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: and in discounting as self-serving and unreliable Lomaz’s bald assertions based on .memories of circumstances existing thirteen years ago. See Marziliano v. Heckler, 728 F.2d 151, 156 (2d Cir.1984) (stating that deference is given to the district court’s decision on whether to set aside a default judgment unless it is “clearly wrong”). Appellant’s other claims under Rule 60(b) are forfeited or time-barred. Pacific concedes that it did not raise in the district court a defense under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) or a defense based on lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient contacts to the forum state. Thus these defenses are considered forfeited on appeal. See Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 703, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982) (<HOLDING>); Beller & Keller v. Tyler, 120 F.3d 21, 24 (2d Options: A. holding that under the fsia personal jurisdiction equals subject matter jurisdiction plus valid service of process B. holding that personal jurisdiction is not required to make an outofstate parent a party to custody action where the state court has subject matter jurisdiction under the uniform child custody jurisdiction act C. holding that unlike subject matter jurisdiction personal jurisdiction may be waived D. holding that subject matter questions may be but are not necessarily decided before questions of personal jurisdiction E. holding issues related to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that unlike subject matter jurisdiction personal jurisdiction may be waived
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: continuing the interrogation was “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response” from Anderson. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 303, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980). And he was right. In the right-to-counsel context, the Supreme Court has countenanced clarifying questions only to ascertain whether a suspect’s ambiguous or equivocal statement is actually an invocation of his Fifth Amendment right. See Davis, 512 U.S. at 461, 114 S.Ct. 2350; Miranda, 384 U.S. at 445, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (focusing only on the threshold question of whether the accused “indicate[d] in any manner that he d[id] not wish to be interrogated” when deciding whether police had honored the accused’s Fifth Amendment rights); cf. Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 95, 105 S.Ct. 490, 83 L.Ed.2d 488 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Ignoring this principle, the state court Options: A. holding that this case concerns the threshold inquiry whether smith invoked his right to counsel in the first instance B. holding that the threshold inquiry assuming as true the facts alleged by the injured party is whether the officers conduct violated a constitutional right C. holding that waiver of counsel during pcr review requires a judicial inquiry into whether defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel D. holding that defendants statements not admissible once he had invoked right to counsel without proof of waiver E. holding that the relevant inquiry is not whether the court has discretion to facilitate notice but whether this is an appropriate case in which to exercise discretion

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that this case concerns the threshold inquiry whether smith invoked his right to counsel in the first instance
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 Party shall duly execute and deliver, or cause to be duly executed and delivered, such further instruments and do and cause to be done such further acts and things, including the filing of such assignments, agreements, documents, and instruments, as may be necessary or as the other Party may reasonably request in connection with this Agreement or to carry out more effectively the provisions and purposes hereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Notwithstanding anything in the Lease (including this Work Letter) to the contrary, Tenant acknowledges and agrees that Landlord shall have the right to terminate the Lease by giving Tenant written notice of the exercise of such option (in which event the Lease shall cease and terminate as of the date of such notice) in the event Landlord is unable to obtain the Permits for the Tenant Improvements within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of the full execution and delivery of the Lease by Landlord and Tenant. Upon such termination, the parties shall be relieved of all further obligations under the Lease except for those obligations under the Lease which expressly survive the expiration or sooner termination of the Lease.

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: for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by Amtrak because it has failed to plead a valid contract. While Virginia law recognizes a contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing, Va. Vermiculite, Ltd. v. W.R. Grace & Company-Connecticut, 156 F.3d 535, 542 (4th Cir.1998), a breach of that duty only creates a claim for breach of contract. Joyce v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 845 F.Supp. 353, 355 (E.D.Va.1993) (stating that there is no independent cause of action for breach of implied covenant). Where, as here, there is no allegation of a valid contract betwee ence with prospective business advantage fails because Plaintiff has not alleged the existence of a valid business expectancy. Krantz v. Air Line Pilots Assoc., 245 Va. 202, 205-06, 427 S.E.2d 326 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff admits in its Amended Complaint Options: A. holding that with respect to tortious interference recognized standards of business ethics and business customs and practices are pertinent B. recognizing the tort of interference with prospective contractual relations as a subspecies of the broader tort of interference with prospective economic advantage C. holding that the first element in a prima facie case of tortious interference with prospective business advantage is the existence of business expectancy D. holding that the first element in a prima facie case of tortious interference with contract is the existence of a valid contractual relationship E. recognizing action for tortious interference with prospective advantage

