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: for possession of thirty-five pounds of marijuana at an unspecified time in the past. We question whether this one-time possession charge constitutes an “extensive history” or “trafficking.” Compare NMSA 1978, § 30-31-20(A)(3) and (B) (2006) (defining trafficking as possession of “a controlled substance enumerated in Schedule I or II that is a narcotic drug; ... a controlled substance analog of a controlled substance enumerated in Schedule I or II that is a narcotic drug; or . . . methamphetamine, its salts, isomers and salts of isomers” with intent to distribute and stating that such trafficking is punishable as a first or second degree felony), with § 30-31-22(A)(1)(a) and (b) (defining possession with intent to distribute marijuana in an amount less than one hundred 6th Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>). {24} The State cites to State v. Lara, 110 Options: A. holding that officers were not justified in conducting a protective sweep of the suspects garage and backyard incident to his arrest for possession of marijuana in the back yard because the government pointed to no specific articulable facts suggesting that someone else was on the premises who posed a danger to the officers B. holding that the officers were justified in conducting a protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest on outstanding warrants because the officers had information that the defendant was suspected of running a methamphetamine operation on the premises other people were living there and assisting the defendant and at the time the sweep began the defendant had not yet been located C. holding that the protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest in front of his house on suspicion of murder was not justified because the evidence that an accomplice was involved in the murder did not equate to evidence that someone would be hiding out in the defendants house a month after the crime occurred and at the time of the arrest the officers were not chasing the defendant from a crime scene D. holding that officers were not justified in conducting a protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest despite the defendants alleged involvement with narcotics and possession of weapons because the defendant did not resist and there was no noise or other evidence suggesting anyone else was present in the house E. holding that the officers were entitled to conduct a protective sweep because they located the defendant in the house there were other people present and the defendant was actively trying to conceal drags

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that officers were not justified in conducting a protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest despite the defendants alleged involvement with narcotics and possession of weapons because the defendant did not resist and there was no noise or other evidence suggesting anyone else was present in the house
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware without regard to principles of conflicts of laws thereof or any other State. Any action brought by any party against any other party hereto concerning the transactions contemplated by this Agreement shall be brought only in the state courts of Delaware or in the federal courts located in the state and county of Delaware. The parties to this Agreement hereby irrevocably waive any objection to jurisdiction and venue of any action instituted hereunder and shall not assert any defense based on lack of jurisdiction or venue or based upon forum non conveniens . The parties executing this Agreement and other agreements referred to herein or delivered in connection herewith on behalf of the Company agree to submit to the in personam jurisdiction of such courts and hereby irrevocably waive trial by jury. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. In the event that any provision of this Agreement or any other agreement delivered in connection herewith is invalid or unenforceable under any applicable statute or rule of law, then such provision shall be deemed inoperative to the extent that it may conflict therewith and shall be deemed modified to conform with such statute or rule of law. Any such provision which may prove invalid or unenforceable under any law shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of any agreement. Each party hereto hereby irrevocably waives personal service of process and consents to process being served in any suit, action or proceeding in connection with this Agreement or any other transaction document contemplated hereby by mailing a copy thereof via registered or certified mail or overnight delivery (with evidence of delivery) to such party at the address in effect for notices to it under this Agreement and agrees that such service shall constitute good and sufficient service of process and notice thereof. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to limit in any way any right to serve process in any other manner permitted by law.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the Term of Executive’s employment with the Company, and as set forth in the Offer Letter between the Executive and the Company dated September 26, 2016 (the “Offer Letter”), Executive shall devote 100% of his best efforts and full business time and energies to the business and affairs of the Company, and shall endeavor to perform the duties and services contemplated hereunder to the reasonable satisfaction of the Company. Except as set forth in the Offer Letter, during the Term of Executive’s employment with the Company, Executive shall not, without the prior written approval of the Company (by action of the Board), undertake any other employment from any person or entity or serve as a director of any other company; provided, however, that (i) the Company will entertain requests as to such other employment or directorships in good faith and (ii) Executive will be eligible to participate in any policy relating to outside activities that is applicable to the senior executives of the Company and approved by the Board after the date hereof. As set forth in the Offer Letter, Executive may transition to full-time employment and the terms applicable to such full time employment are set forth in the Offer Letter and are incorporated herein by reference when and if such terms become applicable.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) The Loan Obligation Manager may be removed upon at least 30 days’ prior written notice upon the occurrence of a Loan Obligation Manager Event of Default, by the Issuer or the Trustee, if the Holders of at least 66-2/3% in Aggregate Outstanding Amount of each Class of Notes then outstanding, give written notice to the Loan Obligation Manager, the Issuer and the Trustee directing such removal. Notice of any such removal shall be delivered by the Trustee on behalf of the Issuer to the Rating Agencies. The Loan Obligation Manager cannot be removed without cause. None of the Loan Obligation Manager, its affiliates and clients and funds for whom the Loan Obligation Manager or any of its affiliates acts as investment adviser (collectively, the “ Loan Obligation Manager Related Parties ”) are entitled to vote the Preferred Shares or Notes held by any of the Loan Obligation Manager Related Parties with respect to the removal of the Loan Obligation Manager (or waiver of any event or circumstance constituting grounds for removal), appointment of a successor loan obligation manager following removal that is an affiliate of the Loan Obligation Manager or termination or assignment of this Agreement. However, at any given time, the Loan Obligation Manager Related Parties may vote the Preferred Shares and Notes (if any) held by them with respect to all other matters in accordance with the applicable documents.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) The Loans comprising each ABR Borrowing shall bear interest at the Alternate Base Rate plus the Applicable Rate. Swingline Loans shall bear interest at the Alternate Base Rate plus the Applicable Rate or such other rate (and margin) as may be agreed between the Swingline Lender and the Company.

