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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, be binding upon, and be enforceable by the Company and its successors and assigns. The Participant shall not assign (except in accordance with Section 5 hereof) any part of this Agreement without the prior express written consent of the Company.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you acknowledge and agree that the company provides you the right to report objectionable content as a courtesy , and the company has no obligation to remove or take any other action with respect to any objectionable content on the service that you report to us .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: under an abuse-of-discretion standard, while legal issues are reviewed de novo. Zamorano v. State, 84 S.W.3d 643, 648 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). Because the court denied Whitfield’s speedy trial motion, we presume all disputed fact issues were resolved in the State’s favor and defer to any of these implied findings that are supported by the record. Id. Length of the delay The length of the delay is considered a “triggering mechanism,” because absent a presumptively prejudicial delay the other Barker factors need not be considered. Delays of eight months or longer are usually considered presumptively unreasonable. Kelly v. State, 122 S.W.3d 227, 237 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.); see also Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 652,112 S.Ct. 2686, 2691,120 L.Ed.2d 520, 528 (1992) (<HOLDING>). “[T]he delay that can be tolerated for an Options: A. holding a three and onehalf year delay was unreasonable B. holding that a five month delay is unreasonable C. holding that a twoyear postindictment delay presumptively prejudicial D. holding that a five month delay was unreasonable E. holding a delay approaching one year is presumptively unreasonable

assistant: The best answer is E. holding a delay approaching one year is presumptively unreasonable
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 freely assignable by Company to and shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, Company, its affiliates, successors and assigns and/or any other entity which shall succeed to the business presently being conducted by Company. Being a contract for personal services, neither this Agreement nor any rights hereunder shall be assigned by Employee.

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: § 7553b(b) and claim the court was divested of authority to maintain the hold-without-bail order after two months. The delay in trial pending pretrial discovery would be attributable to defendant within the meaning of the statute. ¶ 11. At heart, § 7553b is a speedy trial rule. It is a fundamental characteristic of speedy trial assertions that a defendant must make his or her desires to get to trial known to the court. Indeed, this Court adopted this principle in response to U.S. Supreme Court precedent. This adoption — as well as the four factors used to determine whether violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial has occurred — was described in State v. Unwin, 139 Vt. 186, 424 A.2d 251 (1980). There, this Court stated that “[i]n Barker, the Cou 971 A.2d 665 (mem.) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 13. Following this precedent, it is clear Options: A. holding that defendants assertion of his right to a speedy trial two months before his trial began did not satisfy this barker factor B. holding the defendant did not demonstrate a denial of his sixth amendment right to a speedy trial where even though the delay was substantial and the defendant was detained pretrial for three years the fault for the delay was shared and the defendant continued to request continuances following his assertion for the right to a speedy trial C. holding a trial court erred in determining that a motion to suppress was waived by a speedy trial demand D. holding original proceeding appropriate vehicle for resolution of defendants pretrial claim that he has been denied a speedy trial E. holding that aggressiveness with which defendant asserted his speedy trial right was lacking because he merely filed one demand for speedy trial and opposed his original counsels withdrawal

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that aggressiveness with which defendant asserted his speedy trial right was lacking because he merely filed one demand for speedy trial and opposed his original counsels withdrawal
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: No authorization, consent, approval, waiver, license, qualification or written exemption from, nor any filing, declaration, qualification or registration with, any Governmental Authority or any other Person is required in connection with the execution, delivery or performance by the Issuers of the Transaction Agreements to which it is a party or the issuance and sale or exchange, as applicable, of the New Notes, except (a) as required by the SEC in connection with the Issuers’ obligations under the Registration Rights Agreement, (b) as required by the Trust Indenture Act or (c) as may be required under the state securities or “Blue Sky” Laws.

assistant: Approvals
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 Guarantor hereby guarantees that payments hereunder will be paid to the Administrative Agent without set-off or counterclaim in the currency otherwise required pursuant to the terms of the Credit Agreement at the Administrative Agent’s Office.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Purchaser shall be entitled to a downward adjustment to (i) the First Closing Base Purchase Price by the Defect Adjustment, if any, with respect to the First Closing Assets and (ii) the Second Closing Base Purchase Price by the Defect Adjustment, if any, with respect to the Second Closing Assets as provided in Section 5.6(c) . For the avoidance of doubt, the Defect Adjustment shall be determined by taking into account Environmental Defects related to both the First Closing Assets and Second Closing Assets on a cumulative basis.