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the first element in a prima facie case of tortious interference with prospective business advantage is the existence of business expectancy
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 party shall take such acts, and execute and deliver to any other party such additional documents or instruments as may be reasonably requested in order to effect the purposes of this 2019-1 Servicing Supplement and the 2019-1 Servicing Agreement and to better assure and confirm unto the requesting party its rights, powers and remedies hereunder.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: “undesirables” in the office, office romances, the personal use of office equipment, too much time spent on out-of-office travel, and the like. The majority of Plaintiffs complaints are simply reports of personal or managerial shortcomings of her colleagues and supervisors — spending too much time on-out-of-office travel, using an office copy machine for personal needs, asking the office assistant to fix a home computer, not properly securing office files, a , 504 (Minn.1991) (concluding that a report about behavior that “seems distasteful and ... ill-advised, but that is not ... illegal” is not protected under the MWA). Ultimately, even if the Court assumes that all the facts occurred as Plaintiff reported them, none constitutes a violation of the law. Kratzer, 771 N.W.2d at 22-23 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). For Options: A. holding that plaintiff is obliged to present facts that if true would constitute violation of clearly established law B. holding the record did not contain enough facts to determine whether the statute was constitutional as applied to the particular facts and circumstances of the case C. holding there was no evidence a reasonably prudent employee in similar circumstances would have believed facts reported by plaintiff were a violation of law D. holding that the proper standard to apply is to assume that the facts have occurred as reported and then determine whether those facts constitute a violation of law or rule adopted pursuant to law E. recognizing that when the facts alleged in the administrative complaint are not disputed this leaves only conclusions of law to be drawn as to whether the admitted facts constitute a violation of the statutes as charged and penalties to be imposed

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the proper standard to apply is to assume that the facts have occurred as reported and then determine whether those facts constitute a violation of law or rule adopted pursuant to 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: judgment, thereby defeating the third element of intentional interference with contractual relations. However, in analyzing whether inducement of breaching a contract is “justified,” the courts look to see if the defendant is privileged to interfere with contracts. Service by Air, Inc. v. Phoenix Cartage and Air Freight, LLC, 78 F.Supp.3d 852, 864 (N.D.Ill.2015). Under Illinois law, corporate officers are privileged to interfere with contracts. Id. citing HPI Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hosp., Inc., 131 Ill.2d 145, 157, 137 Ill.Dec. 19, 545 N.E.2d 672 (Ill.1989). This privilege covers the acts of corporate officers, directors, and shareholders undertaken on behalf of the corporation. See, e.g., Swager v. Court, 77 Ill.2d 173, 32 Ill.Dec. 540, 395 N.E.2d 921, 928 (1979) (<HOLDING>); IOS Capital, Inc. v. Phoenix Printing, Inc., Options: A. holding that the funds in the privatelyheld corporations account belonged to the corporation not to the individuals who owned the corporation and expressly stating that directors officers and shareholders of a corporation do not have standing to claim an ownership interest in corporate property in their individual capacities they must state a claim in the corporate name B. holding that a corporation exists as an entity apart from its shareholders even where the corporation has but one shareholder the general proposition of corporate identity apart from its shareholders leads us to conclude in accordance with decisions from other jurisdictions that the attorneys client is the corporation and not the shareholders C. recognizing privilege for corporate officers directors and shareholders to influence the actions of their corporation D. recognizing privilege E. holding that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the directors of a corporation

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing privilege for corporate officers directors and shareholders to influence the actions of their corporation
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: who had previously violated section 1012.315, there is nothing demonstrating an intent to retroactively strip teachers of their certification for having previously committed and disclosed violations of section 1012.315. Id. With respect to the second prong, the Commission’s retroactive application of section 1012.795(l)(n) is unconstitutional. Even where the Legislature has expressly stated that a statute will apply retroactively, reviewing courts must reject such an application if the statute impairs a vested right, creates a new obligation, or imposes a new penalty. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet, 658 So.2d 55, 61 (Fla.1995); see also Metro. Dade County, 737 So.2d at 499 (quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 270, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994)) (<HOLDING>). Here, it is undisputed that, at the time Mr. Options: A. recognizing that the application of a retroactive amendment is discretionary B. holding retroactive application C. holding that when an agency changes its policy with retroactive effect a reviewing court must determine the reasonableness of the new interpretation and whether application of the new policy to a party who relied on the old is so unfair as to be arbitrary and capricious D. holding the central focus of an inquiry into the retroactive application of the statute is whether doing so attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment E. holding no retroactive application