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: During the Employment Period, Executive shall be entitled to participate in the benefit plans and programs commensurate with Executive’s position that are provided by the Company from time to time for its Vice Presidents generally, subject to the terms and conditions of such plans. The Company may alter, modify, add to or delete its employee benefit plans at any time as it, in its sole judgment, determines to be appropriate, without recourse by Executive, except that no such action shall adversely affect any previously vested rights of Executive under such plans.

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: This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the internal laws of the State of California, without giving effect to any choice of law or conflict of law provision or rule (whether of the State of California or any other jurisdiction).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Slayton v. Commonwealth, 41 Va.App. 101, 108-09, 582 S.E.2d 448, 451-52 (2003). Consequently, because the objective facts provided probable cause for the seizure, neither Detective Fraser’s subjective intention nor the fact that she did not charge the appellant with reckless driving impacts the probable cause determination. The fact that the police did not obtain a warrant prior to seizing the appellant based on the reckless driving offense also does not affect the probable cause analysis. The Fourth Amendment clearly permits an officer to make a warrantless arrest of a person who has committed a criminal offense in the officer’s presence. See Atwater, 532 U.S. at 354, 121 S.Ct. at 1557-58; see also United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 417, 96 S.Ct. 820, 824, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976) (<HOLDING>); cf. Code § 19.2-81(B) (providing in pertinent Options: A. holding that probable cause inquiry is whether considering totality of the circumstances there is a fair probability that contraband will be found in a particular place B. recognizing that the necessary inquiry is not whether there was a warrant or whether there was time to get one but whether there was probable cause for the arrest C. holding that the purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed it D. holding that the plaintiff must show that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution E. holding that there was no probable cause to arrest the plaintiff because the facts of the case amounted to a contract dispute

