior to that date, NMP’s breach of warranty claim is time barred. See, Office Supply Co., Inc. v. Basic/Four Corp., 538 F.Supp. 776 (.D.Wis. 1982) (upholding 90-day warranty limitation and granting summary judgment on breach of contract claim where defects in computer system arose outside of warranty period); Dreier Co., Inc. v. Unitronix Corp., 218 N.J.Super. 260, 527 A.2d 875 (1986) (<HOLDING>); Liecar Liquors, Ltd. v. CBS Business Options: A. holding plaintiff was barred from seeking remedy because express warranty expired in accordance with time limits elucidated in the limited repair and replace warranty B. holding inter alia defendant breached implied warranty of merchantability where an express warranty regarding safety of goods was printed on package and where goods failed to conform to the express warranty C. holding that warranty claim accrued at tender where 180 day warranty on computer not a warranty for future performance as it involved a remedy only D. holding that one year warranty was not an exclusive remedy for defective construction where the contract did not so state E. holding plaintiffs were not foreclosed from pursuing ucc remedies outside of written warranty because warranty notice provision did not specify that the remedies provided were exclusive of any other remedy

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that warranty claim accrued at tender where 180 day warranty on computer not a warranty for future performance as it involved a remedy only
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: Subtenant shall provide at its expense, and keep in force during the term of this Sublease, such policies of insurance as will satisfy the obligation of Sublandlord as Tenant, including without limitations the insurance requirements set forth in Section 10.1 of the Prime Lease captioned "Tenant's Insurance".

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Count VII, the previously discussed due process claim. (See Compl. ¶¶25, 79-86.) However, in Federal Defendants’ view, plaintiff also appears to seek relief against the government in four additional counts. (See Mot. to Dismiss at 2-4.) Thus, Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss sets forth legal arguments as to why they should be dismissed from this matter as to the additional claims. (See id. at 6-11.) Plaintiffs opposition brief fails to respond in any meaningful manner stating why Federal Defendants should not be dismissed as to these claims. Consequently, to the extent that plaintiffs complaint asserts causes of action — other than Count VII — against Federal Defendants, those counts will be dismissed. See Ray v. FBI, 2007 WL 1404445, at *3 (D.D.C. May 10, 2007) (Lamberth, J.) (<HOLDING>). B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time Options: A. holding that plaintiff conceded the merits of an issue when he did not respond in any way to defendants argument on that issue in his opposition before the district court B. holding that a party could not use an opposition motion as a means of amending the complaint C. holding that claims raised for the first time in an opposition to a motion for summary judgment are not properly before a court D. holding that the court may properly treat as conceded any exemptions and categories that plaintiff does not address in its opposition E. holding that ajbsent a meaningful opposition the court treats defendants motion as conceded

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that ajbsent a meaningful opposition the court treats defendants motion as conceded
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: by using the services you consent to the collection , use , and sharing of such personal data ( as set forth in the privacy policy , including the transfer of this personal data to the united states and/or other countries for storage , processing , and use by under armour .

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: IHS and the Borrowers, each other Loan Party (by its execution of the Loan Documents to which it is a party), the Administrative Agent and each Lender acknowledges that each of them has had the benefit of legal counsel of its own choice and has been afforded an opportunity to review the Loan Documents with its legal counsel and that the Loan Documents shall be construed as if jointly drafted by the parties thereto.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (i) The Borrower shall fail duly to pay any principal of any Loan or any L/C Obligations when due, whether at maturity, by notice of intention to prepay or otherwise, or (ii) the Borrower shall fail duly to pay any interest, fee or any other amount payable under the Loan Documents when due and the continuance thereof for three days.