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: ie., an unreasonable risk of injury and/or death from fire or smoke in the event of an incident causing a power outage. As a direct and proximate cause of the acts and omissions of the defendant manufacturers, Ryland and Summit in installing the defective smoke detector which failed to alert the Collins, Chapman, and Juster boys, who were asleep in the basement of the house on June 14, 1998, aver appellants, the fatalities and injuries resulted. Appellants incorrectly argue that the concept of superseding causation applies to product liability cases only when there is misuse because, when the unforeseeable misuse of a product causes the injury, the misuse is a superseding cause. See e.g. Lightolier, a Div. of Genlyte Thomas Group, LLC. v. Hoon, 387 Md. 539, 561-62, 876 A.2d 100 (<HOLDING>) while it is true that, if the sole proximate Options: A. holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury B. holding that the relationship between fire insurance regulation and rating fire loss fire prevention and fire investigation is rational and reasonable C. holding where the defendants conduct in setting a fire was a proximate cause of a fire fighters death the death occurred in course of and in furtherance of the arson D. holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury E. holding that failure to heed warnings rather than malfunctioning safety switch was proximate cause of the fire

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that failure to heed warnings rather than malfunctioning safety switch was proximate cause of the fire
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 tenants by the entirety. See Mazzara, 530 F.Supp. at 1385-86. While Mrs. Klimek may have some interest in the Golf Club Drive property (although clearly not an interest by the entireties), it is clear that § 7403 mandates, subject to limited exceptions, the sale of not only her delinquent taxpayer husband’s interest in the levied property, but of the whole property. See Rodgers, 461 U.S. at 693-94, 103 S.Ct. at 2142 (“[W]e must read the statute [§ 7403] to contemplate, not merely the sale of the delinquent taxpayer’s own interest, but the sale of the entire property (as long as the United States has any ‘claim or interest’ in it), and the recognition of third-party interests through the mechanism of judicial valuation and distribution.”); id. at 692 n. 18, 103 S.Ct. at 2142 n. 18 (<HOLDING>) (quoting § 7403(a) & (b)); see Mazzara, 530 Options: A. holding that any property in which the taxpayer has any right title or interest is subject to foreclosure proceeding including property in which others claim an interest so long as all persons having liens or claiming any interest in the property are joined as parties to the suit B. holding that scope of property subject to forfeiture is defined by the instrument creating an interest in the property C. holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property D. holding that congress has made it clear in amending section 522 that a lien will be deemed to impair an exemption even when there is no equity in the property if the sum of all the liens on the property and the hypothetical value of the exemption without liens exceeds the value of the debtors interest in the property in the absence of liens E. holding that a taxpayers interest as an heir to his mothers estate constituted property or a right to property to which federal tax liens attached despite his exercise of the prerogative state law accorded him to disclaim the interest retroactively

