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: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 4(b) , in the event Executive’s employment terminates without Cause pursuant to Section 3(a)(iv) , or pursuant to Section 3(a)(v) due to Executive’s resignation for Good Reason, in either case, within 60 days prior to or 12 months following the date of a Change in Control, subject to Executive signing on or before the 21st day following Executive’s Separation from Service, and not revoking, the Release, and Executive’s continued compliance with Section 5 , Executive shall be entitled to receive, without duplication, (i) the payments and benefits described in Section 4(b) and (ii) immediate vesting of all unvested equity or equity-based awards held by Executive under any Company equity compensation plan that vest solely based on the passage of time (for the avoidance of doubt, with any such awards that vest in whole or in part based on the attainment of performance-vesting conditions being governed by the terms of the applicable award agreement).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: In support of this argument, it relies on the statement by the Court of Appeals that “where the landlord changes the lock, or padlocks the door, there is an actual eviction.” Barash, 26 N.Y.2d at 83, 308 N.Y.S.2d at 653, 256 N.E.2d at 710. After careful review of New York ease law in this area, the court rejects defendant’s statement of the law and finds that in order for any action, including the changing of locks on a premise, to constitute an eviction there must be intent on the part of the landlord to keep the tenant out by reason of that action. The notion that merely changing the locks constitutes an eviction has been expressly rejected by the New York courts. Equitable Tower Assoc. v. El Paso Natural Gas, 134 Misc.2d 23, 24, 511 N.Y.S.2d 197, 198 (App. Term 1st Dept.1986) (<HOLDING>); Breezy Point Cooperative v. Rockaway Point Options: A. holding that the tenant was not a holdover tenant despite retaining keys because the tenant recognized the termination of the tenancy relinquished possession of the premises and the landlord was able to gain access to the property B. recognizing the general rule that the landlord is not liable for dangerous conditions existing once the tenant takes possession of the premises C. holding the landlord did not trespass when his agent entered the premises for the purpose of showing them to a potential tenant D. holding that changing of locks did not constitute an eviction when tenant had moved out of the premises and landlord changed locks in order to conform the locks to a master key E. holding that where the landlord was aware the tenant had moved out a tenant who attached a lock to the door and accidentally retained the keys to the lock was not a holdover tenant

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that changing of locks did not constitute an eviction when tenant had moved out of the premises and landlord changed locks in order to conform the locks to a master key
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in the form of its “unique business and marketing systems, its data base, its 800 number, and its very ability to do business”. Appellant’s Brief at 28. Noting that it is an issue of first impression for the District of Columbia whether the tort of conversion should encompass intangible rights other than ones “ ‘customarily merged in, or identified with some document’ ”, 839 F.Supp. at 933 (quoting W. Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 15, at 92 (5th ed. 1984)), the court rejected the claim on the theory that the District of Columbia would not so extend the tort. The district court may have been correct, but we note that some courts have extended conversion in this way. See, e.g., National Surety Corp. v. Applied Systems, Inc., 418 So.2d 847, 849 (Ala.1982) (<HOLDING>). In any event, the court here did not need to Options: A. holding search of probationers computer by probation officers was reasonable even in absence of a search provision when conditions on probationers computer use reduced his expectation of privacy in his computer B. holding that conversion would lie for copying and taking of computer programs even if defendant never took the tapes embodying the programs C. holding legislature was required to provide a system of free education to the public including programs for the handicapped D. holding that prisons have programs services or activities because they provide inmates with many recreational activities medical services and educational and vocational programs E. holding that prisoner whose primary means of communication was sign language was entitled to interpreter under the ada and rehabilitation act for disciplinary procedures medical care education programs and counseling

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that conversion would lie for copying and taking of computer programs even if defendant never took the tapes embodying the programs
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Participant may elect to transfer the balances in his or her Account among the Investment Options at any time. Such election shall be made via the VRU, or in accordance with such other procedures as shall be prescribed by the Committee from time to time, and shall be effective as soon as practicable following receipt thereof, subject to limitations, if any, of the investment vehicles selected. If a transfer authorization does not result in the allocation of one hundred percent (100%) of the Participant’s Account or if it is incorrect in any other respect, the transfer authorization will not be processed by the Committee and the prior investment allocation will continue in effect. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this subparagraph, amounts credited to any subaccount must remain credited to that subaccount until distribution from the Plan, unless the Committee determines that such contributions (and investment gains or losses on such contributions) should be credited to a different subaccount.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Borrower will comply, and cause each Subsidiary to comply, with the requirements of all applicable Laws and Material Contracts, except to the extent that failure to so comply would not reasonably be expected to (a) have a Material Adverse Effect, or (b) result in any Lien upon a material portion of the assets of any such Person in favor of any Governmental Authority.