assistant: Payments
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 Reid only in terms of whether it negated the existence of an aggravating factor. On direct appeal, Reid argued that the trial court must not have considered evidence regarding his medical conditions and his intoxication at the time of the offense, because if it had, it would have determined that the murder was not vile and that Reid therefore could not be sentenced to death. The Virginia Supreme Court rejected this claim, determining “that the trial court did, in fact, consider Reid’s mitigating evidence.” Reid, 506 S.E.2d at 792. The State maintains that Reid failed to present his Eighth Amendment claim to the Virginia Supreme Court on direct appeal and that it therefore was not properly exhausted. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275, 92 S.Ct. 509, 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971) (<HOLDING>); Mallory v. Smith, 27 F.3d 991, 995 (4th Options: A. holding substance of claim must have been presented to state court B. recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different C. holding that exhaustion requirement applies to excessive force claims D. holding exhaustion requirement inapplicable when requiring exhaustion would be futile E. holding that constitutional claim must be fairly presented to state court in order to satisfy exhaustion requirement

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that constitutional claim must be fairly presented to state court in order to satisfy exhaustion requirement
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 capitalized term used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Credit Agreement. The provisions of Section 1.02 of the Credit Agreement shall apply to this Amendment, mutatis mutandis .

assistant: Defined 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: HoldCo or its Subsidiaries own, license or can acquire on reasonable terms the Intellectual Property necessary to operate the Wind Project. To the Knowledge of Seller, no Intellectual Property required to operate the Wind Project infringes upon or otherwise violates any intellectual property rights of any third party. There are no unresolved pending or, to the Knowledge of Seller, threatened actions or claims that allege that HoldCo or any of its Subsidiaries has infringed or otherwise violated any material intellectual property rights of any third party. To the Knowledge of Seller, no third party is infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating rights in any material respect any Intellectual Property of HoldCo or any of its Subsidiaries.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: the twitter entities make no warranty or representation and disclaim all responsibility and liability for : ( i ) the completeness , accuracy , availability , timeliness , security or reliability of the services or any content ; ( ii ) any harm to your computer system , loss of data , or other harm that results from your access to or use of the services or any content ; ( iii ) the deletion of , or the failure to store or to transmit , any content and other communications maintained by the services ; and ( iv ) whether the services will meet your requirements or be available on an uninterrupted , secure , or error-free basis .

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 159, 842 P.2d 975, 978 (1992), affd in part, rev’d in part, 124 Wash.2d 158, 876 P.2d 435 (1994). The Restatement defines the doctrine of promissory estoppel as follows: A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action of forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 (1979). The doctrine of promissory estoppel is used to enforce a promise where there is a lack of consideration and as such does not apply to the facts of this ease. See Hatfield v. Columbia Federal Savings Bank, 57 Wash.App..876, 790 P.2d 1258, 1263 (1990) (<HOLDING>). In this case there is an express contract and Options: A. holding that the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply where promise was supported by bargained for consideration B. holding that the absence of a binding agreement does not defeat a promissory estoppel claim C. holding that promissory estoppel is applicable only in the absence of an enforceable contract D. holding that unenforceable promises cannot form the basis for a claim of promissory estoppel E. holding that a promissory estoppel claim failed where the plaintiff provided no evidence that the employer defendant did not follow the employment manuals requirements

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply where promise was supported by bargained for consideration
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: antitrust immunity is not absolute. Accordingly, the party asserting state action doctrine immunity must demonstrate that the state legislature intended that the statute or regulation at issue supplant competition as a matter of “ ‘clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy.’ ” Second, that the policy must be “ ‘actively supervised’ ” by the state. See Midcal, 445 U.S. at 105, 100 S.Ct. 937 (quoting City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 435 U.S. 389, 410, 98 S.Ct. 1123, 55 L.Ed.2d 364 (1978)). A private party, like Waste Management— Washington, may claim “state action” immunity but only if both parts of the Midcal test are satisfied. See Federal Trade Commission v. Ticor Title Insurance Co., 504 U.S. 621, 636, 112 S.Ct. 2169, 119 L.Ed.2d 410 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Private conduct cannot be immunized by the Options: A. holding that stateaction immunity issues immunity from federal statutes not intended to restrain state action or official action directed by a state are immediately appealable under cohen and mitchell B. holding that these tests are directed at ensuring that particular anticompetitive mechanisms operate because of a deliberate and intended state policy C. holding that only deliberate clear and unambiguous statements are judicial admissions D. recognizing that motions for directed verdicts are not normally directed to bits and pieces of an action E. holding that epa need not incorporate particular tests when evaluating applications if relevant statutory language does not explicitly require such tests

