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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If Additional Term Loans are made in accordance with this Section 2.06(b) , then the Administrative Agent, the Parent, and the Borrower shall determine the effective date (the “ Increase Effective Date ”) that such Additional Term Loans shall be made. The Administrative Agent shall promptly notify the Parent, the Borrower, and the Lenders of the Increase Effective Date.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth in the SEC Documents, the Company and its Subsidiaries have good and marketable title in fee simple to all real property and good and marketable title to all personal property owned by them which is material to the business of the Company and its Subsidiaries, in each case free and clear of all liens, encumbrances and defects except such as do not materially affect the value of such property and do not interfere with the use made and proposed to be made of such property by the Company and any of its Subsidiaries. Any real property and facilities held under lease by the Company and any of its Subsidiaries are held by them under valid, subsisting and enforceable leases with such exceptions as are not material and do not interfere with the use made and proposed to be made of such property and buildings by the Company and its Subsidiaries.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally or by mailing the same by registered or certified mail postage prepaid, to the other party. Notice given by mail as below set out shall be deemed delivered at the time and on the date the same is postmarked.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of proof, which is not surprising, as it misunderstood its burden of proof when this case was first tried in 2006. Accordingly, we reverse the third final decision of the Tax Commission and remand to the Tax Commission for the Tax Commission to enter a decision reducing the assessment of the property to $96,458,707.00, the value as listed by taxpayer IBM. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Judge STEPHENS concurs. Judge BEASLEY concurs in result only. 1 . “This evidence,” in context, refers to (1) the NACOMEX report; (2) testimony of IBM’s valuation expert, Mr. Zises; (3) testimony of Durham County’s expert, Mr. Baker, who developed Schedule U5’s depreciation tables, as modified after the Tax Commission’s decision In re Appeals of Northern Telecom, N.C. St. Tax Rep. (CCH) P 201-813 (May 20, 1994) (<HOLDING>), who testified that the tables “were not based Options: A. holding that timber contractor bore the general risk of changing market prices and could not be deemed compelled to defer removal simply by the fact of low prices B. holding that values obtained using a former version of schedule u5 were deficient because the assessor failed to consider market information about the prices of new and used equipment in the taxpayers industry C. holding that a plaintiff claiming monopolization is obligated to establish the relevant market because the power to control prices or exclude competition only makes sense with reference to a particular market D. holding that fair and reasonable market value of stolen property may be established in larceny prosecution by evidence of wholesale or retail values or both and if both are sufficient to establish grand larceny then it is immaterial whether computation of market value is by reference to wholesale or retail prices E. holding that a county that uses base year market values for most of the county may not consistent with the uniformity clause utilize a formula based upon current market value as to a selected group of taxing districts only

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that values obtained using a former version of schedule u5 were deficient because the assessor failed to consider market information about the prices of new and used equipment in the taxpayers industry
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 Key Employee shall receive a Base Salary during the Employment Term at the rate of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand dollars ($350,000) per annum payable in periodic installments in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll practices and procedures, which Base Salary may be increased (but not decreased) by the Board (or a committee thereof) from time to time.

assistant: Base Salary
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: through annual appropriations funds sufficient to reimburse the Treasury for any claims paid in the prior fiscal year pursuant to the foregoing provisions.... Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1991, Pub.L. No. 101-512, § 314, 104 Stat.1915, 1959-60 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. § 450f note). Two federal appellate courts have held that this language only provides for a money damages remedy against the United States for claims arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act. See Snyder v. Navajo Nation, 382 F.3d 892, 897 (9th Cir.2004) (“Congress, however, did not intend [this language] to provide a remedy against the United States in civil actions unrelated to the [Federal Tort Claims Act].”); Demontiney v. United States, 255 F.3d 801, 807 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); FGS Constructors, Inc. v. Carlow, 64 F.3d Options: A. holding that tort actions brought against a state actor must be brought in the illinois court of claims and the district courts dismissal of such claims was proper B. recognizing that any claims compensable under the act could not be brought by nonemployee spouse except for intentional tort claims C. holding that ethical violations may be relevant to tort claims brought against attorneys D. holding that this language applies to tort claims brought under the federal tort claims act against a contractor who has a selfdetermination contract E. holding section 101106f cannot be used by employees to obtain dismissal of common law intentional tort claims because those claims could not have been brought under the texas tort claims act