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that any property in which the taxpayer has any right title or interest is subject to foreclosure proceeding including property in which others claim an interest so long as all persons having liens or claiming any interest in the property are joined as parties to the suit
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: as a matter of law that Ellins acted in his capacity as a public employee when he led the no-confidence vote. There was sufficient evidence to suggest that this was not a task he was paid to perform. Therefore, a jury could reasonably conclude that Ellins’s union activities and related speech were undertaken in his capacity as a private citizen. An the Seventh Circuit has recently held, comments made by a police officer acting in his capacity as a union representative are spoken as a private citizen, rather than pursuant to the officer’s official duties. Fuerst v. Clarke, 454 F.3d 770 (7th Cir.2006). In Fuerst, the plaintiff, a deputy sheriff who also served as the president of the Milwaukee County deputy sheriffs’ union, publicly criticized the county sheriffs proposal to hi C.2011) (<HOLDING>). Given the inherent institutional conflict of Options: A. holding that private possession of child pornography is not protected by the first amendment B. holding that detectives statements critical of a departmental staffing initiative were protected by the first amendment because the detective spoke as a police union representative C. holding that comments made by deputy sheriff as president of sheriffs union were prima facie protected by the first amendment as a contribution to political debate D. holding first amendment claim requires actual protected conduct E. holding that the defendants sixth amendment confrontation clause rights were not violated by the admission of the child victims statements to her mother grandmother a detective and a forensic investigator

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that detectives statements critical of a departmental staffing initiative were protected by the first amendment because the detective spoke as a police union representative
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 the victim slumped on the floor behind the check-out counter; (2) a closer view of Burnett’s body sitting on the floor; (3) a small bruise on Burnett’s back where Dr. Kinnison found the bullet; (4) the entry wound in Burnett’s chest; (5) the victim’s condition upon arrival for the autopsy and his blood-stained shirt; (6) Burnett with some of his friends; and (7) Burnett sitting at a sound booth in his church. These exercise of discretion in balancing those competing considerations absent a clear abuse of discretion. Id. Furthermore, the defendant’s stipulation with regard to the cause of Burnett’s death does not preempt the introduction of the photographs into evidence. See Mackall v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 240, 253, 372 S.E.2d 759, 767-68 (1988), cert, denied, 492 U.S. 925 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we conclude that the trial court did Options: A. holding that because the photograph of the victim was for identification purposes only and the victims military service was never discussed at trial even if the photograph did evoke sympathy from the jury it was not reversible error to admit it B. holding autopsy photograph of victim was admissible even if defendant stipulated identity of victim C. holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction D. holding photograph showing victim with his family photograph fell within the prosecutors latitude in showing victim and was not unduly prejudicial E. holding that a photograph of the hands of the murder victim tied behind her back was properly admitted because it showed the considerable pain inflicted upon the victim by the defendant

assistant: The best answer is B. holding autopsy photograph of victim was admissible even if defendant stipulated identity of victim
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: experienced no fear of being injured and had not suffered any physical injuries, she could maintain a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress because “(1) the death or serious physical injury of another [was] caused by defendant’s negligence; (2) a marital or intimate familial relationship [existed] between plaintiff and the injured person; (3) [she had observed] the death or injury [of the victim] at the scene of the accident; and (4) [she had suffered] severe emotional distress.” Portee, supra, 84 N.J. at 101, 417 A.2d 521. Claims for emotional distress that are either direct or indirect may arise when the negligence consists of medical malpractice. E.g., Frame v. Kothari, 115 N.J. 638, 560 A.2d 675 (1989); Strachan, supra, 109 N.J. 523, 538 A.2d 346. The special 1979) (<HOLDING>). In Carey, the Court considered more closely Options: A. holding that parents could assert direct claim for emotional distress against doctor who failed to inform them of genetic risk of having another child B. holding that family could assert claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against doctor who negligently interpreted a german measles test thereby depriving parents of opportunity to consider terminating pregnancy C. recognizing torts of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress D. holding that doctors failure to inform parents of availability of amniocentesis that deprived parents of opportunity to terminate pregnancy forms basis of direct claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress E. recognizing claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress when medical malpractice during pregnancy resulted in stillborn child