assistant: Compliance With 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: Except as set forth on Schedule 7.14 or as disclosed in writing to the Administrative Agent (which shall promptly furnish a copy to the Lenders), which shall be a supplement to Schedule 7.14 , the Borrower has no Restricted Subsidiaries. The Borrower has no Foreign Subsidiaries.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between the parties hereto in reference to all the matters herein agreed upon. With the exception of the Company’s Bylaws, Certificate of Incorporation and applicable law, this Agreement replaces in full all prior indemnification agreements or understandings between the Company, including any of its subsidiaries, and the Indemnitee, and any all such prior agreements or understandings are hereby rescinded by mutual agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The representations and warranties of the Company and the Investor contained in Sections 3 and 4 , the agreements and covenants set forth in Section 5 and this Section 11 , shall survive each of the Closings and the termination of this Agreement.

assistant: Survival
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 binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Company and its Affiliates and any other person, association, or entity which may hereafter acquire or succeed to all or a portion of the business or assets of the Company by any means, whether direct or indirect, by purchase, merger, consolidation, or otherwise. The Parties expressly acknowledge that the Company’s rights under this Agreement are assignable and that such rights shall be fully enforceable by any of the Company’s assignees or successors in interest. Consultant’s rights and obligations under this Agreement are personal and such rights, benefits, and obligations of Consultant shall not be voluntarily or involuntarily assigned, alienated, or transferred, whether by operation of law or otherwise, by Consultant without the prior written consent of the Company, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

assistant: Assignments
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: likewise shown to be identified with Venice, Italy. Relying on a gazetteer, an encyclopedia, published books, and web sites, the examiner established that the lion in the applicant’s mark specifically reproduces the winged Lion of St. Mark with its paw embracing a stone tablet. The examiner further observed that this figure appears on the official Venetian flag, on the regional flag of Veneto, and in statuary found throughout the city of Venice. Moreover, the examiner noted that the Venetian flag with the Lion of St. Mark has symbolized the city of Venice since, some believe, the ninth century. Therefore, the , 6-7 (Fed.Cir.1985). A registered mark on goods other than those previously registered carries no presumption of distinctiveness. In re Loew’s, 769 F.2d at 769, 226 USPQ at 869 (<HOLDING>). Here, the proposed composite mark is an Options: A. holding that notice of judgment was insufficient B. holding a certification of service and presentment was insufficient to establish the trial court received actual notice of the defendants motion for new trial C. holding that generalized notice of copyright infringements was insufficient to establish knowledge for the purpose of contributory liability D. holding applicants incontestable registration of a service mark for cash management account did not automatically entitle applicant to registration of that mark for broader financial services E. holding incontestable mark durango for cigars insufficient to establish distinctiveness of durango for chewing tobacco

assistant: The best answer is E. holding incontestable mark durango for cigars insufficient to establish distinctiveness of durango for chewing tobacco
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 capitalized terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this Agreement. If any capitalized term is not defined herein, such term shall have the meaning ascribed to it in the Purchase Agreement. All exhibits referenced in this Agreement are hereby incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference.

assistant: Definitions
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: would have ensued. ¶ 15 On this record, and with no contrary evidence offered, the trial court properly determined that Hatch in good faith believed that he owed an obligation to the Hunts at the time of the settlement. See Restatement § 78(b)(ii). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to Hatch on indemnity. 0. Statute of Limitations Regarding Hatch’s Attorney Fees Claim Against Solomon ¶ 16 Solomon asserts that the statute of limitations bars Hatch’s indemnity claim for attorney fees spent defending against the Hunts’ suit. Solomon raises this specific argument for the first time on appeal. We conclude, therefore, that the argument has been waived. See Airfreight Exp. Ltd. v. Evergreen Ctr., Inc., 215 Ariz. 103, 109, ¶ 17, 158 P.3d 232, 238 (App. 2007) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Payne v. Payne, 12 Ariz.App. 434, Options: A. holding that the trial court properly added a party defendant to conform to the evidence presented at the trial B. holding a party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give the trial court an opportunity to rule properly C. holding that trial court was required to give full effect to supreme courts judgment and that by failing to do so the trial court abused its discretion D. holding that where trial court erred in applying established law to the facts of the case it must be reversed and remanded for a new hearing to give the trial court an opportunity to address the issue E. holding that where the issue before the court is legal as opposed to factual an appellate court need not give deference to a trial courts decision

