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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: submissions, 53 of which pertained to 2004 and 2005 and failed to list any Phase Tech workers. The 62 certifications also were false because they wrongly certified that the prevailing wages were paid. Based upon this evidence, the district court did not err in finding that Circle C’s original and 2008 payroll certifications at issue were expressly false because (1) they stated that they were complete, when in fact no Phase Tech employees who worked on the project were listed, and (2) the certifications wrongly represented that the prevailing wages were paid to its subcontracted employees. Wall, 700 F.Supp.2d at 939. See United States ex rel. Kirk v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 601 F.3d 94, 116 (2d Cir.2010), rev’d on other grounds, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1885, 179 L.Ed.2d 825 (2011) (<HOLDING>). As plaintiffs argue, Circle C’s reliance upon Options: A. holding relator stated fca claim where defendants submitted annual cost reports that included a certification of compliance B. holding that the relator stated an fca claim where the contractor filed false reports necessarily knowing that they were false because it in fact had no mechanism in place to identify covered individuals it did so in order to procure contracts and obtain payment under existing contracts as it could do neither without filing the reports C. holding that the chief financial officer of a hospital had sufficient access to the allegedly false cost reports resulting from the false invoices to require him to plead at least one example of a false claim with particularity D. holding corporate officer liable as aider and abettor in filing of false reports even though reports were not authorized or approved of by officers E. holding that the defendant contractor violated 18 usc 286 a companion statute to the criminal fca because his claims were false when submitted even though the false claims were ultimately irrelevant to the total amount paid by the government to the contractor

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the relator stated an fca claim where the contractor filed false reports necessarily knowing that they were false because it in fact had no mechanism in place to identify covered individuals it did so in order to procure contracts and obtain payment under existing contracts as it could do neither without filing the reports
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 composite frequency for defendant’s six-loci genotype. At the Rule 104 hearing, the defense’s expert, Dr. Shaler, did not contest the accuracy of Cellmark’s databases. Instead, he relied on them in his own statistical calculations. Although the defense still does not criticize the databases, it contends that the State’s population databases were not large enough to be an accurate sampling of the population. Post at 291, 699 A.2d at 682. In addition, the defense never sought to introduce evidence disputing the general acceptance or the mathematical soundness of the product rule. Even on this appeal, the defense does not challenge the use of the product rule. Indeed, the defense states that “everyone agrees that the product rule is absolutely valid.” The dissent, how 2d 799, 803 (1995) (<HOLDING>); State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313, 317 Options: A. holding that calculations done by applying product rule were generally accepted in relevant scientific community B. holding that expert opinion based on scientific technique is inadmissible unless technique is generally accepted as reliable in relevant scientific community C. holding under the restrictive frye test that pcrstr testing is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community D. holding that expert testimony may be admissible even if not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community provided that it qualifies in some other way as reliable under federal rule of evidence 702 E. holding that product rule method of dna statistical evidence is now generally accepted in the relevant scientific community

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that product rule method of dna statistical evidence is now generally accepted in the relevant scientific community
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: cash assistance, but not to exceed the total amount of temporary cash assistance provided to the family,” and “the excess will be mailed to the obligee.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 12E-1.014(5)(d)l. Accord 42 U.S.C. § 657(a)(l)-(2). Initially, the Department claims that the trial court erred in restricting its ability to intercept or retain appellee’s future IRS tax refund under TRIP because the interception of any future IRS tax refund was not properly pled or noticed for hearing. We agree that the lack of a proper pleading or notice to the Department precluded the trial court from restricting the Department’s ability to intercept or retain appellee’s future IRS tax refund under TRIP. See State Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. ex rel. Davis v. Canady, 473 So.2d 273, 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (<HOLDING>). See also Geiger v. Geiger, 632 So.2d 693, 696 Options: A. holding that child support arrearages may not be included in a chapter 13 plan B. holding the amount imposed to reduce child support arrearages must be reasonable C. holding that the trial court erred in the absence of a proper pleading in cancelling child support arrearages and in ordering the department to amend its income tax refund interception certificate D. holding that the trial court had erred in imposing an obligation to pay child support when clear and convincing evidence established that the husband was not the father of the child E. holding that because the amount of the debtors obligation to the government exceeded the amount of their income tax refund the refund did not become property of the estate and could not be exempted