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that doctors failure to inform parents of availability of amniocentesis that deprived parents of opportunity to terminate pregnancy forms basis of direct claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: they did not rise to the level (e.g., sexual assault or sexual quid pro quo) that would have required SIU to take drastic action, such as a same-day investigation and termination of Meyers. See Smith v. Sheahan, 189 F.3d 529, 535 (7th Cir.1999); McKenzie v. Ill. Dep’t of Transp., 92 F.3d 473, 481 (7th Cir.1996); Baskerville, 50 F.3d at 432. Given the facts and circumstances before it, SIU’s response was appropriately prompt and entirely reasonable. Kraft was the first university official to learn of the harassment. He offered to accompany Milligan to talk to other university officials about the incident, but Milligan declined. Kraft’s decision not to pursue the matter was reasonable in light of Milligan’s declination. See Jackson v. Cnty. of Racine, 474 F.3d 493, 501-02 (7th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Kin sel was the next university official to Options: A. holding that an employer must remedy situation of sexual harassment B. holding that illegal sexual harassment is an illegitimate corporate activity beyond the scope of the supervisors employment C. holding that supervisors questions made two and three times a week about plaintiffs sexual activities constituted actionable sexual harassment D. holding that the plaintiff must establish that a supervisors harassment was within the scope of his employment and that the employer failed to respond adequately and effectively when it learned of the harassment E. holding that an employer did not act unreasonably where it had notice of a supervisors sexual harassment but took no action for three months because no victim wished to lodge a formal complaint

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an employer did not act unreasonably where it had notice of a supervisors sexual harassment but took no action for three months because no victim wished to lodge a formal complaint
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of this 2016-3 Servicing Supplement and the 2016-3 Servicing Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their permitted successors and assigns.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 417 U.S. 281 94 S.Ct. 2247 41 L.Ed.2d 70 Paula POE et al.v.Richard E. GERSTEIN. No. 73—1283. June 3, 1974. PER CURIAM. 1 A three-judge District Court entered a declaratory judgment holding unconstitutional a Florida statute, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 458.22(3) (Supp.1974—1975), which forbids an abortion without the consent of the husband, if the woman is married, and if unmarried and under the age of 18, without the consent of a parent. Because it was anticipated that the State would respect the declaratory judgment, the court declined to issue an injunction against the enforcement of the statute. The plaintiffs in the District Court are appellants here and challenge the refusal to issue the injunction. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed in this respect. Whether or not the declaratory judgment was itself properly issued, a question on which we intimate no opinion, the District Court properly refused to issue the injunction; for there was 'no allegation here and no proof that respondents would not, nor can we assume that they will not, acquiesce in the decision . . . holding the challenged ordinance unconstitutional.' Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157, 165, 63 S.Ct. 877, 881, 87 L.Ed. 1324 (1943). This aspect of Douglas v. City of Jeannette has been repeatedly recognized in later cases. Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 484—485, 85 S.Ct. 1116, 1119—1120, 14 L.Ed.2d 22 (1965); Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 253—254, 88 S.Ct. 391, 398, 19 L.Ed.2d 444 (1967); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 166—167, 93 S.Ct. 705, 733, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973). It is unnecessary to deal separately with the question whether the District Court was correct in denying intervention in the District Court to other parties who are appellants here; for assuming they are to be considered proper parties in the District Court and in this Court, we would affirm the denial of the injunction as to them for the same reasons we affirm the denial of such relief to appellants who were plaintiffs below. 2 So ordered. 3 Denial of injunction affirmed.

assistant: 5
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: could be made. The psychologist also acknowledged that appellant’s recent good grades could be an attempt “to por tray a very favorable impression” in light of his pending charges. The record also is replete with evidence that appellant’s defiant and uncooperative behavior continued during his detention and the investigation of this matter by providing different and conflicting versions of his involvement in the offense and his involvement in the gang to police officers and certification 4, 711 (Minn.2008) (stating that consideration of pre-offense voluntary programming and “defiant and uncooperative behavior during [defendant’s] detention” relative to the “programming history” factor was not an abuse of discretion); In re Welfare of K.M., 544 N.W.2d 781, 785 (Minn.App.1996) (<HOLDING>). The majority is correct that section Options: A. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering juveniles failure to participate in school programs and affiliation with gangs under the programming history factor B. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in striking fact statements that did not comply with the local rules C. holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion when considering the reactive nature of the federal claim D. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling whether to proceed with a declaratory judgment action E. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to amend the complaint by the deadline imposed by the court