assistant: The best answer is B. holding a party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give the trial court an opportunity to rule properly
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: representative of ISA in the Shields settlement; and (2) the FDIC’s mismanagement claims are different from the claims advanced by the shareholder plaintiffs in Shields. We are not persuaded. 1 The FDIC argues that “[t]he fact that one entity is a wholly owned subsidiary of another entity is insufficient to establish privity between the two entities for purposes of the defense of claim preclusion.” The FDIC raises four major contentions in support of this argument. First, the FDIC’s contention that “[t]he parent/subsidiary relationship of ICA and ISA, though potentially relevant, is not dis-positive” is unpersuasive in light of this court’s clear holdings to the contrary. See, e.g., Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 728 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 920, 112 S.Ct. 1295, Options: A. holding that parent is liable for acts of subsidiary under agency theory only if parent dominates subsidiary parent of whollyowned subsidiary that had seats on board took part in financing and approved major policy decisions was not liable because parent did not have daytoday control B. holding that parent corporation could not be held liable for any acts of whollyowned subsidiary although boards of directors of the two corporations overlapped in all other respects corporation had not disregarded subsidiarys corporate separateness had not involved itself directly in management of subsidiary and had not otherwise dominated or controlled subsidiary C. recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that parent consolidated its profits and losses with that of its whollyowned subsidiary in presenting parents financial reports to shareholders that subsidiary was considered a division of parent and that subsidiary accounted for 60 of parents and subsidiarys combined operations D. holding parent company bound in subsequent action by res judicata effect of judgment against subsidiary E. holding that whollyowned subsidiary and partnership in which that subsidiary is the general partner may invoke the two dismissals of the subsidiarys parent and claim rule 41a1 res judicata

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that whollyowned subsidiary and partnership in which that subsidiary is the general partner may invoke the two dismissals of the subsidiarys parent and claim rule 41a1 res judicata
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 by the Employer (whether during the Term or after the end of the Term), the Company will continue to maintain the officer and director liability insurance policy currently in effect (which, upon the Effective Date, will cover Executive), and the Company, in its sole discretion, will determine the appropriate limits, level and coverage of officer and director liability insurance from time to time. Springleaf hereby acknowledges that its articles and bylaws currently provide for indemnification of its officers to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law.

assistant: Indemnifications
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: a debt.’ ” Id. Thus, although the Massey defendants’ practice involved their regularly conducting non-judicial foreclosures to enforce their clients’ security interest in mortgaged property, defendants were not acting as general “debt collectors,” unless they also took other actions, beyond those necessary to foreclose under the deed of trust, were regularly taken in an effort to collect a debt. In contrast to non-judicial foreclosures, which are intended only to enforce the lender’s security interest and not to collect the underlying debt, a typical judicial foreclosure usually does involve seeking a personal judgment against the debtor for a deficiency and hence would likely amount to debt collection. See McDaniel v. South & Assocs., P.C., 325 F.Supp.2d 1210, 1216-1218 (D.Kan.2004) (<HOLDING>). In his affidavit, Massey acknowledges that Options: A. holding that the defendants actions in filing judicial foreclosure proceeding against mortgagor amounted to debt collection activity under the fdcpa and distinguishing decisions involving pursuit of nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings under a deed of trust from those in which a defendant has pursued judicial foreclosure proceedings which included seeking judgment on a note by filing a lawsuit in state court B. holding that where the violation of the fdcpa was the filing of a lawsuit the statule of limitations begins to run on the date of filing C. holding that law firm executing nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding was enforcing a security interest rather than collecting a debt and hence fell outside the ambit of the fdcpa except for the provisions of section 1692f6 D. holding that pursuit of a parallel state court lawsuit involving claims and parties common to the federal action does not justify the district courts intervention in state court proceedings E. holding that an entity engaged in collection activity on a defaulted debt acquired from another is a debt collector under the fdcpa even though it may actually be owed the debt