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the trial court erred in the absence of a proper pleading in cancelling child support arrearages and in ordering the department to amend its income tax refund interception certificate
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to L-3. This court, in many cases, has found that the loss of the opportunity to fairly compete for a contract constitutes irreparable harm. See, e.g., ViroMed Labs., Inc. v. United States, 87 Fed.Cl. 493, 503 (2009) (noting that bid preparation and proposal costs are not equivalent to potential profits from a government contract); Hosp. Klean of Tex., Inc. v. United States, 65 Fed.Cl. 618, 624 (2005) (“Here, absent injunctive relief, [the protestor] will lose the opportunity to earn the profit it would have made under this contract. Such loss of profit, stemming from a lost opportunity to compete for a contract on a level playing field has been found sufficient to constitute irreparable harm.”) (citations omitted); Overstreet Elec. Co. v. United States, 47 Fed.Cl. 728, 744 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Defendant asserts that recent precedent shows Options: A. holding potential damage to reputation to constitute irreparable harm B. holding that potential loss of a contract constitutes irreparable injury C. recognizing that the loss of skilled employees critical to a companys performance in a specialized field may constitute an irreparable harm D. holding that monetary damages do not generally constitute irreparable harm E. holding that the potential loss of valuable business may constitute irreparable harm

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the potential loss of valuable business may constitute irreparable harm
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), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section. 7 U.S.C. § 192. At issue in this case is only what constitutes an “unfair” practice within the meaning of § 202(a). The District Court held that an “unfair” practice is one that “injures or is likely to injure competition.” The Growers contend that this interpretation of the statute is belied by the United States Department of Agriculture’s (“USDA”) interpretation, as well as the statute’s plain language and purpose. We first address the Growers’ suggestion that we must defer to the USDA’s reasonable interpretation of the statute because the agency is authorized to make rules and regulations necessary to carry out the PSA. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984) (<HOLDING>). To that end, the Growers claim that the USDA Options: A. holding that administrative implementation of a particular statutory provision qualifies for chevron deference when it appears that congress delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules carrying the force of law and that the agency interpretation claiming deference was promulgated in the exercise of that authority B. holding that chevron deference is due only when the agency acts pursuant to delegated authority and the agency action has the force of law C. holding that court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency D. holding that chevron deference is due only to a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency E. holding that when congress has implicitly delegated legislative authority to an agency a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that when congress has implicitly delegated legislative authority to an agency a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency
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 any term or provision of this Agreement is determined by appropriate judicial authority to be illegal or otherwise invalid, such provision shall be given its nearest legal meaning or be construed as deleted as such authority determines, and the remainder of this Agreement shall be construed to be in full force and effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: well as state officers acting in their official capacity, and would prevent Mayfield from seeking such damages under § 1983. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979) (recognizing that § 1983 does not indicate "an intent [by Congress] to sweep away the immunity of the States”). However, circuit courts are currently split on whether RLUIPA provides for a waiver of state sovereign immunity. See Madison v. Virginia, 474 F.3d 118, 131 (4th Cir.2006) (finding that RLUIPA does not constitute a waiver of immunity allowing for damages actions); Benning v. Georgia, 391 F.3d 1299, 1305-06 (11th Cir.2004) (finding that § 3 of RLUIPA constitutes a waiver of state sovereign immunity); see also Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255, 1269-76, and 1276 n. 12 (11th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Whether RLUIPA contemplates damages actions Options: A. holding that a prisoner can under rluipa pursue nominal damages against a state officer in her official capacity B. holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the state itself and not cognizable under 1983 C. holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against a state official sued in his or her official capacity D. holding that a party can sue a state officer in his or her official capacity to enjoin prospective action that would violate federal law E. holding that a damages suit against a state officer in his official capacity was barred because it was functionally a suit against the state