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that the necessary inquiry is not whether there was a warrant or whether there was time to get one but whether there was probable cause for the arrest
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: leave to file a civil complaint under a host of federal statutes, alleging employment discrimination by the Department of Transportation and, relatedly, the Federal Aviation Administration. Noting that the proposed complaint asserted claims “again relating to [Arizpe’s] past employment by the Department of Transportation,” the district court concluded that Arizpe failed to show that his claims were not barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, or another legal doctrine and denied Arizpe’s request for leave. Arizpe appeals that denial. We generally review denials of leave under an abuse of discretion standard. See In re Raz, 252 Fed.Appx. 609 (5th Cir.2007) (reviewing a district court’s refusal to grant a “prolific filer” leave to file rine Offshore, Inc., 448 F.3d 825 (5th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, a review of the record and Arizpe’s Options: A. holding that venue for litigation was proper based on 28 usc 1441 even though forum selection clause provided that the courts of the commonwealth of massachusetts would be the exclusive forum B. holding that when action arising under contract containing venue selection clause is filed in court other than that specified in clause case will be transferred to forum selected by contract unless venue selection clause is unreasonable and unjust or invalid due to fraud or overreaching C. holding that a federal courts order dismissing a case because a forum selection clause mandated venue in england met the requirements for collateral estoppel D. holding order dismissing action without prejudice based on contractual forum selection clause is final and appealable because it terminates the litigation in the plaintiffs chosen forum E. holding collateral estoppel elements met considering changed circumstances in the context of an exception to the general rule of collateral estoppel

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a federal courts order dismissing a case because a forum selection clause mandated venue in england met the requirements for collateral estoppel
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: it includes any claim or controversy between you and us concerning the services , the software related to the services , the services ' or software 's price , your microsoft account , your skype account , or these terms , under any legal theory including contract , warranty , tort , statute , or regulation , except disputes relating to the enforcement or validity of your , your licensors ' , our , or our licensors ' intellectual property rights .

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: See 24 C.F.R. §§ 51.104(b)(2). In its FONSI, HUD stated that the project is in compliance with noise abatement requirements, noting that the sound measurements fall within “acceptable” levels. In doing so, HUD relied on a September 2002 noise survey included in its EA which indicates that the noise exposure (the average day-night sound level at the site) reaches 60 decibels, within the “acceptable” range. Review of that study indicates that it used measurements taken over a 24-hour period within a carefully described area, and included an assessment of the possible effects of future increased traffic and the construction of retail buildings. Plaintiffs contend that in conducting the study HUD did not comply with its own September 1991 Noise Guidebook. The fact that HUD’s sub 987) (<HOLDING>); W. Radio Servs. Co. v. Espy, 79 F.3d 896, Options: A. holding that legislative functions such as powers of zoning and rezoning cannot be delegated B. holding that crime definition and penalty powers are essential legislative functions that cannot constitutionally be delegated by the utah legislature to any other person or body C. holding that neglect was not excusable where the defendants did not do all that they were required to do after they received the summons and complaint in that they did not contact a lawyer or make any other arrangements with respect to their defense D. holding that the contact clause reaches every form in which the legislative power of a state is exerted whether it be a constitution a constitutional amendment an enactment of the legislature a bylaw or ordinance of a municipal corporation or a regulation or order of some other instrumentality of the state exercising delegated legislative authority E. holding ins operations instructions not binding because they are not an exercise of delegated legislative power and do not purport to be anything other than internal housekeeping measures

assistant: The best answer is E. holding ins operations instructions not binding because they are not an exercise of delegated legislative power and do not purport to be anything other than internal housekeeping measures
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: such claims on behalf of the other class members demonstrates that her claims may not be typical of other class members and that she may not be an adequate representative of the interests of class members who were employed outside New Jersey. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). 10 . In her reply brief. Reap seeks to amend her motion to include a request for alternative certification of the subclass of females over the age of 40 under the provisions of Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. (See Pl.'s Reply Br. in Supp. of Her Mot. for Class Certification at 2.) ”[I]t is improper for a party to present a new argument in his or her reply brief.” United States v. Medeiros, 710 F.Supp. 106, 110 (M.D.Pa.), aff'd, 884 F.2d 75 (3d Cir.1989); Cf. United States v. Boggi, 74 F.3d 470, 478 (1996) (<HOLDING>). CNA has not had the opportunity to adequately Options: A. holding that courts of appeals will generally not consider arguments raised on appeal for first time in reply brief B. holding court will generally not consider arguments presented for the first time on appeal C. holding that we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief D. holding that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are forfeited E. holding that in the absence of manifest injustice the court will not consider arguments raised for the first time in appellants reply brief