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the defendants actions in filing judicial foreclosure proceeding against mortgagor amounted to debt collection activity under the fdcpa and distinguishing decisions involving pursuit of nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings under a deed of trust from those in which a defendant has pursued judicial foreclosure proceedings which included seeking judgment on a note by filing a lawsuit in state court
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: Neither execution nor delivery of this Agreement nor fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and provisions hereof will conflict with, or result in a breach of the terms or conditions of, or constitute a default under, any agreement or instrument to which Guarantor is a party or by which Guarantor may be bound. No consents, approvals or authorizations are required for the execution and delivery of this Agreement by Guarantor or for Guarantor’s compliance with its terms and provisions.

assistant: No Conflicts
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: On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed this bankruptcy court and the district court and held that “§ 546(a) applies to preference-avoidance actions brought by [debtors in possession (DIPs) ] as well as to those brought by trustees.” Id. 22 F.3d at 39. The court “concludefd] that for the DIP, the limitations period begins when the debtor files its petition and becomes a DIP under [Code] § 1101.” Id. 22 F.3d at 40. Century Brass only held, as every other circuit court considering the issue has held, that the limitation period of § 546(a)(1) applies to debtors in possession and that when no trustee is appointed in a Chapter 11 case, the starting date for the two-year period is the date the voluntary Chapter 11 case commenced. The court reserved decision 413, 1416-17 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); In re MortgageAmerica Corp., 831 F.2d 97, 98 Options: A. holding that a chapter 7 trustee was the only person with authority to bring a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee B. holding on facts similar to those in dmart that the 546a limitation period runs from appointment of chapter 7 trustee after case was converted from chapter 11 C. holding that claims for alleged legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty against attorneys that represented the chapter 11 debtor in possession belonged to the bankruptcy estate and upon conversion of the case to chapter 7 such claims belonged to the chapter 7 trustee as successor to the debtor in possession D. holding in a case where a chapter 11 trustee was appointed after a period during which the debt or had operated as debtor in possession that a chapter 11 trustee has two years from the date of his appointment not from the commencement of the chapter 11 case to bring avoidance actions E. holding denial of motion to convert from chapter 11 to chapter 7 is interlocutory

assistant: The best answer is D. holding in a case where a chapter 11 trustee was appointed after a period during which the debt or had operated as debtor in possession that a chapter 11 trustee has two years from the date of his appointment not from the commencement of the chapter 11 case to bring avoidance actions
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: Parent has, and has caused all of its Significant Domestic Subsidiaries to have, insurance policies sufficient for compliance by each of them with all applicable requirements of law and of all agreements to which Parent or such Significant Domestic Subsidiary is a party, except where non-compliance therewith would not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect; such policies are valid, outstanding and enforceable policies and provide insurance coverage in at least such amounts and against at least such risks (but including in any event public liability) as are usually insured against by companies engaged in the same or similar businesses operating in the same or similar locations. The Administrative Agent has been named as an additional insured in respect of such liability insurance policies, and the Administrative Agent has been named as lender loss payee with respect to such property loss insurance policies. For the avoidance of doubt, unless an Event of Default has occurred and is continuing, any property loss insurance proceeds received by the Administrative Agent in its capacity as “lender loss payee” under the property loss insurance policies of any Group Member shall be remitted to the Borrower or the other applicable Group Member.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: analysis. We disagree. In State v. Copeland, 278 S.C. 572, 300 S.E.2d 63 (1982), the South Carolina Supreme Court adopted the position that prior inconsistent statements, previously only used for impeachment, could be considered as substantive evidence. Heretofore, South Carolina has followed the traditional rule that testimony of inconsistent statements is admissible only to impeach the credibility of the witness. Henceforth from today, we will allow testimony of prior inconsistent statements to be used as substantive evidence when the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross examination. Id. at 581, 300 S.E.2d at 69 (emphasis added). Since its adoption, this rule has been applied in a myriad of cases. See State v. Smith, 309 S.C. 442, 447-48, 424 S.E.2d 496, 499 (1992) (<HOLDING>); State v. Ferguson, 300 S.C. 408, 411, 388 Options: A. holding exclusion of defendants nephews prior inconsistent statement constituted reversible error B. holding that the judges entry into the jury room constituted reversible error C. recognizing potential reversible error by disclosing defendants prior jury conviction D. holding exclusion was harmless error E. holding that where the final judgment provided relief that was not requested its entry constituted reversible error