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a prisoner can under rluipa pursue nominal damages against a state officer in her official capacity
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: entered the home, making the discussion of safety concerns in warrantless entry cases in-apposite. See Valdez, 302 F.3d at 322 ("No exigent circumstance existed outside Defendant’s home.”). 7 . See also Price v. State, 93 S.W.3d 358, 364 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) ("The mere assumption that those in possession of controlled substances are normally also in possession of firearms is insufficient as a matter of law to eliminate the notice requirement.”) 8 . See, e.g., Price, 93 S.W.3d at 368 ("In light of Richards and Wilson, we decline to permit officers to invoke the destruction of evidence exception whenever the objects named in the search warrant are by their nature amenable to ready disposal or destruction.”); Brown v. State, 115 S.W.3d 633, 639 (Tex.App.— 10th Dist.] 2003) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, the Texas courts arguably interpret Options: A. holding that there is no basis in law to submit the issue of plaintiffs negligence to the jury when there was no evidence that plaintiff incited the dog or voluntarily or unreasonably exposed herself to a known risk B. holding that city ordinances ban on assault weapons was vague because the ordinance lacked a scienter requirement and its definitions of assault weapons inter alia unfairly required gun consumers to ascertain the developmental history of particular weapons or monitor the precise types of ammunition available for their weapons C. holding enhancement not appropriate because of two and onehalf month lapse between the criminal activity and the discovery of the weapons and no evidence that weapons were present when defendant committed charged offense D. holding search of armed robbery defendants suitcases and between mattresses of hotel room proper where at time of arrest officers were aware that the defendants had used several different weapons during the robberies and that one weapon a loaded revolver was in plain view concluding officers reasonably feared that someone else was going to come to the room who knew where the other weapons were or that the defendants would position themselves to take advantage of any hidden weapons or instrumentalities E. holding noknock search unconstitutional where there was no testimony or evidence that either of the suspects were violent or were known to keep weapons in their home

assistant: The best answer is E. holding noknock search unconstitutional where there was no testimony or evidence that either of the suspects were violent or were known to keep weapons in their home
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: Amendment of the United States Constitution. The state argued the officers’ entry into the apartment was with the consent of someone having apparent authority and that the search and seizure were valid because the officers had probable cause to believe a valid arrest warrant for appellant’s arrest existed, and a warrant did in fact exist. For purposes of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, “[a] warrantless, nonconsensual intrusion of one's dwelling * * * is considered presumptively unreasonable.” State v. Olson, 436 N.W.2d 92, 98 (Minn.1989), aff'd, 495 U.S. 91, 110 S.Ct. 1684,109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990). See U.S. Const, amend. IV; Minn. Const.' Art. 1, § 10. See also Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 576, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1375, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (<HOLDING>). As a preliminary matter, since appellant was Options: A. holding that in die absence of exigent circumstances the mere existence of probable cause does not justify a nonconsensual entry by police into a home without an arrest or search warrant B. holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment C. holding that the police officers had probable cause to make a warrantless entry D. holding that absent exigent circumstances the fourth amendment prohibits warrantless nonconsensual entry into a suspects home in order to make a felony arrest notwithstanding the existence of probable cause to arrest E. holding the fourth amendment prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspects home in order to make a routine felony arrest