assistant: The best answer is D. holding the central focus of an inquiry into the retroactive application of the statute is whether doing so attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as described in the SEC Reports, none of the officers or directors of the Company and, to the knowledge of the Company, none of the employees of the Company is presently a party to any transaction with the Company or any Subsidiary (other than for services as employees, officers and directors), including any contract, agreement or other arrangement providing for the furnishing of services to or by, providing for rental of real or personal property to or from, or otherwise requiring payments to or from any officer, director or such employee or, to the knowledge of the Company, any entity in which any officer, director, or any such employee has a substantial interest or is an officer, director, trustee or partner, in each case in excess of $120,000 other than for (i) payment of salary or consulting fees for services rendered, (ii) reimbursement for expenses incurred on behalf of the Company and (iii) other employee benefits, including stock option agreements under any stock option plan of the Company.

assistant: Transactions With Affiliates
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: feet higher than on the protected side. In addition, as defendant’s witnesses testified, the poor permeability of the soil in the area adds to the difficulty in leaching the salts out of the top layer of soil. Based on the above evidence, the court finds that Bailey’s property is subject to inevitably recurring inundation, and that Mosqueda’s land is subject to inevitably recurring subsurface flooding that has rendered portions of his land unsuitable for agriculture. B. Benefits Analysis Even though there exists a direct connection between defendant’s actions and a taking of plaintiffs’ property, no liability attaches if the dams involved conferred benefits on these particular plaintiffs greater than the damage they inflicted. See Sponenbarger, 308 U.S. at 266-67, 60 S.Ct. at 229 (<HOLDING>). The burden of proof is on defendant to Options: A. holding a defendant is liable as a control person if the defendant had the power to control the general affairs of the entity primarily liable at the time the entity violated the securities laws but declining to decide whether power to control means simply abstract power to control or actual exercise of the power to control internal quotations omitted B. holding authority to control limits duty to control C. holding that a general contractors right to forbid the work from being performed in a dangerous manner and the fact that he would have stopped the work and required protective equipment had he seen the employee of the independent contractor not using such equipment merely showed the possibility of control not actual control D. holding that a defendant who accepts the benefits of control release waives any argument that application of the control release program in the form of the forfeiture of gain time was an ex post violation because control release was enacted after the date of his or her offenses E. holding that the farreaching benefits from a flood control program outweighed the possibility of future floods

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the farreaching benefits from a flood control program outweighed the possibility of future floods
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 value of the Put Shares delivered to the Investor under the Put Notice causes the Company to exceed the Maximum Commitment Amount, then the Investor shall return to the Company the surplus amount of Put Shares associated with such Put. The Purchase Price with respect to the Put Shares shall be reduced by any Clearing Costs related to the return of such Put Shares. The Closing Date under any Put Notice shall occur within seven (7) Trading Day following the end of the respective Valuation Period and the delivery of the Put Shares by the Company, whereby the Investor shall deliver the Investment Amount by wire transfer of immediately available funds to an account designated by the Company.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: PSA. In an effort to distinguish this authority, Ms. Jepson contends that, as a mortgagor, she still has standing to chal lenge a void assignment. She relies on the theory that: A debtor may, generally, assert against an assignee all equities or defenses existing against the assignor prior to notice of the assignment, any matters rendering the assignment absolutely invalid or ineffective, and the lack of the plaintiffs title or right to sue; but, if the assignment is effective to pass legal title, the debtor cannot interpose defects or objections which merely render the assignment voidable at the election of the assignor or those standing in his or her shoes. 6A C.J.S. Assignments § 133 (2016) (emphasis added); see also Woods v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 733 F.3d 349, 354 (1st Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). Put another way, a voidable assignment is one Options: A. holding assignment of a mortgage was not subject to article 9 B. holding that beneficiary of general support trust has a legal right to compel distribution of funds internal quotation marks omitted C. holding that a foreign entity without property or presence in this country has no constitutional rights under the due process clause or otherwise internal quotation marks omitted D. holding internal revenue service has standing to challenge validity of mortgage of seized property E. holding that under massachusetts law a mortgagor has standing to challenge a mortgage assignment as invalid ineffective or void internal quotation marks omitted