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering juveniles failure to participate in school programs and affiliation with gangs under the programming history factor
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 car from dealer South Motors and was issued a warranty that ran from warrantor BMW to the first retail purchaser and each subsequent purchaser. The court held that plaintiff Mesa could pursue an express warranty claim against warrantor BMW, but “Mesa cannot maintain suit against BMW for breach of implied warranty as there was no privity of contract between Mesa and BMW.” id. Similarly, in Rentas v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 936 So.2d 747 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2006), the court held that purchasers of a used car could pursue a breach of express warranty claim against the manufacturer, who had issued a written warranty, but could not pursue an implied warranty claim because there was no privity of contract. See also Cerasani v. American Honda Motor Company, 916 So.2d 843, 846 (Fla.App.2006) (<HOLDING>). Like the plaintiffs in Mesa and Rentas, Options: A. holding inter alia defendant breached implied warranty of merchantability where an express warranty regarding safety of goods was printed on package and where goods failed to conform to the express warranty B. holding that warranty claim accrued at tender where 180 day warranty on computer not a warranty for future performance as it involved a remedy only C. holding that under virginia law an implied warranty claim was not actionable against the plaintiff because there was no privity D. holding that subse quent purchaser was entitled to protections of express written warranty but could not assert claim for implied warranty because complaint did not allege privity between purchaser plaintiff and defendant honda E. holding that lower court erred in dismissing express warranty claim but properly granted motion to dismiss implied warranty claims due to lack of privity between the plaintiff an enduser of a pos system and the manufacturer of the system

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that subse quent purchaser was entitled to protections of express written warranty but could not assert claim for implied warranty because complaint did not allege privity between purchaser plaintiff and defendant honda
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: emphasized that “[probation is simply one point ... on a continuum of possible punishments.” Id. at 874, 107 S.Ct. 3164. “A warrant requirement would interfere to an appreciable degree with the probation system,” particularly because “the delay inherent in obtaining a warrant would make it more difficult for probation officials to respond quickly to evidence of misconduct.” Id. at 876, 107 S.Ct. 3164. Moreover, “[a]l-though a probation officer is not an impartial magistrate, neither is he the police officer who normally conducts searches against the ordinary citizen. He ... is also supposed to have in mind the welfare of the probationer.” Id. Overall, the Court concluded that “the probation regime would ... be unduly disrupted” by requiring pro 107 S.Ct. 2636, 96 L.Ed.2d 601 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Finally, in Skinner v. Railway Labor Options: A. holding that while a lawfully issued warrant to search premises authorizes the officers executing it to search in a reasonable manner whatever spots within the described premises their professional experience indicates may be used as a cache for the items named in the warranty such a warrant does not by its own force permit a search of the persons residents or visitorswho chance to be at the premises at the time the warrant is executed or belongings of a nonresident visitor present on the premises B. holding that the driver of a borrowed car had the requisite legitimate expectation of privacy to support standing for fourth amendment purposes C. holding that the owner or operator of commercial premises in a closely regulated industry has a reduced expectation of privacy such that the fourth amendment warrant and probablecause requirements have lessened application in this context D. holding that expectation of privacy that the owner of commercial property enjoys in such property differs significantly from the sanctity accorded an individuals home E. holding that both fourth amendment warrant and probable cause and fifth amendment due process requirements apply to civil forfeiture proceedings