assistant: The best answer is A. holding exclusion of defendants nephews prior inconsistent statement constituted reversible error
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any Lender may at any time, without the consent of, or notice to, any Borrower, the Administrative Agent, any Issuing Bank or any Swing Line Lender, sell participations to one or more Eligible Assignees (each, a “ Participant ”) in all or a portion of such Lender’s rights and/or obligations under this Agreement (including all or a portion of its Commitment and/or the Loans owing to it); provided that (i) such Lender’s obligations under this Agreement shall remain unchanged, (ii) such Lender shall remain solely responsible to the other parties hereto for the performance of such obligations and (iii) the Loan Parties, the Administrative Agent, the Issuing Banks and the other Lenders shall continue to deal solely and directly with such Lender in connection with such Lender’s rights and obligations under this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, each Lender shall be responsible for the indemnity under Section 9.05(c) with respect to any payments made by such Lender to its Participants.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that any charge, complaint or lawsuit is filed against Employer or any of its affiliates, Employee agrees to provide reasonable cooperation to Employer in the defense of the same. Such cooperation may include, without limitation, meeting with and providing information to Employer’s agents and attorneys upon reasonable notice and at mutually agreed upon times and places.

assistant: Cooperation
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: Schedule 4.14 sets forth the name of, the ownership interest of the applicable Loan Party in, the jurisdiction of incorporation or organization of and the type of each Subsidiary of the Borrower and the other Loan Parties and identifies each Subsidiary that is a Subsidiary Loan Party or Foreign Subsidiary in each case as of the Fifth Restatement Date. None of the Subsidiaries listed on Schedule 3.1(b) owns more than $250,000 in assets or generated more than $250,000 in revenue during the four-Fiscal Quarter period ended March 31, 2012.

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: § 16-1005(b) provides: Notwithstanding § 14-306, in a hearing under this section, one spouse shall be a competent and compellable witness against the other and may testify as to confidential communications, but testimony compelled over a claim of privilege conferred by such section shall be inadmissible in evidence in a criminal trial over the objection of a spouse entitled to claim that privilege. 10 . D.C.Code § 16-2359(e) provides: Notwithstanding the provisions of D.C.Code §§ 14-306 and 14-307, neither the husband-wife privilege nor the physician-client or mental health professional-client privilege shall be a ground for excluding evidence in any proceeding brought under this subchapter. 11 . See Wyatt v. United States, 362 U.S. 525, 528, 80 S.Ct. 901, 903, 4 L.Ed.2d 931 (1960) (<HOLDING>); see also Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. Options: A. recognizing privilege B. holding that marital communications which arise from an act of violence by a spouse committed against the children of either spouse should constitute an exception to the marital privilege because such communications fail to satisfy the conditions underlying the creation of the privilege C. holding that there is no spousal exception to the statute D. holding that absent an actionable injury to one spouse the other spouse cannot recover for loss of consortium E. recognizing an exception based on necessity to the federal privilege for adverse spousal testimony for cases in which one spouse commits a crime against the other mann act prosecution

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing an exception based on necessity to the federal privilege for adverse spousal testimony for cases in which one spouse commits a crime against the other mann act prosecution
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: reads in pertinent part as follows: The at e and district court that Rule 11 does not govern state courts. See Miles v. Dorsey, 61 F.3d 1459, 1467 (10th Cir.1995) (explaining that Rule 11 does not apply in state courts). Therefore, it cannot be a basis on which to challenge a plea in a state court criminal proceeding. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) ("[Fjederal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.”). 3 . Holt also argued below that this violated the due process clause of the Sixth Amendment, but he failed to persist in that argument before this Court. So, as we discussed regarding Holt's claim that the state court judge’s actions violated Rule 11, we need not consider this argument. See Phillips, 422 F.3d at 1080 Options: A. holding that where issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs a court will not consider the merits thereof B. holding courts do not consider points not raised in briefs C. recognizing that we lack jurisdiction to consider issues not raised in the parties briefs D. holding that we generally may not consider issues not raised before the bia E. holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised before the bia