assistant: The best answer is E. holding the fourth amendment prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspects home in order to make a routine felony arrest
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Interest on Advances shall be payable to Agent and Lenders in arrears on the first day of each month, commencing on the first day of the calendar month immediately following the Original Closing Date with respect to Base Rate Loans or Daily LIBOR Rate Loans, and, with respect to LIBOR Rate Loans at the end of each Interest Period or, for LIBOR Rate Loans with an Interest Period in excess of three (3) months, at the earlier of (a) each three (3) months’ anniversary date of the commencement of such LIBOR Rate Loan or (b) the end of the Interest Period. Interest charges shall be computed on the actual principal amount of Advances outstanding during the month (the “ Monthly Advances ”) at a rate per annum equal to the Revolving Interest Rate (sometimes also called herein the “ Contract Rate ”). Whenever, subsequent to the date of this Agreement, the Base Rate or the Daily LIBOR Rate is increased or decreased, the applicable Contract Rate for Base Rate Loans or Daily LIBOR Rate Loans shall be similarly changed without notice or demand of any kind by an amount equal to the amount of such change in the Base Rate during the time such change or changes remain in effect. The LIBOR Rate and the Daily LIBOR Rate shall be adjusted with respect to Loans without notice or demand of any kind on the effective date of any change in the Reserve Percentage as of such effective date. Upon and after the occurrence of an Event of Default, and during the continuation thereof, the Obligations shall bear interest at the otherwise applicable Contract Rate plus an additional two (2%) percent per annum (as applicable, the “ Default Rate ”).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) There are no actions, suits, proceedings or investigations by or before any arbitrator or Governmental Authority pending against or, to the knowledge of the Borrower, threatened against or affecting the Borrower or any of its Subsidiaries (i) as to which there is a reasonable possibility of an adverse determination and that, if adversely determined, would reasonably be expected, individually or in the aggregate, to result in a Material Adverse Effect or (ii) that involve this Agreement or any other Loan Documents and (x) would materially and adversely affect the transactions set forth in the Loan Documents or otherwise contemplated hereby or (y) contests in any manner the validity or enforceability of any material provision of any Loan Document.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Lender shall not be deemed to have waived any rights under this Agreement unless such waiver is given in writing and signed by Lender. No delay or omission on the part of Lender in exercising any right shall operate as a waiver of such right or any other right. A waiver by Lender of a provision of this Agreement shall not prejudice or constitute a waiver of Lender’s right otherwise to demand strict compliance with that provision or any other provision of this Agreement. No prior waiver by Lender, nor any course of dealing between Lender and Borrower, shall constitute a waiver of any of Lender’s rights or of any obligations of Borrower as to any future transactions. Whenever the consent of Lender is required under this Agreement, the granting of such consent by Lender in any instance shall not constitute continuing consent in subsequent instances where such consent is required, and in all cases such consent may be granted or withheld in the sole discretion of Lender.

assistant: Waivers
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: company,] had an affirmative, non-delegable duty to take precautions against the possible and probable injuries around an excavation site constructed through its franchise or permission obtained from the state and local authority. This duty, being non-delegable, remains on the defendant irrespective of a contract...”). 49 See Barry v. Keeler, 322 Mass. 114, 127, 76 N.E.2d 158, 164 (1947). 50 See Williamson v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 265 S.W.2d 354, 357 (Mo. 1954). 51 See Felbrant v. Able, 80 N.J. Super. 587, 594, 194 A.2d 491, 495 (App. Div. 1963) (distinguishing between circumstances that were “disassociated” and associated with (or within the scope of) “the field controlled” by the franchise agreement). 52 See Bouziden v. Alfalfa Elec. Co-op., Inc., 2000 OK 50, 16 P.3d 450, 455-56 (<HOLDING>). 53 Barry v. Keeler, 16 N.E.2d at 164. 54 Cal. Options: A. recognizing restatement second of torts 428 but also discussing the inherently dangerous activities standard B. recognizing kansas courts adoption of restatement second of torts 909 1977 C. holding that duty to investigate was not a predicate to demonstrating justifiable reliance under 523a2a discussing restatement second of torts 540 1976 D. recognizing that restatement second of torts 323 and 324a correctly state pennsylvania law E. recognizing tentative draft of restatement second of torts 652e