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that under massachusetts law a mortgagor has standing to challenge a mortgage assignment as invalid ineffective or void internal quotation marks omitted
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 any certificate attached hereto or delivered in accordance with the terms hereby by or on behalf of UMHL in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, when taken together, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit any material fact necessary in order to make the statements contained herein and/or therein not misleading.

assistant: Disclosures
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 representation and warranty of such Credit Party contained in the Credit Agreement and the other Loan Documents is true and correct in all material respects (except to the extent any such representation or warranty is qualified by materiality or Material Adverse Effect, in which case it shall be true and correct in all respects) on the date hereof after giving effect to the amendments set forth herein, except to the extent any such representations and warranties are expressly limited to an earlier date, in which case, such representations and warranties shall continue to be true and correct in all material respects (except to the extent any such representation or warranty is qualified by materiality or Material Adverse Effect, in which case it shall be true and correct in all respects) as of such specified earlier date.

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

user: 3. Each party agrees and undertakes that it shall not, without first obtaining the written consent of the other, disclose or make available to any person, reproduce or transmit in arty manner, or use (directly or indirectly) for its own benefit or the benefit of others, any Confidential Information save and except both parties may disclose any Confidential Information to their Affiliates, directors, officers, employees or advisors of their own or of Affiliates on a “need to know” basis to enable them to evaluate such Confidential Information in connection with the negotiation of the possible business relationship; provided that such persons have been informed of, and agree to be bound by obligations which are at least as strict as the recipient’s obligations hereunder. 16. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to confer any rights/remedies under or by reason of this Agreement on any third party.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except with respect to Laws regarding Taxes, which are addressed in Section 3.5 , neither the Company nor any of its Subsidiaries is in violation of any applicable federal, foreign, state, local or other Law, statute, regulation, rule, ordinance, code, convention, directive, order, judgment or other legal requirement of any Governmental Authority (collectively, “ Laws ”), except where such violation would not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect or a material adverse effect on the ability of the Company and its Subsidiaries, taken as a whole, to conduct their businesses in the ordinary course of business consistent with past practices. Except with respect to Laws regarding Taxes, which are addressed in Section 3.5 , neither the Company nor any of its Subsidiaries is, to the Company’s Knowledge, being investigated with respect to, or been threatened to be charged with or given notice of any violation of, any applicable Law, except as would not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect or a material adverse effect on the ability of the Company and its Subsidiaries, taken as a whole, to conduct their businesses in the ordinary course of business consistent with past practices.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: but they were not “actually” available and were not publicly disclosed under the FCA. See Meyer, 565 F.3d at 1201 (“[E]ven when the government has the information, it is not publicly disclosed under the Act until it is actually disclosed to the public.”). Further, the AAA reports were not publicly disclosed when the government provided them to EMP2, a private company hired by the government to audit the energy performance savings contract (“ESPC”). In Schumer, the court distinguished public disclosures from “the release of information within a private sphere,” stating that under a “practical, commonsense interpretation, ... information that was disclosed in private has not been publicly disclosed.” 63 F.3d at 1518 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Meyer, 565 F.3d at 1200 (<HOLDING>). In Seal 1 v. Seal A, 255 F.3d 1154, 1161-62 Options: A. holding that the disclosure is a public disclosure within the meaning of the fca if the the prior public disclosure contained enough information to enable the government to pursue an investigation against the defendant B. holding that in the absence of public disclosure the court need not address whether relator was original source of the information C. holding that county defendant was a person within meaning of fca for purposes of suit by private plaintiff D. holding that where an authorized disclosure is voluntarily made to a nonfederal party whether or not that disclosure is denominated confidential the government waives any claim that the information is exempt from disclosure under the deliberative process privilege E. recognizing that information disclosed in private is not a public disclosure under the fca