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that courts of appeals will generally not consider arguments raised on appeal for first time in reply brief
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: particular punishment.” Thus, the issue of punishment is “one for the legislative branch, and legislative discretion is deferred to unless the sentence imposed shocks the conscience.” In the case sub judice, the trial court sentenced Pepe-Frazier to life for his commission of aggravated child molestation, (725 SE2d 236) (2012) (noting that “a constitutional attack on a sentencing statute should normally be made no later than the sentencing hearing, at a time when corrective action is still possible” and that, because appellant “failed to raise his constitutional challenges at the first available opportunity during the sentencing hearing” and instead “first raised [them] in his amended motion for new trial,” his challenges were untimely and not subject to review). 29 See id. at 674 (3) (<HOLDING>). 30 OCGA § 16-6-4 (d) (1). 31 Adams v. State, Options: A. holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel B. holding that constitutional claim that paternity suit should not be barred by statute of limitations is waived by failing to raise the issue before the trial court C. holding that the defendant waived an argument by failing to raise it in his appellants brief D. holding that because appellant had waived review of constitutional challenge to sentencing statute by failing to raise it at the first opportunity the trial court correctly proceeded to examine whether the appellants trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise constitutional challenges to the sentencing statutes E. holding the appellant waived the issue of return of property by failing to raise it following trial or sentencing for the underlying crimes

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that because appellant had waived review of constitutional challenge to sentencing statute by failing to raise it at the first opportunity the trial court correctly proceeded to examine whether the appellants trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise constitutional challenges to the sentencing statutes
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 together with the Plan supersede any and all other prior understandings and agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and constitute the sole and only agreements between the parties with respect to the said subject matter. All prior negotiations and agreements between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof are merged into this Agreement. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises, or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party or by anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied in this Agreement or the Plan and that any agreement, statement, or promise that is not contained in this Agreement or the Plan shall not be valid or binding or of any force or effect.

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: the jury that had been chosen. Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his requested habeas corpus relief, in part, based on the Bauder standard, as amplified in Peterson. As mentioned, Bauder and Peterson have been overruled and are no longer governing authority. Appellant also asserts, “The inadmissibility of polygraph tests is so well settled that the prosecutor had to have been aware of the risk that Appellant would have to move for a mistrial, despite her denials.” We disagree. The case law demonstrates that the law is not “so well settled” with regard to whether admission of evidence that the defendant refused to take a polygraph always requires a mistrial. See Kugler v. State, 902 S.W.2d 594, 595-97 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995 pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Here, the evidence, when viewed in favor of Options: A. recognizing and discussing difficulty in determining whether mistrial should be declared when error involves evidence that defendant refused to take polygraph exam rather than involving clearly inadmissible evidence regarding results of exam B. recognizing that the trial judge must be given a wide range of discretion in determining whether a mistrial should be declared C. holding admissibility of polygraph evidence should be resolved under fedrevid 403 balancing test but reliability of polygraph test may be included to determine how probative particular polygraph test is D. holding that evidence that a polygraph test was offered to or refused by a defendant was not admissible E. holding that evidence of a witnessess refusal to take a polygraph exam is inadmissible

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing and discussing difficulty in determining whether mistrial should be declared when error involves evidence that defendant refused to take polygraph exam rather than involving clearly inadmissible evidence regarding results of exam
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 Plan was originally effective May 19, 2009, upon approval by the stockholders at the Company’s 2009 annual meeting. As amended and restated, the Plan is effective May 7, 2015, upon approval by the stockholders at the Company’s 2015 annual meeting.