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that these tests are directed at ensuring that particular anticompetitive mechanisms operate because of a deliberate and intended state 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: Cash Collateral (or the appropriate portion thereof) provided to reduce Fronting Exposure or other obligations shall be released promptly following (i) the elimination of the applicable Fronting Exposure or other obligations giving rise thereto (including by the termination of Defaulting Lender status of the applicable Lender (or, as appropriate, its assignee following compliance with Section 9.04(b)(ii) )) or (ii) the Administrative Agent’s good faith determination that there exists excess Cash Collateral; provided , however , (x) that Cash Collateral furnished by or on behalf of a Loan Party shall not be released during the continuance of a Default or Event of Default (and following application as provided in this Section 2.22 may be otherwise applied in accordance with Section 7.01 ), and (y) the person providing Cash Collateral and the Issuing Bank or Swingline Lender, as applicable, may agree that Cash Collateral shall not be released but instead held to support future anticipated Fronting Exposure or other obligations.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: There is no action, suit, inquiry, notice of violation, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened against or affecting the Company, any Subsidiary or any of their respective properties before or by any court, arbitrator, governmental or administrative agency or regulatory authority (federal, state, county, local or foreign) (collectively, an “ Action ”) which (i) adversely affects or challenges the legality, validity or enforceability of any of the Transaction Documents or the Securities or (ii) could have or reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. Neither the Company nor any Subsidiary, nor any director or officer thereof, is or has been the subject of any Action involving a claim of violation of or liability under federal or state securities laws or a claim of breach of fiduciary duty. There has not been, and to the knowledge of the Company, there is not pending or contemplated, any investigation by the Commission involving the Company or any current or former director or officer of the Company. The Commission has not issued any stop order or other order suspending the effectiveness of any registration statement filed by the Company or any Subsidiary under the Exchange Act or the Securities Act.

assistant: Litigations
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 utilized their inherent authority to prevent and sanction abuses of judicial power. See In re Courtesy Inns, Ltd., 40 F.3d at 1090 (bankruptcy court had inherent authority to sanction debtor’s president for bad faith filing of bankruptcy petition); Engel v. Bresset (In re Engel), 246 B.R. 784, 789-90 (Bankr.M.D.Pa.2000)(§ 105 authorizes bankruptcy court to exercise its inherent powers to sanction attorney’s bad faith filing of inaccurate schedules); First Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n of Largo v. Froid (In re Froid), 106 B.R. 293, 296 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1989) (power to correct abusive practices acknowledged but no sanctions entered against creditor who filed and prosecuted discharge complaint); Mortgage Mart, Inc. v. Rechnitzer (In re Chisum), 68 B.R. 471, 473 (9th Cir. BAP 1986) (<HOLDING>). “The sanctioning of a party requires specific Options: A. holding that the bankruptcy court has the inherent power to award sanctions for badfaith conduct in a bankruptcy court proceeding B. recognizing power of bankruptcy court to impose sanctions on parties and counsel who willfully abuse the judicial process but not finding sanctions appropriate against debtor and his attorney for their repeated bankruptcy filings C. holding that bankruptcy courts have inherent power to sanction and affirming sanctions imposed by bankruptcy court against a nonparty D. recognizing the federal courts ability to impose inherent power sanctions on parties E. recognizing power of bankruptcy court under 105 of the code and bankruptcy rule 9020 to impose contempt sanctions for violations of automatic stay