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that we lack jurisdiction to consider issues not raised in the parties briefs
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: omitted.] 338 Ark. at 230-31, 996 S.W.2d at 18-19. Based upon the quoted language, the circuit court found on remand that we ruled in Picado I that appellees’ constitutional challenge did not have to be postponed until one or more of them was arrested and charged with violating the statute. Appellant claims the trial court erred in its law-of-the-case ruling because the issue of justiciability was not squarely addressed or resolved by this court; rather, the Picado I appeal was resolved solely on the issue of the chancery court’s jurisdiction. We agree. The Picado I opinion related solely to the issue of whether the chancery court was the proper court in which appellees should present their claims. Clemmons v. Office of Child Support Enforcement, 345 Ark. 330, 47 S.W.3d 227 (2001) (<HOLDING>). In addition, we point out that appellant does Options: A. holding that while a decision of the court will not be disturbed because it is law of the case under res judicata the court is not bound by a conclusion stated as obiter dictum B. holding that a court is not bound by a lower tribunals decision under the law of the case doctrine C. holding that a sentencing determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the district court D. holding that the court is not bound by the law of the case where an earlier decision of the us armed services board of contract appeals was clearly erroneous E. holding that if a decision below is correct it will not be disturbed on appeal even though the lower court relied upon wrong reasons

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that while a decision of the court will not be disturbed because it is law of the case under res judicata the court is not bound by a conclusion stated as obiter dictum
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: Seller represents and warrants that: (a) all patents, trademarks, trade names, trade dress, copyrights, trade secrets, rights of publicity and other intellectual property rights (other than those intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Buyer) used by Seller in connection with KCD-Branded Products or in the development or manufacture of KCD-Branded Products are either owned by Seller or Seller has been and is properly authorized by the owner of such rights to use such intellectual property rights in connection with such KCD-Branded Products and to sell such KCD-Branded Products incorporating such intellectual property rights to Buyer for use or further resale and (b) KCD-Branded Products will not, at the time that it is delivered, offered for sale or sold by Buyer, infringe any patent, trademark, service mark, trade name, trade dress, copyright, trade secret, domain name, right of publicity or other intellectual property right of any person, corporation or other entity. Seller will notify Buyer’s chief legal officer in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested, within five business days after it has knowledge of any claim or allegation of infringement, misuse, dilution, misappropriation or other violation of any patent, trademark, service mark, trade name, trade dress, copyright, trade secret, domain name, right of publicity or other intellectual property right in any way related to or affecting KCD-Branded Products.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and requires. The words remain true today. [¶ 14] If the record did not reflect actual knowledge on Mora’s part, we would reverse because of the inadequacy of the allegations of the information. But, the transcript does reveal, and his counsel conceded, Mora was aware the State intended to use prior convictions to seek the mandatory minimum sentence and the State provided Mora with certified copies of the record relating to his prior convictions during discovery. [¶ 15] Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52, i.e., any “error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” Because Mora had notice the State was alleging a prior offense and of the specific offenses it was alleging, no substantial right was affected. State v. Gielen, 210 N.W. at 975 (<HOLDING>); State v. Bloomdale, 21 N.D. 77, 128 N.W. 682 Options: A. holding that there is no constitutional right to appeal a criminal conviction B. recognizing that a claim is an assertion of a right and if there is no assertion of a right there is no claim to deduct C. holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate D. holding there was no claim and no basis for a claim of surprise concerning allegation of a former conviction E. holding that when there was no surprise and no prejudice defendant was entitled to rely on defense of accord and satisfaction in its summary judgment motion even though it was not included in the pleadings

assistant: The best answer is D. holding there was no claim and no basis for a claim of surprise concerning allegation of a former conviction
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: United States v. Griffith, 17 F.3d 865, 880 (6th Cir.1994). B. Sufficiency of the evidence K. Kennedy and Scarborough moved for judgments of acquittal at the close of the government’s proof, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain their convictions. See Fed. R.Crim.P. 29(a). The district court considered and denied the motions, and neither defendant renewed his or her respective motion at the close of all the evidence, see Swidan, 888 F.2d at 1080, or within 14 days after their guilty verdicts,' see Fed. R.Crim.P. 29(c)(1). They have thus failed to preserve their rights to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in the absence of a miscarriage of justice. See Swidan, 888 F.2d at 1080; see also United States v. Faymore, 736 F.2d 328, 334 (6th Cir.1984) '(<HOLDING>).' Both K. Kennedy and Scarborough conceded at Options: A. holding that failure to consider an improper jury instruction would constitute a miscarriage of justice B. holding that the defendants insufficientevidence claim was barred by his failure to renew his rule 29 motion at the close of all the evidence because there was no manifest miscarriage of justice C. holding that even when a defendant moves under rule 50 at the close of plaintiffs evidence and autocentro did not even do that if a defendant wishes to renew a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the posttrial stage with a view to having denial of that motion considered by the court of appeals the defendant is required to have moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence D. holding that defendants failure to renew their motion for judgment as a matter of law which was denied by the district court when they made it at the close of the evidence limited the relief the appellate court could grant to a new trial E. holding that argument was not preserved where defendant did not file a pretrial motion to suppress and did not object or make a motion to exclude the evidence until his motion to dismiss at the close of all of the evidence