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that this language applies to tort claims brought under the federal tort claims act against a contractor who has a selfdetermination contract
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Subject to Section 5, each Party agrees that, without the prior written consent of the other Party, such Party will not, and will cause its Representative not to, disclose to any other Person (i) that Evaluation Material has been exchanged between the Parties, (ii) that discussions or negotiations are taking place between the Parties concerning a Possible Transaction or any other transaction between the Parties or (iii) any of the terms, conditions or other facts with respect thereto (including the status thereof) ; provided, however, that nothing contained herein shall be deemed to inhibit, impair or restrict the ability of Recipient or its Representatives from having discussions or negotiations with other persons relating to potential financing in connection with the Possible Transaction so long as each of such Persons agrees in writing to be bound by the terms of this Agreement applicable to Representatives.

assistant: No
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: United States, and SCI and Alderwoods together own and operate less than 10% of funeral homes in the United States. The Consumer Appellants could purchase a non-Batesville casket or purchase a casket from an ICD or from a funeral home not owned by Consumer Appellees when, if ever, they might need to purchase a casket in the future. Appellants admit that ICDs sell “similar or superior” caskets at lower prices. Appellants cite no evidence that they specifically sought out a Batesville casket or co 29, 243-44 (3d Cir.2012) (reaching the same conclusion where, inter alia, plaintiffs in a similar action likewise had not alleged that they had “ ‘actual or imminent’ plans to purchase title insurance”); In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 522 F.3d 6, 14-15 (1st Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). 3. FCA’s associational standing to pursue Options: A. holding that owners and officers of automobile dealership who were neither consumers nor competitors in automobile market lacked standing to bring antitrust action against automobile manufacturer B. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue C. holding that consumer plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue antitrust injunction action alleging anticompetitive action by automobile company defendants where the complaint did not make any allegation regarding a named plaintiffs intention to buy or lease another new vehicle within such a time frame as could be deemed imminent D. holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue a permanent nuisance action for injury to property because none of the plaintiffs were the owners of the land when the cause of action accrued with the first injury E. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring securities claims relating to funds that plaintiffs did not own

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that consumer plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue antitrust injunction action alleging anticompetitive action by automobile company defendants where the complaint did not make any allegation regarding a named plaintiffs intention to buy or lease another new vehicle within such a time frame as could be deemed imminent
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to the merits was only applicable to Majestic. 6 . A number of district court cases in this circuit have also applied this rule. See Times Mirror Magazines, Inc. v. Field & Stream Licenses Co., 103 F.Supp.2d 711, 738 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ("In the absence of significant injury to the consuming public, a party entering into a settlement agreement with respect to a trademark will be held to its contract.”); Marshak v. Green, 505 F.Supp. 1054, 1060-61 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) ("Courts adhere to traditional common-law contract principles even in trademark cases as long as holding a party to his obligations is not inconsistent with the public policy of preventing confusion and de ception as to the origin of goods or services.”); Peyrat v. L.N. Renault & Sons, Inc., 247 F.Supp. 1009, 1014 (S.D.N.Y.1965) (<HOLDING>). 7 . The IPC also briefly contends that a Options: A. holding that although parties to a trademark controversy may contract between themselves for any legal purpose those contracts are only enforceable so long as no injury is caused to the public B. holding that a forum selection clause was not enforceable against defendants that were not parties to the contract C. holding that an indemnity provision need not be valid and enforceable to trigger obligations under the contract so long as the parties agreed to indemnity D. holding that an agreement in violation of antitrust laws may be enforceable where the parties underlying conduct is legal E. holding that although the underlying action is one for trademark infringement the infringement occurred as a result of the underlying defendants use of the trademark in their advertising