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing restatement second of torts 428 but also discussing the inherently dangerous activities standard
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: Borrowers and each other Loan Party shall be in compliance in all material respects with all the terms and provisions set forth herein and in each other Loan Document on its part to be observed or performed, and, at the time of and immediately after giving effect to such Credit Extension and the application of the proceeds thereof, no Default shall have occurred and be continuing on such date.

assistant: No Defaults
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall comply with applicable securities laws by reporting this Agreement, the Note and the transactions contemplated thereby and hereby in its filings with the SEC. The Company and Purchaser shall consult with each other in issuing any other press releases with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby, and neither the Company nor Purchaser shall issue any such press release or otherwise make any such public statement without the prior consent of the Company, with respect to any press release of any Purchaser, or without the prior consent of Purchaser, with respect to any press release of the Company, except if such disclosure is required by law, in which case the disclosing party shall promptly provide the other party with prior notice of such public statement or communication.

assistant: Publicity
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 Administrative Agent shall have received the financial statements for the Borrower and its Subsidiaries set forth in the Form 10 filed by the Borrower with the SEC on February 26, 2014, calculated on a Pro Forma Basis after giving effect to the Corporate Spin-Off.

assistant: Financial Statements
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: Notices required to be given by Participants pursuant to the terms of the Plan must be in writing; provided, however, that the Company may approve, in lieu of written notice, alternative methods of notice, including electronic modes of communication.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and the Oprah Winfrey Show. According to a Baltimore Sun columnist, PROZAC® is “a designer label, a buzzword, a brand name familiar to ... Americans who have taken it, but also [to] those who wonder if they, too might find a cure for whatever ails them in the little green-and-off-white capsule.” Given this evidence, we cannot disagree with the district court’s conclusion that PROZAC® “has achieved extraordinary fame in American culture.” We therefore affirm the district court’s holding that Lilly has shown a likelihood of success in proving a likelihood of dilution. We also affirm the district court’s assessment of the remaining preliminary injunction issues. Irreparable harm is generally presumed in cases of trademark infringement and dilution. See Abbott Labs., 971 F.2d at 16 (<HOLDING>); American Dairy Queen Corp. v. New Line Prod., Options: A. recognizing this presumption B. holding that the potential loss of valuable business may constitute irreparable harm C. recognizing the wellestablished presumption that injuries arising from lanham act violations are irreparable even absent a showing of business loss D. holding that potential loss of a contract constitutes irreparable injury E. recognizing presumption