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the owner or operator of commercial premises in a closely regulated industry has a reduced expectation of privacy such that the fourth amendment warrant and probablecause requirements have lessened application in this context
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: Metro Area includes counties in Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia. See Dep’t of Labor, May 2011 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area Definitions, available at http://www.bls. gov/oes/current/msa — def.htm. Thus, contrary to Defendants’ assertion, the Commission Agreement was not to be performed exclusively in Washington, D.C. Because the contract was to be performed in multiple states (and there is no reason to believe that one predominated over the others), the choice-of-law analysis reverts back to the place where the contract was made. East West argues that the Commission Agreement was made in Virginia-a contention that Defendants do not contest and therefore concede. See Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Convatec Inc., No. 1:08cv918, 2010 WL 1667285, at *8 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 23, 2010) (<HOLDING>) (collecting cases). Accordingly, the Virginia Options: A. recognizing the general principle that a party who fails to address an issue has conceded the issue B. holding that plaintiff conceded the merits of an issue when he did not respond in any way to defendants argument on that issue in his opposition before the district court C. holding that when an appellant fails to offer an argument on an issue that issue is abandoned D. holding that a defendant who fails to raise a specific issue as the basis for suppression in a motion to suppress to the district court has waived the right to raise that issue on appeal E. holding that an issue is waived when a party fails to provide adequate citation to authority

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing the general principle that a party who fails to address an issue has conceded the 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: CURIAM: Miguel Angel Islas-Macias (Islas) appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for being found unlawfully present in the United States. He also appeals his revocation sentence imposed after Islas violated the terms of probation arising from a prior improper entry conviction. Islas contends that, because he argued in the district court that he should receive a lower sentence, plain error review is improper, even though he failed to object on unreasonableness grounds. As Islas concedes, this court has held that an objection to the substantive unreasonableness of a sentence is required to preserve error. United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir.2007); see also Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Islas further challenges the application of Options: A. holding that a prior panel decision is binding on subsequent panels B. holding that a panel of this court is bound by a holding of a prior panel but is not bound by a prior panels dicta C. holding that the panel is bound by decisions of prior panels D. holding that a panel of this court cannot overturn a prior panels decision E. holding that one panel cannot overrule a prior panels published decision

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a panel of this court cannot overturn a prior panels decision
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement (together with the Transaction Documents) is the final, complete and exclusive statement and expression of the agreement among the Parties with relation to the subject matter of this Agreement, it being understood that there are no oral representations, understandings or agreements covering the same subject matter as this Agreement. This Agreement (together with the Transaction Documents) supersedes, and cannot be varied, contradicted or supplemented by evidence of any prior or contemporaneous discussions, correspondence, or oral or written agreements of any kind with respect to the subject matter of this 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: age of the aborted fetus. Further, it does not specify which statute in conjunction with § 18-606 the state was prosecuting McCormack under. 3 . See e.g., Alaska Stat. § 11.41.289(liability for "assault of an unborn child” does not apply to actions "committed by a pregnant woman against herself and her own unborn child”); Ark.Code Ann. §§ 5-61-101(c), 5-61-102(c) ("Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the charging or conviction of a woman with any criminal offense in the death of her own unborn child in útero”); Fla. Stat. § 782.36("A patient receiving a partial-birth-abortion procedure may not be prosecuted under this act.”); 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/9— 1.2(b)(criminal liability for intentional homicide of an unborn child does not apply to “the pregnant 610, 611 (1998) (<HOLDING>); State v. Barnett, 249 Or. 226, 437 P.2d 821, Options: A. holding that when mississippi adopted a statute modeled after a georgia enactment decisions of the georgia courts did not bind mississippi courts in interpretation of the statute B. holding that the georgia criminal abortion statute does not criminalize a pregnant womans actions in securing an abortion regardless of the means used C. holding that a felony of criminal recklessness was not a crime of violence under 16b because it does not require any purposeful conduct and does not necessarily create a risk that force may be used as a means to an end during the commission of the offense D. holding unconstitutional the provision in a georgia abortion statute limiting abortions to georgia residents E. holding ordinance restricting availability of abortion unconstitutional