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that although parties to a trademark controversy may contract between themselves for any legal purpose those contracts are only enforceable so long as no injury is caused to the public
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: provides no basis for believing the court itself understood its finding to be one of constitutional fact or even of constitutional significance. The trial court’s order, therefore, cannot provide the foundation for Judge Mack’s constitutional argument that “recognition” means endorsement of the sort absolutely forbidden by the Constitution. (3) Turning to the constitutional question itself, I agree with Judge Mack that regulations literally compelling someone to speak moral or ideological statements are directly and extremely intrusive upon the individu al’s freedom of belief and expression; probably no countervailing state interest could render such compulsions constitutional. See West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943) (<HOLDING>); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 81 S.Ct. Options: A. holding that where the plaintiffs evidence supported a finding that the defendants had applied force to restrain him the jury must determine not only whether the officers were justified in using force at all but if so whether the degree of force actually used was reasonable B. holding force to be an element of pre1994 amendment 111 which may be satisfied by proof of force or threat of force C. holding the takings clause inapplicable to the states of its own force D. holding states cannot force schoolchildren to say pledge of allegiance to flag E. holding unconstitutional as applied a statute that punished words that cast contempt on the flag of the united states

assistant: The best answer is D. holding states cannot force schoolchildren to say pledge of allegiance to flag
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: through application of the Free Exercise Clause, the Supreme Court has held that the Establishment Clause also protects church autonomy in internal religious matters.”); see generally Douglas Laycock, Towards a General Theory of the Religion Clauses: The Case of Church Labor Relations and the Right to Church Autonomy, 81 Colum. L.Rev. 1373 (1981) (positing that Free Exercise Clause protections against burdens or restrictions on religion more appropriately address church autonomy concerns than the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government sponsorship of religion). Because this case does not raise the question of government-sponsored religion, we ground our analysis in the Free Exercise Clause. 7 . See also Drevlow v. Lutheran Church, Mo. Synod, 991 F.2d 468, 470-71 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Minker v. Baltimore Annual Conference of Options: A. holding that defendants sixth amendment right to trial by a jury was not violated by district courts reliance on his prior convictions for purposes of sentencing under the armed career criminal act B. holding that defendants sixth amendment right to trial by a jury was not violated by district courts reliance on his prior convictions for purposes of sentencing as career offender C. holding that the prior courts order by its conditional terms allowed subsequent modification by other courts D. holding ministers claim that the synod violated its bylaws by removing his name from list of eligible ministers not justiciable by secular courts E. holding that the multiple offender could not expunge all of his convictions by simply removing them from his record one at a time

assistant: The best answer is D. holding ministers claim that the synod violated its bylaws by removing his name from list of eligible ministers not justiciable by secular 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: 443 F.3d 1362, 1367 (11th Cir. 2006); Lave v. Dretke, 444 F.3d 333, 336 (5th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed, No. 05-11552 (U.S. June 13, 2006); Dorchy v. Jones, 398 F.3d 783, 788 (6th Cir. 2005); Murillo v. Frank, 402 F.3d 786, 791 (7th Cir. 2005); Mungo v. Duncan, 393 F.3d 327, 336 (2d Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1002 (2005); Evans v. Luebbers, 371 F.3d 438, 444 (8th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1067 (2005); Edwards v. People, 129 P.3d 977, 988 (Colo. 2006); Chandler v. Crosby, 916 So. 2d 728, 730-31 (Fla. 2005); Danforth v. State, 700 N.W.2d 530, 532 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005); People v. Soto, 795 N.Y.S.2d 429, 433 (Sup. Ct. 2005); In re Markel, 111 P.3d 249, 254 (Wash. 2005). 30 Brown, 381 F.3d at 1226-27; see also U.S. v. Mora, 293 F.3d 1213, 1219 (10th Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>). 31 Brown, 381 F.3d at 1227. 32 118 Nev. 807, Options: A. holding that almendareztorres remains binding despite apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 B. holding that apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 does not apply to a judges exercise of discretion within a statutory range so long as a defendants sentence is not set beyond the maximum term specified in the substantive statute C. holding that 851 factfinding falls within the prior conviction exception set out in apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 490 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 D. holding that apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 was not violated where the sentence did not exceed the applicable statutory maximum E. holding that apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 2000 did not alter fundamental due process rights in part because apprendi errors could be excused given overwhelming evidence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 2000 did not alter fundamental due process rights in part because apprendi errors could be excused given overwhelming evidence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Only those individuals who are serving as executive officers as of the first quarter Board meeting each year are eligible to participate in the Plan for that plan year (the “ Participants ”). In the case of a promotion, an individual must have been promoted to “executive officer” by such first quarter Board meeting in order to participate in the Plan for that plan year.