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that information disclosed in private is not a public disclosure under the fca
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: here — that Church remained in denial and untreated four years into his prison term— was insufficient to overcome the Pearce presumption. Church's state of being in denial and untreated did not constitute a new factor, only a continuation of the same situation that existed at the time of the original sentencing. ¶ 60. In sum, we conclude that resentencing on convictions that remain intact after one or more counts in a multi-count case is vacated is not always required. Where, as here, the vacated count did not affect the overall dispositional structure of the original sentence, resentencing on the remaining counts is unnecessary. We also conclude that the increased sentence imposed upon Church was presumptively vindictive under Pearce, and was not supported by objective new factors in (<HOLDING>). 4 The scope and applicability of the rule Options: A. recognizing that a trial court has the authority before accepting a verdict and before discharging a jury to send the jury back to correct a mistake in its verdict but concluding that jury had been discharged because jury was allowed to return to court on following day and was allowed to deliberate same issue it previously had decided B. holding that no presumption of vindictiveness arose when a second jury on retrial following a successful appeal imposed a higher sentence than a prior jury because a second jury was unlikely to have a personal stake in the prior conviction or to be sensitive to the institutional interests that might occasion higher sentences C. holding that although court should inform jury about defendants prior sentences the court should instruct the jury that it should not consider prior sentences in its decision to impose a life or death sentence because they are not statutory aggravating or mitigating factors D. holding that almendareztorres rejected the argument that the fact of a prior conviction must be found by a jury E. holding that where a statute provides for an enhanced penalty based on a defendants prior conviction the fact of conviction is a sentencing factor to be determined by the court rather than a jury

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that no presumption of vindictiveness arose when a second jury on retrial following a successful appeal imposed a higher sentence than a prior jury because a second jury was unlikely to have a personal stake in the prior conviction or to be sensitive to the institutional interests that might occasion higher sentences
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 Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the insured based on evidence that the insurance company’s litigation manager attested that, notwithstanding the insured’s notification delay of almost fifteen months, the insurance company would still have denied coverage had it been provided timely notice of the lawsuit. 261 Wis.2d 4, 660 N.W.2d 666, 683 (2003). Based on this evidence that “the timing of Bradley’s notice would not have changed the Insurance Company’s decision to deny its duty to defend,” the Fireman’s Fund court concluded “as a matter of law that the Insurance Company suffered no prejudice.” Id. Other jurisdictions have reached similar conclusions. See Nat’l Am. Ins. Co. v. Certain Underwriters, 93 F.3d 529 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Zurich Ins. Co. v. Sunclipse, Inc., 85 Options: A. holding that an insurer can deny benefits based on late notice by the insured only when the insurer is prejudiced by the delay B. holding that if an insurer denies coverage based on an assertion that the underlying claim is excluded from coverage there is a presumption that the insurer did not suffer prejudice because prompt notice would have merely resulted in an earlier denial of coverage C. holding that late notice of the bond did not excuse supplier from its obligation to comply with statutory notice requirements D. holding that when an insurer denies coverage on grounds unrelated to late notice a strong presumption arises that the insurer has not suffered prejudice from the late notice E. holding that an insurer can be estopped from denying coverage for failure to make payments where that insurer has established a course of conduct of accepting late payments

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that when an insurer denies coverage on grounds unrelated to late notice a strong presumption arises that the insurer has not suffered prejudice from the late notice
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 defense). It should be noted that even inadequate provocation coupled with an objectively unreasonable reaction may be relevant to a case, like this one, because the jury may find that it creates a reasonable doubt about the existence of the “malice” (under our new Code, the mental state of knowledge or purpose) required for murder, id. at 314-15, thus warranting a possible verdict on a lesser-included offense of murder. Murder eases will almost always turn on the mental state of the accused. Deciding that question is the jury’s function. 2 Wharton’s Criminal Law § 164, at 259 (C. Torcia 14th ed. 1979) (where there is dispute, jury should decide questions of adequate provocation); see also American Law Institute, Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 210.3, at 57-61 (perm. ed. 1980) (<HOLDING>). Even “words alone,” when they are racial Options: A. recognizing the inherent common law authority of courts to promulgate rules of practice and procedure B. recognizing limited value of categorical rules on mitiga tion developed by common law C. recognizing common law right of access to judicial documents D. recognizing that commission is not bound by statutory or common law rules of evidence E. recognizing common law privileges

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing limited value of categorical rules on mitiga tion developed by common 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: (a) The relevant Borrower will pay a commission on all undrawn and unpaid Letters of Credit at a per annum rate equal to the Applicable Margin then in effect with respect to Eurocurrency Loans under the Revolving Credit Facility, shared ratably among the Revolving Credit Lenders and payable quarterly in arrears on each L/C Fee Payment Date after the issuance date. In addition, the relevant Borrower shall pay to the Issuing Lender for its own account a fronting fee of 0.125% per annum on the undrawn and unexpired amount of each Letter of Credit, payable quarterly in arrears on each L/C Fee Payment Date after the issuance date.