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the georgia criminal abortion statute does not criminalize a pregnant womans actions in securing an abortion regardless of the means used
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 the employment of the Employee is terminated due to death prior to the Maturity Date, upon such termination, the beneficiary designated by the Employee (or if the Employee has not designated a beneficiary, to the representative of the Employee’s estate) shall receive, within 60 days following the date of the Employee’s death, a cash payment computed as provided in Sections 10(c)(i) and (ii) with respect to the Units that were not converted into shares of Stock and distributed to the Employee pursuant to Sections 10(a) and (b)(i) calculated as of the date the Change in Control is determined to have occurred.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the Executive Change of Control Agreement (together, the “ Severance Agreements”) contain the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the right of Executive to receive severance compensation upon termination of his employment, and the Severance Agreements, the Executive Employment Agreement and the Pr oprietary Information and Inventions Agreement collectively represent the entire agreement and understanding between the parties as to the subject matter herein and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements, whether written or oral. This Agreement may be modified only by agreement of the parties by a written instrument executed by the parties that is designated as an amendment to this Agreement.

assistant: Integration
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: Whenever shares of Stock are issued or to be issued pursuant to Awards granted under the Plan, the Company shall have the right to require the recipient to remit to the Company an amount sufficient to satisfy federal, state, local or other withholding tax requirements if, when, and to the extent required by law (whether so required to secure for the Company an otherwise available tax deduction or otherwise) prior to the delivery of any such shares. The obligations of the Company under the Plan shall be conditional on satisfaction of all such withholding obligations and the Company shall, to the extent permitted by law, have the right to deduct any such taxes from any payment of any kind otherwise due to the recipient of an Award. However, in such cases Participants may elect, subject to the approval of the Committee, acting in its sole discretion, to satisfy an applicable withholding requirement, in whole or in part, by having the Company withhold shares to satisfy their tax obligations. The Company also may require a Participant to satisfy withholding obligations by engaging in a cashless exercise transaction (whether through a broker or otherwise) implemented by the Company in connection with the Plan. Participants may only elect to have Shares withheld having a fair market value on the date the tax is to be determined equal to the minimum statutory total tax which could be imposed on the transaction. All elections shall be irrevocable, made in writing, signed by the Participant, and shall be subject to any restrictions or limitations that the Committee deems appropriate.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Industrial Insurance Act serves to strike a balance between the employer/insurer and the employee with respect to handling of workers’ compensation claims. However, that purpose is not served where, as here, the aggrieved party is not the injured employee, but is instead the employer asserting violations outside the Act. Plaintiff is an employer bringing an action under the Unfair Insurance Practice Act for alleged failure to provide insurance coverage. Although Plaintiffs action is related to Miller’s on-the-job injury and subsequent workers’ compensation claim, the action does not specifically concern the administration of Miller’s claim, as Plaintiff already has compensated Miller for his injuries. See Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Beckwith, 115 Nev. 372, 989 P.2d 882, 885 (1999) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, precluding Plaintiff from bringing Options: A. holding that employee must prove that the sole reason for their discharge was their filing of a workers compensation claim to prevail on a claim of wrongful discharge under marylands workers compensation act B. holding 616d030 did not preclude the plaintiff from bringing a tortious discharge action for filing a workers compensation claim because the statutory scheme applies only to the administration of the act C. holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim D. recognizing a tort action when employee was dismissed for filing a workers compensation claim E. holding 616d030 barred employees actions where employees sued the state industrial insurance system alleging bad faith administration of their workers compensation claims