assistant: Participations
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: an additional test by a physician of the person’s own choosing. In case the officer refuses to permit such additional testing, the testing administered pursuant to K.S.A. 8-1001. . . shall not be competent in evidence.” If a test is not competent evidence, it cannot be used to determine whether die person “had an alcohol concentration of .08 or greater” under K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 8-1020(h)(2)(G). Accordingly, we hold that the denial of a driver’s statutory right to consult wi& an attorney after alcohol testing is an appropriate issue to be addressed at a driver’s license suspension administrative hearing. Because the issue is within the scope of the administrative hearing, it is likewise within our scope of review. Sloop v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 296 Kan. 13, 17, 290 P.3d 555 (2012) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we will proceed to the merits of Options: A. holding that the flsa is not within the purview of section 5 of the fourteenth amendment B. holding issues within scope of administrative hearing are within the reviewing courts purview C. holding an arbitration tribunal fell within the purview of section 1782 D. holding in a title vii case that it was within the purview of the courts discretion to determine whether or not the actual time expended by an additional attorney was reasonable E. holding all issues within the scope of the appealed judgment are deemed incorporated within the mandate and thus are precluded from further adjudication

assistant: The best answer is B. holding issues within scope of administrative hearing are within the reviewing courts purview
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties agree (a) to furnish upon request to each other such further information, (b) to execute and deliver to each other such other documents, and (c) to do such other acts and things, all as the other party may reasonably request for the purpose of carrying out the intent of this Agreement.

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: forth in her Will," Appel-lee's Br. p. 8, and, accordingly, must be honored. The virtue of the three-year statute of limitations on the presentment of wills is that "questions as to testacy may be eliminated simply by the running of time," thereby ensuring that property is freely alienable within a reasonable period. Uniform Probate Code § 3-101 (1998). Thus, at the end of the three-year period, the decedent's property may be distributed under the intestacy statutes without the worry of subsequent litigation raised by a late-discovered will. Moreover, the three-year statute of limitations allows interested parties to investigate whether the testator could have been incompetent when the will was executed or the subject of undue influence. Troxel v. Troxel, 737 N.E.2d 745, 748 (Ind.2000) (<HOLDING>). Here, no party is attempting to probate Options: A. holding a statute of limitations defense does not deprive court of subject matter jurisdiction to the extent the statute of limitations may be considered in any sense a jurisdictional impediment it is one which can be waived B. holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense C. holding that employer was estopped to assert a statute of limitations defense where the insurer had arranged to have the claimant examined by one of its physicians after the statute of limitations had run D. holding that the statute of limitations defense does not deprive court of subject matter jurisdiction to the extent the statute of limitations may be considered in any sense a jurisdictional impediment it is one which can be waived E. holding that one justification for a will statute of limitations is to accurately represent the wishes of the decedent