assistant: Fees
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 Shareholders acknowledge and agree that Montage would be irreparably damaged if any of the provisions of this Agreement are not performed in accordance with their specific terms or are otherwise breached and that any non-performance, breach or threatened breach of this Agreement by any Shareholder could not be adequately compensated by monetary damages alone and that Montage would not have any adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, Montage shall be entitled (in addition to any other remedy that may be available to it whether in law or equity, including monetary damages) to seek and obtain (a) enforcement of any provision of this Agreement by a decree or order of specific performance and (b) a temporary, preliminary and/or permanent injunction to prevent breaches or threatened breaches of any provisions of this Agreement without posting any bond or undertaking. The Shareholders further agree that they shall not object to the granting of injunctive or other equitable relief on the basis that there exists adequate remedy at law. Each Shareholder hereby expressly further waives (i) any defense in any action for specific performance that a remedy at law would be adequate or that an award of specific performance is not an appropriate remedy for any reason at law or in equity and (ii) any requirement under any Law to post security as a prerequisite to obtaining equity relief. Each Shareholder agrees that Montage’s initial choice of remedy will be to seek specific performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms. If a court of competent jurisdiction denies such relief, Montage may seek alternative remedies, including damages in the same or another proceeding.

assistant: Specific Performance
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: decision, (3) the amount of discretion given to the official, and (4) whether the official violated an applicable statute or regulation.” McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States, 182 F.3d 1319, 1326 (Fed.Cir.1999) (quoting United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. United States, 230 Ct.Cl. 355, 676 F.2d 622, 630 (1982)). The government bears the burden of showing that the termination was justified. Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 828 F.2d 759, 765 (Fed.Cir.1987). One of the relevant factors in determining whether a contractor is in default is the contractor’s failure to meet contract specifications. McDonnell Douglas, 182 F.3d at 1328; see Granite Constr. Co. v. United States, 962 F.2d 998, 1007-07 (Fed.Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1048, 113 S.Ct. 965, 122 L.Ed.2d 121 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Once the government proves default, Options: A. holding that strict compliance is not required B. recognizing that the government generally has the right to insist on performance in strict compliance with the contract specifications C. holding that where a party has insisted on strict compliance with the contracts terms the doctrine of substantial performance does not apply D. holding that the state as well as the defendant has a right to rely on compliance with rule 16 E. recognizing that strict compliance with 1557 is required

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that the government generally has the right to insist on performance in strict compliance with the contract specifications
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: second day of trial, after AUE had, the City contends, elected its damages remedy by moving for summary judgment on liability on a breach of contract theory. We review questions of law de novo, see L-3 Commc’ns Corp. v. OSI Sys., Inc., 607 F.3d 24, 27-28 (2d Cir.2010), and conclude that the City’s arguments lack merit. First, although summary judgment is generally treated as the procedural equivalent of a trial, see S.J. Capelin Assocs., Inc. v. Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 N.Y.2d 338, 341, 357 N.Y.S.2d 478, 313 N.E.2d 776 (1974), AUE’s motion for summary judgment addressed liability alone. Hence, to the extent the motion was the equivalent of a trial for these purposes, it did not address damages or rescission at all. Cf. Reilly v. Natwest Markets Grp. Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 263 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). AUE cannot be deemed to have elected its Options: A. holding quantum meruit unavailable to remedy invalid contract B. holding that where plaintiff did not seek to rescind a contract and only sought quantum meruit recovery after a jury had determined an enforceable contract existed plaintiff was limited to recovery under the contract C. holding supreme court had jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of evidence in subcontractors action against project owner seeking recovery under equitable doctrine of quantum meruit rather than recovery based on contract D. holding that the evidence was insufficient for the statute of limitations to bar recovery of a quantum meruit cause of action E. holding that a discharged firms recovery is limited to quantum meruit