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing power of bankruptcy court to impose sanctions on parties and counsel who willfully abuse the judicial process but not finding sanctions appropriate against debtor and his attorney for their repeated bankruptcy filings
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: maximum for an indeterminate quantity of drugs, then the type and quantity of drugs is an element of the § 841 offense that must be charged in the indictment and submitted to the jury. submitted to the jury, it was error for the District Court to sentence the Friedmans to life terms on the ITAR counts. We assume, arguendo, that Gary Friedman’s request to charge the jury with determining whether the plot involved a plan to commit a “crime of violence” was sufficient to preserve the issue of the failure to charge the jury with determining whether the deaths of Kovach and Gould were caused by the “crime of violence,” and, accordingly, review the claim for harmless error pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 52(a). See Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 10-11, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Guevara, 298 F.3d Options: A. holding that knowledge element could not be deemed in favor of plaintiff where defendant objected to the omission of that element from the jury charge B. holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis C. holding that the harmlesserror rule of chapman v california applies to the failure of a trial judge to submit an element of the offense to the jury D. holding that the omission of an element from the jury charge is subject to harmlesserror review E. holding omission in the jury instruction of element of offense requires a new trial

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the omission of an element from the jury charge is subject to harmlesserror 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: the owner’s motor vehicle or, if a resident of this state, while not an occupant of a self-propelled vehicle, if the injury is caused by physical contact with such motor vehicle.... This requirement has remained unchanged since its enactment in 1971. See Ch. 71-252, § 7, Laws of Fla. The issue in this case revolves around the definition of “resident” as used in this statute. The relevance of Mr. Maldonado’s alien status can only be assessed once one determines the elements needed to establish residency. In general, a person is a resident if he or she lives in a place and has no present intention of “removing themselves therefrom,” i.e., leaving. Kiplinger v. Kiplinger, 147 Fla. 243, 2 So.2d 870, 873 (1941); see also Cruickshank v. Cruickshank, 420 So.2d 914, 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (<HOLDING>). “Any place of abode or dwelling place Options: A. recognizing there can be concurrent proximate causes of accident B. holding that although the bankruptcy court is the preferred forum because of its greater expertise state courts have concurrent jurisdiction C. holding that federal jurisdiction over rico claims is concurrent and not exclusive D. holding that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over 1983 claims E. holding that test for residency is physical presence in state and concurrent intent to remain

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that test for residency is physical presence in state and concurrent intent to remain
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 provisions of these Terms and Conditions are severable and if any one or more provisions are determined to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, in whole or in part, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless be binding and enforceable.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 179 S.E.2d 315, 319 (1971) (quoting State v. Barefoot, 241 N.C. 650, 657, 86 S.E.2d 424, 429 (1955)). Therefore, “the appellate courts ordinarily will not review the exercise of the trial judge’s discretion [regarding jury arguments] unless the impropriety of counsel’s remarks is extreme and is clearly calculated to prejudice the jury in its deliberations.” Johnson, 298 N.C. at 369, 259 S.E.2d at 761; see also Thompson, 278 N.C. at 283, 179 S.E.2d at 319 (stating “[i]t is only in extreme cases of the abuse of privilege by counsel, and when this is not checked by the court, and the jury is not properly cautioned, [the appellate courts] can intervene and grant a new trial.” ). “ 96 S.Ct. 3203, 49 L.Ed.2d 1205 (1976); State v. Jordan, 49 N.C. App. 561, 569, 272 S.E.2d 405, 410 (1980) (<HOLDING>). In fact, the existence of overwhelming Options: A. holding that prosecutors statements regarding his opinion as to the truthfulness of a defense witness considering the evidence against the defendant did not reach the level of the grossly improper statements which would require the trial court to correct them ex mero motu B. holding that where a defendant expressly manifested his belief in the truth of the statements contained in the motion to dismiss thereby adopting those statements as his own such statements are admissible against the defendant in the states case in chief C. holding that statements to the jury made by the prosecutor asserting that a defense witness was lying was improper but considering all the facts and circumstances revealed in the record which showed overwhelming evidence against the defendant such statements did not constitute a prejudicial error D. holding that the prosecutors argument attacking the integrity of defense counsel was of such gross impropriety as to justify ex mero mo tu correction however in light of the strong and convincing case against the defendant we could not hold that the prosecutrixs improper comments were sufficiently prejudicial as to require a new trial E. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to intervene ex mero motu to prevent closing argument by the prosecutor that the defendant lied during his testimony