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing the wellestablished presumption that injuries arising from lanham act violations are irreparable even absent a showing of business loss
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company may not terminate this Consulting Agreement prior to the end of the Term unless the Company has reasonably and in good faith determined that the Consultant has breached the terms of this Consulting Agreement, including, without limitation, if the Consultant has failed to properly perform the Services. In such case, the Company shall pay Consultant any Fees then due and payable for any Services completed through the date of such termination, and no further amounts shall be due to Consultant from the Company. Consultant may, at any time and for any reason, terminate this Consulting Agreement upon thirty (30) days’ written notice. If either the Company or the Consultant exercises their rights and privileges with respect to terminating this Consulting Agreement, both parties realize that any adverse, disparaging comments about the other could cause irreparable harm to their business and reputation, and for that reason, the Consultant will refrain from making any negative or adverse comments about the Company and its business, directors and officers, and the Company will instruct its directors and officers not to, directly or indirectly, or encourage other employees not to, make negative or adverse comments about Consultant and Consultant’s performance. If the person or persons referenced in the preceding sentence act contrary to this provision, upon learning of such act, the Company will direct such persons to cease and desist from engaging in the negative or adverse conduct.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: also held that the constitutional protections against double jeopardy prohibited retrial of the defendant on the habitual criminal charges. Id. at 754-55. In the present case the prosecution argues, and the court of appeals agreed, that Mason is distinguishable because Moore’s attorney verbally acquiesced in the trial court’s decision to preempt the jury’s consideration of the habitual criminal counts. Although this distinction exists, we conclude that it lacks legal significance. We have recognized that the trial of habitual criminal charges, in contrast to an ordinary sentencing hearing, must be conducted “in accordance with the same procedural and constitutional safeguards traditionally associated with a trial on guilt or innocence.” People v. Quintana, 634 P.2d 413, 419 (Colo.1981) (<HOLDING>). See also People v. Chavez, 621 P.2d at Options: A. holding that the constitutional protection against double jeopardy may be waived pursuant to a bargainedfor plea B. holding that an amendment to a felony information on the day of trial charging the defendant as a habitual criminal was not error C. holding that constitutional protections against double jeopardy apply to a defendant prosecuted as an habitual criminal D. holding that suspension of a drivers license for conduct already sanctioned in a criminal case did not violate defendants constitutional rights against double jeopardy because it served a remedial purpose beyond the criminal penalties E. holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that constitutional protections against double jeopardy apply to a defendant prosecuted as an habitual criminal
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: ... are not the criteria for establishing confiscation.... ”); Rockshire Civic Ass’n v. Mayor of Rockville, 32 Md.App. 22, 38, 358 A.2d 570, cert. denied, 278 Md. 732 (1976) (“Reduction of the initially approved commercial areas would clearly result in financial detriment to the owner of the property, but unless it would deprive the owner of all reasonable use of his property, such action may not be unconstitutionally impermissible.”); Dustin v. Mayor of Rockville, 23 Md.App. 389, 415, 328 A.2d 748 (1974), vacated on other grounds, 276 Md. 232, 346 A.2d 447 (1975) (“Rezoning in such a case would be impermissible only when the owner was deprived of all beneficial use of the property.”). But see Carl M. Freeman Assocs. v. State Rds. Comm’n, 252 Md. 319, 329, 250 A.2d 250 (1968) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the standard has been that for there to Options: A. holding that where the sole purpose of the ordinance was to freeze property values so that the property could be subsequently acquired for a public purpose the walls of jericho must fall B. holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate C. recognizing that leased property is exempt from taxation where the lessee uses it for a public purpose D. holding that a defendant is in custody and miranda applies even when the purpose of defendants detention is unrelated to the purpose of the interrogation E. holding that combating blight is a permissible public purpose and upholding the taking of property for that purpose even when the specific property taken is not in a blighted condition

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that where the sole purpose of the ordinance was to freeze property values so that the property could be subsequently acquired for a public purpose the walls of jericho must fall
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: Furthermore, Wiggins’s contention violates the purpose of the notice provision to “immediately” give notice of legal process: “to afford [State Farm] an opportunity to control litigation.” See Reeves, 539 So.2d at 256 (citation omitted). Thus, written notice to State Farm of the Incident and of Wiggins’s suit was delayed by more than three years and one year, respectively. Sanders has not offered an excuse for the delay. In fact, the correspondences to State Farm by Sanders and his parents show that they did not want State Farm to be involved in the matter relating to the Incident. Although Wiggins contends that she gave written rt’s declaratory judgment that a one-year delay with insufficient reasons for the delay was too late to require indemnification); Pharr, 429 So.2d at 1019— 20 (<HOLDING>); Thomas, 334 So.2d at 885 (holding that a Options: A. holding that a five month delay was unreasonable B. holding that an eightmonth delay without excuse was unreasonable as a matter of law C. holding that an over twoyear delay without any excuse was unreasonable as a matter of law D. holding threeyear delay without mitigating circumstances was unreasonable E. holding inability to locate attorney who would prosecute infringement suit inadequate as matter of law to excuse delay

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an eightmonth delay without excuse was unreasonable as a matter of law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Promptly after the Servicer becomes aware of the occurrence of any ERISA Event, a notice indicating that such event has occurred, accompanied by a written statement of a Financial Officer of Servicer setting forth details of the occurrence referred to therein and stating what action it proposes to take with respect thereto.