assistant: Effective Dates
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: another pre-1963 version of the statute. In State v. Gordineer, 229 Or 105, 109-10, 366 P2d 161 (1961), the court held that, where the statute provided that, “[n]o person other than a parent, guardian, or other responsible relative, shall give any alcoholic liquor to any person under the age of 21 years,” the “giv[ing]” of alcohol to a minor could be accomplished in one of two ways: (1) “by the giving of alcoholic liquor for immediate consumption by the minor such as a single or several drinks from the alcoholic liquor in the possession of another”; or (2) “by the giving of a quantity of liquor to the minor with intent that the possession of the liquor pass to the minor.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) 6 But see Fisher et al. v. City of Astoria, 126 Or 268, 282, 269 P 853 (1928) (<HOLDING>). 7 Similarly, in State v. Irving, 74 Or App Options: A. holding the rule of ejusdem generis inapplicable to interpret the nonspecific term otherwise improve where the legislature had expressly defined the word improve B. holding that for exception to apply procedure must not only improve accuracy but also alter our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of the proceeding C. recognizing the congressional policy in providing for a term of supervised release after incarceration is to improve the odds of a successful transition from the prison to liberty D. holding that the term include but need not be limited to does not preclude the application of the ejusdem generis principle E. holding that although term was not limited by the specification it was expressly defined in a narrow manner in the prosecution history

assistant: The best answer is A. holding the rule of ejusdem generis inapplicable to interpret the nonspecific term otherwise improve where the legislature had expressly defined the word improve
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which taken together shall be deemed and considered one and the same Agreement, and same shall become effective when counterparts have been signed by each party and each party has delivered its signed counterpart to the other party. In the event that any signature is delivered by facsimile transmission or by e-mail delivery of a ".pdf" format file or other similar format file, such signature shall be deemed an original for all purposes and shall create a valid and binding obligation of the party executing same with the same force and effect as if such facsimile or ".pdf" signature page was an original thereof.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: could inhibit the inspections, again relying on the exis tence of sufficiently defined regulations to provide an adequate substitute for the particularity requirements of a warrant. See, e.g., Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594, 602-03, 101 S.Ct. 2534, 69 L.Ed.2d 262 (1981) (upholding warrantless inspections required by the Mine Safety and Health Act); United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311, 317, 92 S.Ct. 1593, 32 L.Ed.2d 87 (1972) (upholding warrantless inspections required by the Gun Control Act of 1968). In addition to the need for discretion-limiting regulations, the Supreme Court has also required that the primary purpose of such searches to be something other than general crime control. See City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 47-48, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Despite these limitations, the Supreme Court Options: A. holding that a complaint that included only allegations of intentional wrongdoing also set forth grounds for liability based on unintentional wrongdoing B. holding that if an agent does not develop reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before the justifying purpose of a checkpoint stop has been accomplished he may not prolong the stop C. holding that questioning of a juvenile by a principal in presence of a police officer did not constitute an interrogation because principal was sole questioner and was not acting as an agent for police D. holding that a traffic stop is reasonable under the fourth amendment when police have probable cause to believe a traffic infraction has occurred E. holding a police checkpoint to interdict narcotic traffic invalid because the principal purpose of the checkpoint was to detect evidence of criminal wrongdoing