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that one justification for a will statute of limitations is to accurately represent the wishes of the decedent
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: State, 15 Md. 376 (1860). In Davis, the question was whether, under this constitutional provision, the legislature could provide for appointment to an office created by statute. [We] [c]onclud[ed] that it could.... * * * In Baltimore, the Court reconciled the interpretation in Davis with the separation of powers provision contained in the Declaration of Rights. In answer to the contention that the power of appointment was ‘an intrinsic executive function,’ beyond the legislature’s authority, the Court observed: ‘(T)he Legislature makes the laws, the Judiciary expounds them, and the Governor sees that they are faithfully executed.... It does not follow, as a necessary conclusion, that, in order to perform this duty, the Governor must have agents of his own nomination. Our 76, 84 (1868) (<HOLDING>). Cf. County Comm’rs of Calvert County v. Options: A. holding that a law creating a public office and providing for the officers compensation mode of payment thereof and mode of appointment could be modified or abolished by the legislature at any time B. holding that the prohibition of section 35 article iii against the increase or diminution of compensation for public officers applied to the treasurer of calvert county and therefore even though the legislature retained the power to alter or abolish the office it could not change the treasurers salary while in office C. holding the time frame is crucial and evaluating reasonableness of officers use of deadly force at the time of the seizure irrespective of their prior unreasonable conduct in creating the circumstances D. holding that the governor had no power to make the appointment of officer of the school commissioner for cecil county without the consent of the senate when the office was not vacant because the legislature which had created and therefore controlled the office had not delegated that power to the governor E. holding that the requirement that the county seek recommendations for appointments to a civil office from a private corporation was not constitutionally repugnant because where the office was created by the legislature the legislature retains the control over that offices method of appointment

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a law creating a public office and providing for the officers compensation mode of payment thereof and mode of appointment could be modified or abolished by the legislature at any time
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: interests inferior to the unsecured creditors [and, t]hus there should be little difficulty with the absolute priority rule____”). Sweetwater does not dispute that general proposition, but argues that the insider claims in this case should be subordinated to it, and not receive or retain any property since Sweetwater’s claim is not being paid in full. The Court disagrees. Several courts have expressed the opinion that the claim of an insider or equity holder may not be treated unequally unless the insider or equity holder used superior knowledge concerning the debtor’s affairs in an unfair manner or equitable subordination principles otherwise apply. See e.g., In re ARN LTD. Ltd. P’ship, 140 B.R. 5, 13 (Bankr.D.D.C.1992), citing In re Ho-lywell Corp., 913 F.2d 873, 880 (11th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Heritage Org., 375 B.R. at 301 (agreeing that Options: A. holding that the mere fact that relevant evidence is shocking to the sensibilities does not make the admission of that evidence a violation of due process B. holding that the mere fact that a claim is held by an equity security holder does not justify its subordination and insider claims may be equitably subordinated only based on evidence of unfair conduct C. holding that direct evidence of a fact is not necessary and that circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient but may also be more certain satisfying and persuasive D. holding that an employer in an employment discrimination case may not justify its conduct based on evidence that did not motivate it at the time of the employment decision E. recognizing that mere passage of time does not make evidence irrelevant as it will also depend on the nature of the evidence and its relation to what is to be proven

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the mere fact that a claim is held by an equity security holder does not justify its subordination and insider claims may be equitably subordinated only based on evidence of unfair conduct
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: Thus, there was no possibility that the jury’s § 924(c) verdict rested only on a Hobbs Act robbery predicate because (1) the robbery was an act inextricably intertwined with and, indeed, in furtherance of the charged narcotics conspiracy, and (2) the jury found that narcotics conspiracy proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, where a challenged § 924 verdict undoubtedly rests on a valid drug-trafficking predicate, no Yates concern arises from a possible defect in a related “crime of violence” predicate. See United States v. Zvi, 168 F.3d 49, 55-56 (2d Cir. 1999) (rejecting Yates challenge where time-barred money-laundering predicate implicitly required finding of valid wire-fraud predicate); see also United States v. Coppola, 671 F.3d 220, 237-38 (2d Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>). ' To the extent Vasquez hypothesizes a way in Options: A. holding that any error in trial courts comparative negligence instruction was harmless where the jury found that both defendants were not negligent B. holding that failure to give richardson instruction was harmless error where jury separately and unanimously convicted defendant of crimes that served as cce predicates C. holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error D. holding any yates error harmless where predicates rested on same extortive acts of which jury found defendants guilty E. holding exclusion was harmless error