assistant: Erisa
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: claim because the lack of a grievance process causes no injury to their constitutional right of access to the courts. See Tucker v. Angelone, 954 F.Supp. 134, 136 (E.D.Va.1997). In any event, the factual record flatly contradicts any claim of intimidation. Accordingly, Blagman’s claim in this regard fails as well. IV. For the reasons stated above, defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted and Blagman’s complaint dismissed. As judgment may be entered based on the facts, there is no need to review defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity. An appropriate Order will issue. 1 . Although Blagman has since been released from SDC, thus mooting his claims for injunc-tive relief, his claim for monetary damages remains. See Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820 (4th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Taylor v. Rogers, 781 F.2d 1047, 1049 n. 1 Options: A. holding that a prisoners transfer mooted claims for declaratory and injunctive relief B. holding that the case was not moot even though claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were no longer alive because the plaintiff had requested pecuniary relief C. holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over tax claims for declaratory or equitable relief D. holding that inmates transfer mooted claims for injunctive and declaratory relief but that claims for monetary damages were not moot E. holding that the plaintiff had standing even though automatic stay had terminated and his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot because he also sought actual damages for violation of the automatic stay

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that inmates transfer mooted claims for injunctive and declaratory relief but that claims for monetary damages were not moot
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: Delivery of and payment for the Exercised Option Shares shall be made concurrent with the closing of the First Public Offering (the “ Option Closing ”). Delivery of the Exercised Option Shares shall be made to the Company free and clear of any liens or other encumbrances against payment by the Company by wire transfer payable in same-day funds to the accounts specified by HNA, the Selling Stockholder or the other Holders, as applicable. The Parties shall cooperate to deliver all documents as may be reasonably required to effect such transfer of the purchased Exercised Option Shares to the Company, including stock powers, stock transfer instructions and all other transfer documents. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the Company’s obligation to consummate the Option Closing shall be conditioned on (A) the satisfaction of the Tax Opinion and Audit Cooperation Condition and (B) the simultaneous closing under the underwriting agreement for the First Public Offering. If either condition is not satisfied, the Company shall have the right to do one or both of the following (in either case by email notice to HNA): (x) delay the Option Closing for a period of up to 21 days; and (y) terminate the exercise of the Option.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts with the same effect as if the parties had all signed the same document. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one agreement. Fax signatures are acceptable and shall be treated as original signatures.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and the other Loan Documents to which any of the Loan Parties is a party and the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby (i) are within the corporate or other organizational authority of the Loan Parties, (ii) have been duly authorized by all necessary actions on the part of the Loan Parties, (iii) do not and will not conflict with or result in any breach or contravention of any provision of law, statute, rule or regulation to which any Loan Party is subject or any judgment, order, writ, injunction, license or permit applicable to any Loan Party, in each case except as would not be reasonably likely to have a Material Adverse Effect, (iv) do not and will not conflict with or constitute a default (whether with the passage of time or the giving of notice, or both) under any provision of the partnership agreement, limited liability company agreement, articles of incorporation or other charter documents or bylaws of any Loan Party, (v) do not and will not result in or require the imposition of any lien or other encumbrance on any of the properties, assets or rights of any Loan Party other than Permitted Liens, and (vi) do not require the approval or consent of any Governmental Authority to be obtained by any Loan Party or any Affiliate thereof other than those already obtained and delivered to Agent or except as would not reasonably be likely to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Authorizations
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: does this person who is unrelated to the defendant but yet buys a Father's Day present and the defendant shows up at her house and proposes to his wife to get engaged on a Wednesday night. [Detective] Dietrich said it wasn’t a Wednesday night. [June 18th] was a Tuesday night. [Detective Dietrich] didn’t happen to remember that. He knew that because it's documented in the homicide report. Maybe the defendant did propose to his wife on Wednesday because we know he was nowhere to be found in Reading after June 18, 1996. Maybe she was right, it was Wednesday. N.T., at 511-12. 10 . Apparently, Ms. Jackson, who resides in New York, was suffering from cancer. 11 . The Commonwealth argues that the statements were proper under Commonwealth v. Yarris, 519 Pa. 571, 597, 549 A.2d 513, 526 (1988) (<HOLDING>). As Johnson did not testify and did produce Options: A. holding the prosecutors statements were not an inappropriate comment on the defendants failure to testify but rather a comment on the defendants failure to present convincing evidence to support his defense B. holding that the prosecutors comments pertaining to the defendants failure to present a certain alibi witness was not improper for it merely challenged the defendants failure to produce a witness who would have corroborated the defendants testimony C. holding that the failure to interview and present alibi witnesses who would have supported the defendants version of events was prejudicial D. holding that death of potential alibi witness did not cause actual prejudice because defendant failed to relate the substance of the testimony of the missing witness in sufficient detail and to show witness testimony not available from other sources E. holding that the prosecutors comment regarding the defendants failure to call a potential witness did not shift the burden of proof because it did not implicate the defendants fifth amendment right not to testify