assistant: The best answer is E. holding a police checkpoint to interdict narcotic traffic invalid because the principal purpose of the checkpoint was to detect evidence of criminal wrongdoing
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 valid military service by [ARPERCEN].” R. at 30 (emphasis added). Second, the RO repeated this misstatement of the law (again assuming that § 3.203 applies here) in the August 2000 SOC cited by the Board. Although the SOC accurately quoted § 3.203 in the section entitled “Pertinent Laws and Regulations” (R. at 38), the “Reasons and Bases” section on the very next page contained the same inaccurate (again assuming that § 3.203 applies) statement of law (noting that “basic eligibility to VA benefits may be established only upon verification of valid military service by [AR-PERS-COM]”). R. at 38-39 (emphasis added). In addition, the SOC postdated the May 2000 initial unfavorable agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision in the instant case. See Pelegrini, 18 Vet.App. at 120 (<HOLDING>). Having found a notice error, the Court must Options: A. holding that an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits B. holding that appellant must identify with considerable specificity how 38 usc 5103a notice was defective C. holding that section 5103a notice must precede initial aoj adjudication on serviceconnection claim D. holding because an initial order contemplated the subsequent entry of a judgment the initial order was not considered a final adjudication E. holding that any board reasonsorbases deficiency in discussing how section 5103a 3159b1 notice has been satisfied would of necessity be nonprejudicial to claimant where claimant re ceived compliant notice

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that section 5103a notice must precede initial aoj adjudication on serviceconnection claim
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 514 U.S. 1005, 115 S.Ct. 1317, 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995); Williams, 110 So.2d at 658; Jackson v. State, 403 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So.2d 466 (Fla.1982). See also, Finney v. State, 660 So.2d 674 (Fla.1995) (similarity is not always a prerequisite to admissibility), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1096, 116 S.Ct. 823, 133 L.Ed.2d 766 (1996); Williams v. State, 621 So.2d 413 (Fla.1993) (explaining that other crimes, whether factually similar or dissimilar to the charged crime, are admissible if the evidence is relevant to prove a matter of consequence other than bad character or propensity). The victim testified that the defendant was upset, that he grabbed her hair, dragged her into the apartment and beat her until she lost consciousness. The defendant, how 3d DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, we find that the probative Options: A. holding that prior battery was admissible to prove defendants intent to injure B. holding that prior drug trafficking conviction was admissible to prove intent to distribute C. holding that battery is an inherently included offense of aggravated battery D. holding on a criminal appeal that prior bad acts evidence is admissible to prove intent to commit the charged crime E. holding that 2a22b2b requires intent to injure

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that prior battery was admissible to prove defendants intent to injure
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that he validly waived his Miranda rights because he was not aware of the nature of the constitutional rights he was abandoning. Specifically, Garibay contends that he did not understand Agent Burke’s recitation of his rights in English because his primary language is Spanish and he has a low verbal IQ. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proving that Garibay knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. See Connelly, 479 U.S. at 168, 107 S.Ct. at 522. In determining whether a defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, we consider, as one factor, any language difficulties encountered by the defendant during custodial interrogation. See United States v. Heredia-Fernandez, 756 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). In finding that Garibay was proficient in Options: A. holding miranda inapplicable because defendant not in custody B. recognizing that defendant may waive miranda rights C. holding that smith who was 15 years old could waive his miranda rights and his right to have an attorney or parent present during questioning by police D. holding that language difficulties may impair the ability of a person in custody to waive his miranda rights in a free and aware manner E. holding that juveniles may waive constitutional rights

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that language difficulties may impair the ability of a person in custody to waive his miranda rights in a free and aware manner
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 SERIES 2016-1 SUPPLEMENT, AND ALL MATTERS ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS SERIES 2016-1 SUPPLEMENT, SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED AND INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE INTERNAL LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND THE OBLIGATIONS, RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF THE PARTIES HERETO SHALL BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH LAW.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the Second Amendment Effective Date, the Borrower has no Subsidiaries other than those specifically disclosed in Part (a) of Schedule 5.13 , and all of the outstanding Equity Interests in such Subsidiaries have been validly issued, are fully paid and nonassessable and are owned directly or indirectly by a Loan Party in the amounts specified on Part (a) of Schedule 5.13 free and clear of all Liens other than Liens permitted pursuant to Section 7.01(a) . As of the Second Amendment Effective Date, the Material Subsidiaries are designated such in Part (a) of Schedule 5.13 . As of the Second Amendment Effective Date, the Borrower has no equity investments in any other corporation or entity other than those specifically disclosed in Part (b) of Schedule 5.13 . All of the outstanding Equity Interests in the Borrower have been validly issued and are fully paid and nonassessable.