assistant: The best answer is D. holding any yates error harmless where predicates rested on same extortive acts of which jury found defendants guilty
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: immediately proceed to window #2, waiting instead until after he had obtained his business license. While George testified that people normally proceed directly from window #1 to window #2 when they register a vehicle, the People presented no evidence that tended to suggest that Mendoza actually went to window #2. No witness from the BMV testified that Mendoza actually presented any documents at window #2. Instead, the People rely on circumstantial evidence that Mendoza went to window #1 to prove that he also went to window #2. Concluding that Mendoza went to window #2 based solely on evidence that he had gone to window #1 would be nothing more than mere speculation or conjecture. See People v. Clarke, S. Ct. Crim. No. 2009-0104, 2011 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 11, at *17 (V.I. April 12, 2011) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Pettigrew, 77 F.3d 1500, Options: A. holding evidence must rise above mere speculation B. holding that mere conjecture or speculation is insufficient under a preponderance standard C. holding that because plaintiff has met defendants affidavit evidence with mere speculation plaintiffs request for jurisdictional discovery must be denied D. holding that mere speculation is insufficient to support a jury verdict E. holding that because plaintiff has metdefendants affidavit evidence with mere speculation plaintiffs request for jurisdictionall discovery must be denied

assistant: The best answer is A. holding evidence must rise above mere speculation
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: under this scenario, a sailboat tacking twenty times up the East Coast of the United States from Miami to New York, which had aboard illegal substances acquired in Miami, would be subject to being charged with twenty violations of exportation under § 953(a), and twenty violations of importation under § 952(a), one for each time it tacked out to and from international waters. As if the above scenarios were not ludicrous enough, at oral argument, the government also informed us that in the above situations, since international borders were crossed, border crossing rules are applicable, with all of the consequent diminished Fourth Amendment implications such circumstances bring into play. See United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616-19, 97 S.Ct. 1972, 1978-80, 52 L.Ed.2d 617 (1976) (<HOLDING>); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, Options: A. holding that governments right to search all persons and their belongings who cross its borders is plenary and is reasonable per se within the fourth amendment B. holding that a canine sniff is a search for purposes of the fourth amendment C. holding that the warrantless search of knights supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of probation was reasonable within the meaning of the fourth amendment D. holding that such any and all language is per se unconstitutional for lack of particularity E. holding that per se statutory rule is not permissible under fourth amendment

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that governments right to search all persons and their belongings who cross its borders is plenary and is reasonable per se within the fourth amendment
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 agency with responsibility for carrying out its policies and representing the agency in its dealings with the federal government, the Director possesses a sufficient connection to the alleged violation of federal law. Our jurisprudence supports the district court’s conclusion that a state official violates federal law by continuing work on a “major federal action” when the requirements of NEPA and its implementing regulations have not been satisfied. E.g., Gilchrist, 808 F.2d at 1043 (finding county officials can be enjoined from pursuing a project before federal participants in the project had complied with NEPA); Ely II, 497 F.2d at 257 (finding state officials can be barred from using federal funds on projects that do not comply with NEPA); Arlington Coalition, 458 F.2d at 1329 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, because it asserts the Director’s Options: A. holding that the contribution by a federal agency of 531 million toward a project did not constitute a major federal action because the funding represented less than 10 of the 584 billion project cost B. holding that vermonts licensing scheme was preempted by the fpa because it enabled the state to thwart a federal project by withholding a state permit C. holding that permitting a state official to proceed with a highway project despite alleged nepa violations by federal participants in the project would make a sham of the reconsideration required by federal law D. holding that alleged violations of a state statute did not give rise to federal constitutional claims E. holding that intervenors could appeal and challenge the grant of injunctive relief by defending the governments action against alleged violations of nepa when the federal defendants decided not to appeal