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that prosecutors statements regarding his opinion as to the truthfulness of a defense witness considering the evidence against the defendant did not reach the level of the grossly improper statements which would require the trial court to correct them ex mero motu
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 inure to the exclusive benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns. Nothing expressed or mentioned herein is intended or shall be construed to give any person other than the parties hereto and their permitted assigns any legal or equitable rights, remedies or claims under or with respect to any covenants, conditions or provisions herein contained.

assistant: Binding Effects
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: kidnapping; rather involved a police officer); Bedard v. Notre Dame Hosp., 151 A.2d at 690 (RI) (did not involve parental kidnapping; rather a hospital’s refusal to discharge infant); Armstrong v. McDonald, 39 Ala.App. 485, 103 So.2d 818 (1958) (third parties induced child to leave mother; no relatives involved). The remainder of the cases were federal court cases, which attempt to predict how the state supreme court will rule. Three jurisdictions have either deferred consideration or declined to create the tort. See McDougald v. Jenson, 596 F.Supp. 680 (N.D.Fla.1984), aff’d, 786 F.2d 1465 (11th Cir.1986); Bartanus v. Lis, 332 Pa.Super. 48, 480 A.2d 1178 (1984); Schuppin v. Unification Church, 435 F.Supp. 603 (D.Vt.1977); but cf. Sheltra v. Smith, 136 Vt. 472, 392 A.2d 431 (1978) (<HOLDING>). Also, in Illinois, the state court of appeals Options: A. recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress B. holding parental child abduction compensable under intentional infliction of emotional distress C. holding that intentional infliction of emotional distress is a personal injury tort D. holding that act did not bar intentional infliction of emotional distress claim E. recognizing validity of cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress

assistant: The best answer is B. holding parental child abduction compensable under intentional infliction of emotional distress
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: this case. As discussed above, Section 710 places the duty squarely on the skier (here, the plaintiff) to avoid collisions with those on the hill below her. Here, it is undisputed that Dinan was downhill from Rich, that she saw him at the side of trail, and that she ran into him because she was not adept at making the turn necessary to avoid him. This is precisely the situation that the legislature intended to cover when it passed the Statute. A ski area operator (which necessarily includes not only Bousquet but also its employee Dinan) has no responsibility under the Statute to protect against such collisions. Without a legal duty to avoid the accident, the defendants cannot be negligent as a matter of law. Compare Tilley v. Brodie Mountain Ski Area, Inc., 412 Mass. 1009, 1010 (1992) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION AND ORDER For the foregoing Options: A. holding that plaintiff did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her arrest for assault under 290313 was unlawful or that her prosecution was malicious when she grabbed the officer from behind the officer pushed her away and she then grabbed the officers shirt B. holding that injury of plaintiff who was detained in negligently parked patrol car that along with another patrol car was struck by thirdparty vehicle did not arise out of use or operation of patrol car within meaning of ttcas motorvehicle waiver rather patrol car merely furnished condition that made injury possible C. holding that the plaintiff was precluded from asserting her failure to promote claim as a continuing violation D. holding that relative to the threat that she posed physically separating tina cortez from her telephone taking her by the arm escorting her from her home taking the keys to her home and locking the door and placing her in the locked back seat of a patrol car was excessive force as well as an unlawful seizure under the fourth amendment E. holding that commonlaw negligence claim may still lie where the plaintiff was struck from behind from a member of the ski patrol who was above her on the ski slope