assistant: Subsidiaries
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: fairly have granted Appellants’ petition to open. However, under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to do so. Order affirmed. Gantman, J. concurs in the result. 1 . See Balk v. Ford Motor Co., 446 Pa. 137, 285 A.2d 128 (1971) (ruling that court did not abuse discretion in striking default judgment where insurer lost client's court papers and prejudice lacking); Duckson v. Wee Wheelers, Inc., 423 Pa.Super. 251, 620 A.2d 1206 (1993) (deeming insurer’s delay reasonable excuse); Provident Credit Corp. v. Young, 300 Pa.Super. 117, 446 A.2d 257 (1982) (en banc) (forgiving delay when disadvantaged party was aban doned by multiple attorneys for want of ability to pay); cf. Jung v. St. Paul’s Parish, 522 Pa. 167, 560 A.2d 1356 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Manson v. First Nat'l Bank in Ind., 366 Pa. Options: A. holding that the trial court must ensure that the requests are tailored to the specific action and that discovery requests that reflect a mere fishing expedition should not be allowed B. holding that not only must discovery requests be reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to case but discovery requests may not be used as fishing expedition or to impose unreasonable discovery expenses on opposing party C. holding that the defendants discovery requests were untimely because they were not served in time for the responses to be due before the discovery deadline D. holding that non pros should have been opened where parties were engaged in settlement negotiations and rule to file complaint was intermingled with discovery requests E. holding default was the appropriate remedy for failure to comply with numerous court orders and discovery requests

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that non pros should have been opened where parties were engaged in settlement negotiations and rule to file complaint was intermingled with discovery requests
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: at 174. 129 . See Brady v. Fort Bend County, 58 F.3d at 174, quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 807, 102 S.Ct. at 2732. 130 . See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331-34, 106 S.Ct. 662, 664-67, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347-48, 106 S.Ct. 668, 670-71, 88 L.Ed.2d 677 (1986); Eason v.. Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322, 1329 n. 3 (5th Cir.1996); Campbell v. City of San Antonio, 43 F.3d 973, 977 (5th Cir.1995); Salas v. Carpenter, 980 F.2d at 307; Streetman v. Jordan, 918 F.2d at 557 n. 3; Herrera v. Millsap, 862 F.2d 1157, 1160 (5th Cir.1989); Lewis v. Woods, 848 F.2d 649, 652 (5th Cir.1988); and Simmons v. McElveen, 846 F.2d 337, 339 (5th Cir.1988). 131 . Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 820 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1123, 114 S.Ct. 1081, 127 L. , (<HOLDING>), citing Morrow v. Harwell, 768 F.2d 619, 622 Options: A. holding that allegations of a total denial of all access to the prison law library for 25 days following a prison riot stated a constitutional violation B. holding that although prison inmates have a first amendment right to access to the courts prison officials may regulate law library access including reasonable time place and manner of access taking into account the administrative needs of the institution C. holding that denial of access to carbon paper and reproduction equipment and denial of facetoface access to other inmates did not deprive an inmate of his right of access to the courts D. holding that during a postriot lockdown refusal of access to main law library is constitutional as long as access to basic law library for initial legal research is permitted E. holding that the total denial of all access to the law library for seven months violated the plaintiffs constitutional right of access to the courts