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that permitting a state official to proceed with a highway project despite alleged nepa violations by federal participants in the project would make a sham of the reconsideration required by federal law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that any dividend or other distribution (whether in the form of cash, Shares, other securities or other property), recapitalization, stock split, reverse stock split, reorganization, merger, consolidation, split-up, spin-off, combination, repurchase or exchange of Shares or other securities of the Company, issuance of warrants or other rights to purchase Shares or other securities of the Company or other similar corporate transaction or event affects the Shares such that an adjustment is necessary in order to prevent dilution or enlargement of the benefits or potential benefits intended to be made available under the Plan, then the Committee shall, in such manner as it may deem equitable, adjust any or all of (i) the number and type of Shares (or other securities or other property) that thereafter may be made the subject of Awards, (ii) the number and type of Shares (or other securities or other property) subject to outstanding Awards and (iii) the purchase price or exercise price with respect to any Award.

assistant: Adjustments
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: 211 (Bankr.Or.1989). The Gathwright court held that if section 523(a)(1)(C) was intended by Congress to include attempts to evade or defeat the payment of taxes, then the language “or payment thereof” would have been added to the section. The court came to this conclusion after examining an analogous provision from the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”). Section 7201 of the IRC provides it is a felony to “willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by [Title 26] or the payment thereof.” Thus, according to the court, because the kr.N.D.Ill.1992) (comparing the language of section 7201 of the IRC and section 523(a)(1)(C) of the Bankruptcy Code and concluding that the difference in statutory language is irrelevant); In re Jones, 116 B.R. 810, 814 (Bankr.D.Kan.1990) (<HOLDING>). The Court agrees that the language “in any Options: A. holding that the modifying phrase in any manner is sufficiently broad to include attempts to evade taxes by concealing assets to protect them from execution or attachment B. holding that the use of the phrase any and all even if it is the sole descriptive reference to the cause of the injury claim or loss indemnified can render an agreement sufficiently broad to include indemnification for claims or injuries caused by indemnitees own negligence subject to any limitations in the agreement C. holding that because the purpose of the bankruptcy code is to give honest debtors a fresh start the language of section 523a1c includes attempts by a debtor to evade payment of taxes D. holding that the plain language of the act appears to permit private actions by corporations both in permitting any persondefined to include corporations to bring an action and in its broad definition of the unlawful acts and practices including any unfair or deceptive act in the conduct of any trade or commerce within new hampshire E. holding that police officers charge to protect the public differentiated them from the public

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the modifying phrase in any manner is sufficiently broad to include attempts to evade taxes by concealing assets to protect them from execution or attachment
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 the police investigation and, if the testimony was mistakenly admitted, any mistake was harmless. Having reviewed the record, we conclude the challenged testimony was offered to rebut Kurkowski’s entrapment claim that the government targeted him without reason. The testimony, then, was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, thus was not hearsay. See United States v. Aikens, 64 F.3d 372, 376 (8th Cir.1995), vacated on other grounds by 517 U.S. 1116, 116 S.Ct. 1346, 134 L.Ed.2d 516 (1996). Even if the testimony was inadmissible hearsay and did not contain sufficient evidence to support a finding by the jury that Kurkowski offered to sell drugs as the informant alleged, we conclude any mistake was harmless. United States v. Davis, 154 F.3d 772, 778 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Blake, 107 F.3d 651, 653 Options: A. holding that outofcourt statements that are offered to explain a police investigation are neither hearsay nor violative of the confrontation clause B. holding the itc may reasonably interpret the subject to investigation provision to mean that imports covered by a suspension agreement in which an investigation is temporarily terminated are not subject to investigation while under that agreement emphasis added C. holding outofcourt statements relating to reasons for investigation are not admissible where the reasons for the investigation are not at issue D. holding that statements made to internal investigator of employer were made in an investigation under this subchapter where investigation was pursuant to a charge filed with eeoc E. holding for similar though not identical reasons that commodities transactions are not covered by the act