assistant: The best answer is B. holding 616d030 did not preclude the plaintiff from bringing a tortious discharge action for filing a workers compensation claim because the statutory scheme applies only to the administration of the act
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: age of eighteen. Id. at 576-77, 125 S.Ct. 1183. Appellant ignores the largest and most evident distinguishing factor of the Roper opinion. As the State points out, “death is different.” See also United States v. Feemster, 483 F.3d 583, 588 (8th Cir.2007); vacated on other grounds, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 880, 169 L.Ed.2d 718 (2008) (noting that life imprisonment for a juvenile is not cruel and unusual while acknowledging that the Eighth Amendment applies to death penalty cases with “special force”) (citing Roper, 543 U.S. at 568, 125 S.Ct. 1183); United States v. Salahuddin, 509 F.3d 858 (7th Cir.2007) (limiting the holding of Roper to death penalty cases and upholding the imposition of a life sentence on a juvenile); Culpepper v. McDonough, 2007 WL 2050970, *4-5 (M.D.Fla. July 13, 2007) (<HOLDING>); Douma v. Workman, 2007 WL 2331883, *3 Options: A. holding that the imposition of a life sentence on a juvenile does not violate the holding of roper B. holding unconstitutional defendants sentence of death based upon the holding in roper supra and remanding for the montgomery circuit court to set aside the defendants death sentence and to sentence him to the only other sentence available life in the penitentiary without the possibility of parole C. holding that after roper juvenile convictions can qualify as predicate offenses for sentence enhancement purposes D. holding that roper did not support a similar postconviction claim and noting that roper contained obiter dictum to the effect that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole remains a permissible sentence for such offenders E. holding that graham which prohibited the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide does not apply to a lengthy termofyears sentence that might constitute a de facto life sentence

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the imposition of a life sentence on a juvenile does not violate the holding of roper
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: Cir.2001). Parkhill’s notice of appeal indicates only that he appeals from the district court’s August 25, 2000, order granting summary judgment in Parkhill (III). (Notice of Appeal, Appellant’s App. at 2305.) No mention is made of the district court’s order of a year earlier (Park-hill II) denying class certification. Our court previously has held that an appeal from one order does not “inherently imply” an intent to appeal other orders entered in the action. See Berdella v. Delo, 972 F.2d 204, 208 (8th Cir.1992). Our court also has held on numerous occasions that a notice which manifests an appeal from a specific district court order or decision precludes an appellant from challenging an order or decision that he or she failed to identify in the notice. See Moore, 249 F.3d at 788 (<HOLDING>); C & S Acquisitions Corp. v. Northwest Options: A. holding that the appellate court should have construed the notice of appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate the judgment as an attempt to appeal from the underlying judgment B. holding that notice of judgment was insufficient C. holding that appellant could challenge interlocutory partial summary judgment even though notice of appeal stated that appeal was from order sustaining subsequent plea to the jurisdiction D. holding that notice indicating the appeal was from summary judgment order was insufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction to reach appellants challenge to earlier order compelling arbitration E. holding that notice indicating appeal was from judgment on date of jury verdict was insufficient to preserve appeal from earlier order granting summary judgment

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that notice indicating appeal was from judgment on date of jury verdict was insufficient to preserve appeal from earlier order granting summary judgment
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 restrictive covenant was an overbroad, unreasonable restraint of trade since it not only prohibited Fine from soliciting CTI’s clients, but also prohibited her from “otherwise” communicating with the former clients to accept business, without solicitation and regardless of who initiated the contact. We agree. “While a prohibition involving some affirmative act on the part of the former employee, such as solicitation, diversion, or contact of clients, may be reasonable, a covenant prohibiting a former employee from merely accepting business, without any solicitation, is not reasonable.” (Footnotes and emphasis omitted.) Waldeck v. Curtis 1000, Inc., 261 Ga. App. 590, 592 (583 SE2d 266) (2003). See also Singer v. Habif Arogeti & Wynne, PC., 250 Ga. 376, 377 (1) (297 SE2d 473) (1982) (<HOLDING>); Akron Pest Control v. Radar Exterminating Options: A. holding that a restrictive covenant was unreasonable and overprotective since it would prohibit the employee from accepting employment from a former client who approached him for services without any prior solicitation on his part B. holding that a sexual assault on a female employee was of a personal nature and not directed against the employee as part of the employment relationship C. holding that an attorney who breaches a fiduciary duty to a client forfeits his right to compensation without any requirement that the client prove actual harm D. holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client E. holding that the defendant was not seized when two officers approached the defendant on a public street and asked him questions

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a restrictive covenant was unreasonable and overprotective since it would prohibit the employee from accepting employment from a former client who approached him for services without any prior solicitation on his part