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that where plaintiff did not seek to rescind a contract and only sought quantum meruit recovery after a jury had determined an enforceable contract existed plaintiff was limited to recovery under the contract
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company agrees that it will (a) pay the Warrant Agent reasonable compensation for its services as Warrant Agent in accordance with Exhibit C attached hereto and, except as otherwise expressly provided, will pay or reimburse the Warrant Agent upon written demand for all reasonable and documented expenses, disbursements and advances incurred or made by the Warrant Agent in accordance with any of the provisions of this Warrant Agreement (including the reasonable compensation, expenses and disbursements of its agents and counsel incurred in connection with the execution and administration of this Warrant Agreement), except any such expense, disbursement or advance as may arise from its or any of their gross negligence, willful misconduct or bad faith (each as determined in a final non-appealable judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction), and (b) perform, execute, acknowledge and deliver or cause to be performed, executed, acknowledged and delivered all such further and other acts, instruments and assurances as may reasonably be required by the Warrant Agent for the carrying out or performing of the provisions of this Warrant Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and would not have progressed to cardiopulmonary arrest. Although Mr. Smith’s clinical condition had a mortality of about twenty percent prior to the arrest, the above-discussed failures of Dr. Bolton, Dr. Russell, Dr. Suominen, PA Dizney, McElravy, Hammonds, and Gill probably led to the arrest and the sequelae that probably ensued and in reasonable probability led to his progressive weakness, increasing renal dysfunction, and multi-system organ failure and his death. These statements, all contained within the four corners of Dr. Halkos’s report, sufficiently link Dr. Halkos’s causation opinions to the facts and adequately describe the chain of events allegedly leading to Mr. Smith’s death. See Patel v. Williams, 237 S.W.3d 901, 905-06 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). The trial court acted within its discretion Options: A. holding that causation section of expert medical report was not eonclusory when read in context of entire report B. holding expert report requirement fulfilled in claim against nurse by providing expert report of nurse as to standard of care and expert report of medical doctor as to causation C. holding that earlier events set the stage for what followed and that factual disputes regarding those events were material D. holding that it is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself E. holding expert report sufficiently set forth causation when it presented a chain of events beginning with a contraindicated prescription and ending with the patients death

assistant: The best answer is E. holding expert report sufficiently set forth causation when it presented a chain of events beginning with a contraindicated prescription and ending with the patients 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: The Transactions are within each Obligor’s corporate or other applicable powers and have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate or other applicable action and, if required, by all necessary shareholder action. This Agreement has been duly executed and delivered by each Obligor and constitutes, and each of the other Loan Documents to which it is a party when executed and delivered by such Obligor will constitute, a legal, valid and binding obligation of such Obligor, enforceable against each Obligor in accordance with its terms, except as such enforceability may be limited by (a) bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or similar laws of general applicability affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights and (b) the application of general principles of equity (regardless of whether such enforceability is considered in a proceeding in equity or at law).

assistant: Enforceability
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 state’s fingerprint expert was unable to determine how long the fingerprints had been in place. Id. at 28-29. This Court held that the evidence, standing alone, was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant drove the getaway car. We reasoned that “the long and the short of it is that Gregoire may have innocently left his prints there either before or after the robbery.” Id. at 28. The instant case differs from Moran in several material respects. First, unlike the robbery charge in Moran, the crimes with which defendant has been charged were not time-specific. The prosecution in this case was not required to show that defendant left his fingerprints on the objects at a particular date and time. Cf. Mikes v. Borg, 947 F.2d 353, 356-57, 360 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Here, in contrast, the possession of the Options: A. holding that the protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest in front of his house on suspicion of murder was not justified because the evidence that an accomplice was involved in the murder did not equate to evidence that someone would be hiding out in the defendants house a month after the crime occurred and at the time of the arrest the officers were not chasing the defendant from a crime scene B. holding that fingerprint evidence was insufficient to support a murder conviction in a case in which the prosecution depended upon a showing that defendants fingerprints were left on the murder weapon during the commission of the crime C. holding premeditated murder and felony murder are the same crime with various means of commission D. holding undisclosed statement that someone other than the defendant possessed the murder weapon three weeks after the murder was not material exculpatory evidence in light of this overwhelming evidence that buehl had the murder weapon at the time of the killings and that he was the murderer E. holding that where both firstdegree and felony murder were possible bases for a murder conviction a jury instruction that suggested the jury could rely on felony murder as the predicate offense for a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder was improper because under arizona law a conviction for conspiracy to commit firstdegree murder requires a specific intent to kill

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that fingerprint evidence was insufficient to support a murder conviction in a case in which the prosecution depended upon a showing that defendants fingerprints were left on the murder weapon during the commission of the crime