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the total denial of all access to the law library for seven months violated the plaintiffs constitutional right of access to the courts
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: defendants' interpretation of the type of association needed before using Bradford-Hill appears to be overstated. There is nothing to say that a statistically-significant association must be found before applying the methodology. See In re: Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 174 F.Supp.3d 911, 915, MDL No. 2:14-mn-02502-RMG, 2016 WL 1251828, at *2 (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2016)("Ran-domized, double-blind, clinical trials are the ‘gold standard’ for determining whether an association exists. However, the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence recognizes that observational studies can be sufficient to establish an association. ”)(citation omitted); Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, at 598-99 (3d ed. 2011)(<HOLDING>); id at 217-18 (recognizing the role of Options: A. holding that expert report that sufficiently addressed certain claims against doctor employed by professional association was sufficient as to claims against professional association based on doctors negligence because the doctors negligence is imputed to the association under the professional association act B. recognizing even federal constitutional right of association does not apply to the right of one individual to associate with another C. holding that dating is a type of association protected by the first amendment D. recognizing that the determination is an equitable one E. recognizing that an association is needed first to apply bradfordhill but not a statistically significant one

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that an association is needed first to apply bradfordhill but not a statistically significant one
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: damage to the front end, and a broken steering wheel. Is this the damage which Dr. Brown says is essential to his opinion? What of damage to the frame and understructure of the car? If speed is to be based partially on the damage done to the vehicles, that damage must be ascertained by something more than looking at a picture of the exterior of the automobile. No case has been cited to us which is factually similar to the one now before us. However we find substantial support for the views here expressed in Twidwell v. Davidson, 54 Wash.2d 75, 338 P.2d 326, 329-332; Stephanofsky v. Hill, 136 Conn. 379, 71 A.2d 560, 561; Kale v. Douthitt, 4 Cir., 274 F.2d 476, 480-483 (dealing particularly with evidence as to the angle of impact); Levine v. Remolif, 80 Nev. 168, 390 P.2d 718, 719-721 (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. Broome, Tex.Civ.App., 233 S.W.2d Options: A. holding trial court properly excluded testimony concerning speed of vehicle where witness observed vehicle travel on a diagonal for thirtyfive 35 feet on poorly lit road estimate of speed may not be predicated on such a slender data base B. holding that an experts opinion must be based on facts in evidence or within his or her knowledge and that the admission of an experts opinion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion C. holding that rules of evidence do not permit an expert to give opinion or state legal conclusions regarding a question of law D. holding that a picture of a damaged vehicle was insufficient to permit an opinion of speed based on damage to the vehicles E. recognizing that a common illustration of an admissible opinion under rule 701 is an expression of opinion by a lay observer of a cars speed

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a picture of a damaged vehicle was insufficient to permit an opinion of speed based on damage to the vehicles
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 Article VI and VII above, whether or not the Exchange is consummated, each of Longbau and Target will bear their own respective expenses, including legal, accounting and professional fees, incurred in connection with the Exchange or any of the other transactions contemplated hereby.

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: filed his Rule 41(e) motion after the criminal proceedings against him had been concluded. The novel question presented by this unusual circumstance is whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider Martinez’s motion, even though all criminal proceedings against Martinez had ended. We have never addressed this exact issue. We have, however, suggested that equitable relief may be available in a context similar to a Rule 41(e) motion. See, e.g., United States v. Eubanks, 169 F.3d 672, 674 (11th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (affirming the dismissal of a Rule 41(e) motion for return of property while stating that exercise of equitable discretion to review agency forfeiture decisions may be appropriate “under limited circumstances”); In re $67,170.00, 901 F.2d 1540, 1545 (11th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Castro, 883 F.2d 1018, 1020 Options: A. holding that it is an abuse of discretion to make errors of law or clear errors of factual determination B. holding that equitable relief is only appropriate where legal remedies are inadequate C. holding that private plaintiffs can seek equitable relief under rico D. holding that cumulative effect of multiple errors worked to deprive defendant of fair trial although some errors standing alone would be subject to plain error review and others might be harmless E. holding that equitable jurisdiction might be appropriate when a petitioners failure to properly seek legal relief resulted from errors of procedure and form or the governments own misconduct

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that equitable jurisdiction might be appropriate when a petitioners failure to properly seek legal relief resulted from errors of procedure and form or the governments own misconduct