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that commonlaw negligence claim may still lie where the plaintiff was struck from behind from a member of the ski patrol who was above her on the ski slope
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 Group, each Warrantor and the Purchasers will from time to time execute and deliver all such further documents and instruments and do all acts and things as the other party may, either before or after the Closing Date, reasonably require to effectively carry out or better evidence or perfect the full intent and meaning of this Agreement. The Purchasers further agree to assume the obligations undertaken as of the Closing Date by the Group to the former Group employees listed in Schedule X regarding the immigration and work visa status of such employees, so long as such employees are employed by the Purchasers.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in the drug conspiracy for which plaintiff was prosecuted. See Rev. Stearns II Decl., Ex. A (Doc. Nos. 7-8, 24-25). In addition, the EOUSA withholds the name of a third party who provided information to the government in the course of. the criminal investigation of plaintiff and his co-conspirators. Id., E?. A (Doc. Nos. 20, 22-23). Exemption 7(C) recognizes that the stigma of being associated with any law enforcement investigation affords broad privacy rights to those who are connected in any way with such an investigation unless a significant public interest exists for disclosure. Reporters Comm, for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. at 773-775, 109 S.Ct. 1468; SafeCard Servs., Inc., 926 F.2d at 1205-06; see also Bast v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 665 F.2d 1251, 1254 (D.C.Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). The disclosure of the names of private Options: A. holding that exemption 7c protects the privacy interests of all persons mentioned in law enforcement records whether they be investigators suspects witnesses or informants and their names are generally exempt from disclosure B. holding the governments prior disclosure of requested information could not waive individuals privacy interests under exemption 6 and collecting cases involving exemption 7c C. holding that in light of the stigma potentially associated with law enforcement investigations exemption 7c affords broad privacy rights to suspects witnesses and investigators D. holding that there is no need to consider exemption 6 separately if information was compiled for law enforcement purposes because exemption 7c constitutes broader protection so any information falling under exemption 6 is covered by exemption 7c E. holding that exemption 7c protects the privacy interests of all persons mentioned in law enforcement records whether they be investigators suspects witnesses or informants and their names are generally exempt from disclosure

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that in light of the stigma potentially associated with law enforcement investigations exemption 7c affords broad privacy rights to suspects witnesses and investigators
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: Blackstone has ordered title insurance commitments from the Title Company (the “ Title Commitments ”) for the issuance of the Title Policies for each of the Properties, together with complete, legible copies of all requirement and exception documents referenced in each such Title Commitment and Steadfast has delivered to Blackstone copies of the most recent version of any land title surveys for each of the Properties (the “ Surveys ”) in Steadfast’s possession and control. Blackstone has given Steadfast written notice of which exceptions to the title to such Property disclosed by the Title Commitments are acceptable and which are unacceptable to Blackstone (all unacceptable exceptions are hereinafter referred to as “ Title Objections ”). Steadfast and Blackstone have resolved all outstanding Title Objections and hereby agree that the specific exceptions to title included on the owner pro formas identified on Schedule 8.1 attached hereto, shall constitute the “ Permitted Exceptions ” hereunder with respect to the applicable Property noted therein. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Blackstone may have the Title Commitment for any Property updated from time to time up to and through the Closing Date and Blackstone may give Steadfast notice of any additional title exceptions disclosed thereby or otherwise disclosed in writing to Blackstone that were not listed in the original Title Commitment for such Property or any previous update thereof obtained by Blackstone (“ Additional Title Objections ”) and which are not acceptable to Blackstone (in which case the Parties will follow the procedure for Title Objections with respect to the same that is outlined in Section 8.2 below). The Parties agree that if the Title Company or Blackstone shall become aware of any monetary lien which encumber any Property as a result of any action or agreement executed by any predecessor owner of the Property, which lien or agreement was not assumed by Steadfast or a Property Owner, then such lien shall constitute an Additional Title Objection and the terms of Section 8.2 shall apply.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of 1989, which expressly abolished common law offenses and statutorily specified the conduct necessary to support a criminal prosecution in Tennessee. Id. at 728. We emphasized in Hill that “an indictment need not conform to traditionally strict pleading requirements.” Id. at 727. Since common law offenses no longer exist, “we now approach ‘attacks upon indictments, especially of this kind, from the broad and enlightened standpoint of common sense and right reason rather than from the narrow standpoint of petty preciosity, pettifogging, technicality or hair splitting fault finding.’ ” Hill, 954 S.W.2d at 728 (quoting United States v. Purvis, 580 F.2d 853, 857 (5th Cir.1978)). In many decisions since Hill discussing the sufficiency of indictments, we have repeate writing for the Court) (<HOLDING>). Another even more recent decision further Options: A. holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense B. holding that an indictment under 922g1 was not required to allege a substantial effect on interstate commerce an indictment which tracked the statutory language was sufficient C. holding that instructions are sufficient which substantially follow the language of the statute or use equivalent language D. holding that an indictment which cites the pertinent statute and uses its language will be sufficient to support a conviction E. holding that an indictment that is substantially in the language of the code is sufficient inform and substance