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the prosecutors comments pertaining to the defendants failure to present a certain alibi witness was not improper for it merely challenged the defendants failure to produce a witness who would have corroborated the defendants testimony
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.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1052, 109 S.Ct. 1967, 104 L.Ed.2d 435 (1989), we held that "a determination by a district court as to whether an act, or belief, or ... an expectation, is 'reasonable' is a conclusion of law subject to plenary review.” Fair enough. But the language quoted from Pau-lino, which concerned the "automobile exception” to the Fourth Amendment, refers only to the question of whether one can ever have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an automobile. And both of the cases on which Paulino relies distinguish between a broad legal question, such as whether in general an expectation of privacy in automobiles exists, and narrower questions regarding particular factual determinations by district courts. See United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 196 (2d Cir.) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 484 U.S. Options: A. holding that the state must establish that a legal situs of the offense was in delaware and that the reviewing court is required to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the existence of territorial jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt B. holding that while a district court determination about whether an act is reasonable usually is considered to be a legal conclusion that djetermining the weight to be accorded to each factor in reaching the ultimate finding as to the existence of conditions is the special province of the trier of fact C. holding that the courts conclusion that transfer was appropriate is to be accorded great deference D. holding that the weight and credibility to be given to the opinions of expert witnesses is uniquely within the province of the fact finder in this instance the trial court citation omitted E. holding that a statutory presumption is a rule of law requiring a trier of fact to reach a particular conclusion in the absence of evidence to the contrary

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that while a district court determination about whether an act is reasonable usually is considered to be a legal conclusion that djetermining the weight to be accorded to each factor in reaching the ultimate finding as to the existence of conditions is the special province of the trier of fact
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: habitat are tantamount to a proscribed “taking” under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Id. The court contrasted the definition of “take” under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act with the definition of “take” under the Endangered Species Act, which defines “take” broadly to include “harass” and “harm,” in addition to the verbs included in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act definition. Id. at 303. The Ninth Circuit .D.Ind.1996) (declining to enjoin a proposed plan that complied with federal law, holding that indirect taking of migratory birds as a result of either habitat destruction or logging during nesting season did not fall within the Migratory Bird Treaty Act implementing regulations’ definition of a “taking”); Citizens Interested in Bull Run, Inc. v. Edrington, 781 F.Supp. 1502 (D.Or.1991) (<HOLDING>). The District of New Mexico declined to apply Options: A. recognizing that sale of a cutting of timber from devised real estate was a partial ademption B. holding that proposed improvements to an rs 2477 route in a national preserve is subject to regulation by the national park service C. holding a violation of the travel act D. holding that action challenging united states forest services approval of a timber sale became moot when challenged sale was halted as a result of an administrative appeal E. holding that diminishment of habitat for the northern spotted owl under a proposed national forest timber sale would not result in a taking in violation of the migratory bird treaty act

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that diminishment of habitat for the northern spotted owl under a proposed national forest timber sale would not result in a taking in violation of the migratory bird treaty act