assistant: The best answer is C. holding outofcourt statements relating to reasons for investigation are not admissible where the reasons for the investigation are not at issue
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: nature, may be the basis for an overall diminution in value of the remainder and therefore, the basis for damage”). Some courts have held that “any factor,' including public fear, which impacts on the market value of land taken for a public purpose may be considered to explain the basis for an expert’s valuation opinion. Whether this fear is objectively reasonable is irrelevant to the issue of full compensation in an eminent domain proceeding.” Florida Power & Light Co. v. Jennings, 518 So.2d 895, 899 (Fla.1987). See also Ryan v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 249 Kan. 1, 5, 815 P.2d 528, 538 (1991) (evidence of fear in marketplace held admissible regarding value of property); City of Santa Fe v. Komis, 114 N.M. 659, 662-663, 845 P.2d 753, 756-757 (1992) (same); Cri 074, 1078 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Robertson, 354 F.2d 877, 881 Options: A. holding that severance pay policy was part of employment contract B. recognizing the financial position of the defendant as a factor in assessing a punitive damages award C. holding that local buyers fear of possible knapweed infestation legitimately affected calculation of severance damages D. holding that increased fear of flooding was a matter that factfinder could properly consider in assessing severance damages E. holding that stigma damages were properly included in calculation of severance damages where proximity of gas pipeline could trigger fears about possible mishaps

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that increased fear of flooding was a matter that factfinder could properly consider in assessing severance damages
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: Getty Images to exercise all rights and remedies available to it under copyright laws around the world.” Wu argues that the right to bring a suit for infringement is a right or remedy available under the copyright law. The Court does not agree with Wu’s interpretation of the contract. It may be that Wu will have the right to seek damages from Pearson or enjoin Pearson from further violations of his copyright, meaning he can exercise all rights and remedies against Pearson, but the clause does not say anything about the forum where Wu has the right to enforce those rights and remedies. Read in conjunction with the broad arbitration agreement, this clause does not create the sort of carve-out that Wu claims. See Robert Bosch Corp. v. ASC, Inc., 195 Fed.Appx. 503, 507 (6th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). II. Class Certification — Wu I Pursuant to Options: A. holding in a battle of the forms inquiry that a term reserving all rights and remedies for one party did not conflict with an arbitration provision B. holding civil rico and robinsonpatman act claims subject to arbitration based on an arbitration provision in salesconfirmation forms C. holding that the court must consider the adequacy of the inquiry into the conflict the extent of the conflict and the timeliness of the motion D. recognizing the conflict E. holding that a dispute arising out of an insurance policy was not covered by the arbitration provision in the parties separate premium payment agreement because if the party had intended to subject this dispute to the arbitration provision it could easily clearly and unequivocally have done so either by including an arbitration provision in the insurance policy itself or by adding to the above arbitration provision

assistant: The best answer is A. holding in a battle of the forms inquiry that a term reserving all rights and remedies for one party did not conflict with an arbitration provision
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: GSI’s authorized capital stock consists of (i) 200,000,000 shares of Common Stock, $0.001 Par Value of which 41,838,864 shares were issued and outstanding as of December 10, 2018 and 494,462 are issued as treasury stock, and (ii) 50,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock of which 3,092,899 shares are issued and outstanding. All shares of Common Stock have been validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable. GSI has no option plans and there are no subscriptions, options, warrants, rights or other agreements outstanding to acquire shares of stock of GSI or any other equity security or security convertible into an equity security. There are no agreements or commitments to increase, decrease or otherwise alter the authorized capital stock of GSI prior to the Closing Date. GSI has not granted any registration rights with respect to any shares of GSI Common Stock or any options to acquire shares of GSI capital stock. Upon issuance in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the GSI Common Stock will be validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: once you acquire a license to virtual money or virtual goods , you may not trade or transfer the virtual money or virtual goods to another individual or account , unless such functionality is provided to you by us by way of a feature or service , whether inside the app or through some other method ( e.g. , our website ) .

assistant: None