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an indictment which cites the pertinent statute and uses its language will be sufficient to support a conviction
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: with this opinion. 1 25 WE CONCUR: PAMELA T. GREENWOOD and GREGORY K. ORME, Judges. 1 . Judge Young presided over the change of plea hearing and Judge Burton presided over the hearing concerning Mora's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. 2 . Before a trial court may accept a guilty plea, rule 11(e) requires the court to find, among other things: (2) the plea is voluntarily made; (4)(A) the defendant understands the nature and elements of the offense to which the plea nce test in Gibbons, Utah appellate courts applied a "record as a whole" test to rule 11. See State v. Maguire, 830 P.2d 216, 217 (Utah 1991) (per curiam). As long as the "record as a whole" test was used, the harmless error doctrine clearly applied to rule 11 violations. See State v. Kay, 717 P.2d 1294, 1301 (Utah 1986) (<HOLDING>), overruled in part on other grounds by State Options: A. holding that the proper procedures for challenging the results of a prison disciplinary hearing are appeal administrative review collateral attack or habeas corpus B. holding that the rule applies for purposes of habeas corpus under section 2254 C. holding on appeal from a habeas corpus denial that counsel was not ineffective for failure to file a notice of appeal because of defendants escape D. holding that a claim for damages that would invalidate a conviction or sentence that has not already been invalidated or reversed on direct appeal by executive order by an authorized state tribunal or by a writ of habeas corpus is not cognizable under 1983 E. holding the harmless error doctrine applies to rule 11 violations because otherwise we would encourage defendants to attack their convictions for purely tactical reasons either by direct appeal or by seeking habeas corpus long after the fact

assistant: The best answer is E. holding the harmless error doctrine applies to rule 11 violations because otherwise we would encourage defendants to attack their convictions for purely tactical reasons either by direct appeal or by seeking habeas corpus long after the fact
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 Party shall have the right to charge interest on all overdue amounts under this Article 5 from the date due until paid at a rate equal to 1.5% per month, or, if less, the maximum rate permitted by applicable law.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein or in any other Loan Document, the authority to enforce rights and remedies hereunder and under the other Loan Documents against the Credit Parties or any of them shall be vested exclusively in, and all actions and proceedings at law in connection with such enforcement shall be instituted and maintained exclusively by, Agent in accordance with the Loan Documents for the benefit of all Lenders; provided, however , that the foregoing shall not prohibit (i) Agent from exercising on its own behalf the rights and remedies that inure to its benefit (solely in its capacity as Agent) hereunder and under the other Loan Documents; (ii) any Lender from exercising setoff rights in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Section 8.11 ; or (iii) any Lender from filing proofs of claim or appearing and filing pleadings on its own behalf during the pendency of a proceeding relative to any Credit Party under any bankruptcy or other debtor relief law; and provided further, however , that, if at any time there is no Person acting as Agent hereunder and under the other Loan Documents, then (A) the Required Lenders shall have the rights otherwise ascribed to Agent pursuant to Article 7 ; and (B) in addition to the matters set forth in clause (ii) and clause (iii) of the preceding proviso and subject to Section 8.11 , any Lender may, with the consent of the Required Lenders, enforce any rights and remedies available to it and as authorized by the Required Lenders.

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

user: Notwithstanding the return of the Confidential Information, the Receiving Party will continue to be bound by its obligations of confidentiality and other obligations hereunder. Notwithstanding whether or not the Proposed Transactions are concluded, the Receiving Party shall maintain the Confidential Information in confidence and in accordance with the terms of this Agreement for a period of five (5) years from the date of disclosure.

assistant: Yes