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the defendants insufficientevidence claim was barred by his failure to renew his rule 29 motion at the close of all the evidence because there was no manifest miscarriage of justice
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: purposes would not construe those signs as meant to prohibit their entry. Thus, the troopers did not need a warrant to proceed along the driveway to the Michels’ residence. The Michels raise three other issues in this appeal. However, this appeal comes to us via a Cooksey plea , and none of these other issues was preserved for appeal. The judgement of the superior court is AFFIRMED. 1 . 590 P.2d 884 (Alaska 1979). 2 . 590 P.2d at 887. 3 . State v. Rigoulot, 123 Idaho 267, 846 P.2d 918, 923 (App.1992) (citations omitted). 4 . State v. Gave, 77 Wash.App. 333, 890 P.2d 1088, 1091 (1995). 5 . State v. Gabbard, 129 Or.App. 122, 877 P.2d 1217, 1221 (1994). See also State v. Clark, 124 Idaho 308, 859 P.2d 344, 349 (App.1993). 6 . Compare State v. McIntyre, 123 Or.App. 436, 860 P.2d 299 (1993) (<HOLDING>) with State v. Russo, 68 Or.App. 760, 683 P.2d Options: A. recognizing that the intent element is to be gleaned from all the surrounding facts and testimony and not solely from the subjective intent of the original shipper B. holding that the pretrial order did not adequately disclose a theory because it did not give notice of that theory C. holding that congress had the power to amend an obligation but any intent to change substantive law in a subsequent appropriation must be clearly manifest D. holding that manifest intent exists when a particular result is substantially certain to follow from the employees conduct E. holding that a tall wooden fence and a metal gate blocking a homeowners driveway did not adequately manifest an intent to keep visitors from approaching the front door

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a tall wooden fence and a metal gate blocking a homeowners driveway did not adequately manifest an intent to keep visitors from approaching the front door
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: who had no idea that they were even dealing with sexually explicit material.” Id. at 69, 115 S.Ct. 464. For similar reasons, this court held in Nofziger that, to prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c), the government had to show not only that the former government official knowingly communicated with his former agency, but that he also knew the agency had "a direct and substantial interest” in the matter. 878 F.2d at 443 (quoting the statute). Otherwise, we explained, if the "ex-official tries to interest his former agency in a particular project in the mistaken belief that it had no 'direct and substantial interest' in it, he will have committed a felony.” Id. at 444 (emphasis omitted); see also Flores-Figueroa v. United States, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1886, 1888, 173 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009) (<HOLDING>); Liparota, 471 U.S. at 433, 105 S.Ct. 2084 Options: A. holding that a person violates the bank fraud statute when he knowingly executes a scheme to obtain money from a financial institution by means of false or fraudulent representations if a defendant knowingly provided materially false information in order to induce the loan the crime is complete and it is irrelevant whether or not he intended to repay or was capable of repaying it B. holding that 18 usc 1028aal which makes it an aggravated crime to knowingly transfer without lawful authority a means of identification of another person requires proof that the defendant not only knowingly transferred something but that he knew it was a means of identification and that it belonged to another person C. holding that a defendants use of a persons name and social security number without permission constituted the use of a means of identification without lawful authority D. holding that a federal criminal statute forbidding aggravated identity theft that enhances the criminal penalty when the offender knowingly transfers possesses or uses without lawful authority a means of identification of another person requires the government to show that the defendant knew that the means of identification he or she unlawfully transferred possessed or used in fact belonged to another person quoting 18 usc 1028aa1 internal quotation marks omitted E. holding that a threat to harm another person is a crime of violence

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that 18 usc 1028aal which makes it an aggravated crime to knowingly transfer without lawful authority a means of identification of another person requires proof that the defendant not only knowingly transferred something but that he knew it was a means of identification and that it belonged to another person
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: Upon a Change in Control as defined in the Plan, the Units shall convert to the same number of shares of Common Stock on the date of the Change in Control and be distributed to the Director no later than 30 days following the Change in Control. In the event the Common Stock is converted into other securities or cash, the Director shall receive such consideration in lieu of shares.

assistant: Change In Control