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: to admit that he had committed robbery with a deadly weapon, which would have qualified the D.C. robbery offense as a crime of violence under the Maryland predecessor statute to CL section 14-101. The State points out that here, in contrast to Bowman, Scott agreed to facts proffered by the government that would constitute a crime of violence under CL section 14-101(a)(19). It maintains that Scott’s agreement, without reservation, to these facts was sufficient for the sentencing court to infer that he had an intent to cause serious physical injury. A factfinder “may infer the necessary intent from an individual’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances[.]” Chilcoat v. State, 155 Md.App. 394, 403, 843 A.2d 240 (2004). See also In re Lavar D., 189 Md.App. 526, 590, 985 A.2d 102 (2009) (<HOLDING>). As such, the facts underlying Scott’s D.C. Options: A. holding that torture occurs when the victim is subjected to serious physical abuse before death that serious sexual abuse may constitute serious physical abuse that facts supporting a finding of torture will also support a finding of depravity of mind and that the age of the victim may be considered in determining whether the evidence shows depravity of mind B. holding purposely inflicts serious injury and intended to cause serious injury convey the same specific intent such that it is impossible to commit one without the other C. holding that the court as the factfinder was permitted to draw the inference that a group of juveniles intended to inflict serious physical injury by repeatedly hitting punching and kicking the victim D. holding that begay rejected that circuits earlier approach under which an offense presented a serious potential risk of physical injury to another if the offense conduct had the potential for serious physical injury to another E. holding that noncompetitors injury was an antitrust injury as it was inextricably intertwined with the injury the conspirators sought to inflict

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the court as the factfinder was permitted to draw the inference that a group of juveniles intended to inflict serious physical injury by repeatedly hitting punching and kicking the victim
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in its appeal from the DEP order entered on January 14, 2002. Reversed and remanded. Chief Justice MAYNARD dissents and reserves the right to file a dissenting opinion. Justices STARCHER and McGRAW concur and reserve the right to file concurring opinions. 1 . Ms. Timmermeyer succeeded Michael O. Callaghan, who was the DEP Secretary during the proceedings below. 2 . See W.Va.Code § 22B-1-9 (1994) (Repl.Vol. 2002). 3 . The permit was issued on November 28, 1995. 4 . See W.Va.Code § 22-3-17(b) (1997) (Repl.Vol. 2002). 5 . Freda Williams, Janice Nease, and Pauline Canterbury. 6 . Under the provisions of West Virginia Code § 22B-l-7(e) (1994) (Repl.Vol.2002), the SMB proceeding is de novo. See Syl. Pt. 2, West Virginia DEP v. Kingwood Coal Co., 200 W.Va. 734, 736, 490 S.E.2d 823, 825 (1997) (<HOLDING>). 7 . Consequently, only the coal refuse Options: A. holding appellate court reviews legal conclusions de novo B. holding that smb reviews dep final decisions de novo and that smb is not required to afford any deference to the dep decision C. recognizing that appellate court reviews questions of law de novo D. holding that statutory construction is a question of law which this court reviews de novo E. holding that in the context of an arbitrability determination the court reviews the contract de novo

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that smb reviews dep final decisions de novo and that smb is not required to afford any deference to the dep decision
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower will not, and will not permit any Restricted Subsidiary to, enter into any Sale/Leaseback Transaction, except for any such sale of any fixed or capital assets by the Borrower or any Restricted Subsidiary that is made for cash consideration in an amount not less than the fair value of such fixed or capital asset and is consummated within 270 days after such Subsidiary acquires or completes the construction of such fixed or capital asset, provided that (a) the sale or transfer of the property thereunder is permitted under Section 6.05, (b) any Capital Lease Obligations and Synthetic Lease Obligations arising in connection therewith are permitted under Section 6.01(v) and (c) any Liens arising in connection therewith (including Liens deemed to arise in connection with any such Capital Lease Obligations and Synthetic Lease Obligations) are permitted under Section 6.02(a)(v).

assistant: Sales
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 abuse and neglect case or derives from other sources. We hold that this part of the order is overbroad; it is not narrowly tailored, nor does it use the least restrictive means to accomplish its purpose. There is no valid reason to issue such a blanket order for any and all future pleadings or suits. The second part of the order, preventing Cole from publicly disclosing information from the court records, which is consistent with RSA 169-C:25 (2014), adequately serves the confidentiality interests identified by DCYF and CASA. There is no justification for additionally requiring that allegations that may be contained in Cole’s lawsuit but are not based upon information gleaned from the abuse and neglect case should be shielded from the public. See Petition of Brooks, 140 N.H. at 821 (<HOLDING>). DCYF and CASA contend that the order is Options: A. holding that first amendment protections apply to compelled speech as well as restrictions on speech B. holding that rules requiring nondisclosure in the attorney discipline context prohibited more speech than was necessary by preventing disclosure of wellfounded complaints as well and accordingly were overbroad C. holding the language of the statute applicable to floating buffer zones was substantially overbroad and burdened substantially more speech than necessary to serve the states interest D. holding that a statute must burden a substantial amount of protected speech to be unconstitutionally overbroad E. holding new yorks disclosure law unconstitutionally overbroad

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that rules requiring nondisclosure in the attorney discipline context prohibited more speech than was necessary by preventing disclosure of wellfounded complaints as well and accordingly were overbroad
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: Prior to Closing, Purchaser will use its commercially reasonable efforts to keep confidential all information relating to the terms of this Agreement, all information relating to Seller, and all financial statements, drawings, designs, customer and supplier lists by Purchaser (other than information which is a matter of public knowledge or which has heretofore been or is hereafter published in any publication for public distribution or filed as public information with any governmental authority or disclosed pursuant to Applicable Law, order, subpoena or demand of any governmental authority (including any disclosure deemed necessary or advisable by Purchaser’s parent company pursuant to applicable securities laws or otherwise on account of such parent being a publicly traded entity) or as is necessary to be disclosed to lessors, lenders, governmental authorities, Purchaser and Purchaser’s employees and third parties in order to consummate this transaction).

assistant: Confidentiality
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 Collateral Agent shall have received certificates of insurance, together with the endorsements thereto that reflect the status of the Collateral Agent as a loss payee and the Collateral Agent as additional insured in such certificates of insurance, as are required by Section 6.4, the form and substance of which shall be reasonably satisfactory to Collateral Agent.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Failure by either party hereto in any instance to insist upon the strict performance of any one or more of the obligations of the other under this Sublease, or to exercise any election herein contained, shall in no manner be or be deemed to be a waiver by such party of any of such other party’s defaults or breaches hereunder or of any of the first party’s rights and remedies by reason of such defaults or breaches, or a waiver or relinquishment for the future of the requirement of strict performance of any and all of such other party’s obligations hereunder. Further, no payment by Subtenant or receipt by Sublandlord of a lesser amount than the correct amount or manner of payment of Rental due hereunder shall be deemed to be other than a payment on account, nor shall any endorsement or statement on any check or any letter accompanying any check or payment be deemed to effect or evidence an accord and satisfaction, and Sublandlord may accept any checks or payments as made without prejudice to Sublandlord’s right to recover the balance or pursue any other remedy in this Sublease or otherwise provided at law or equity.

assistant: No 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: There is no action, suit, order, claim, litigation, inquiry, notice of violation, arbitration, mediation, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened against or affecting the Company, any Subsidiary or any of their respective properties before or by any court, arbitrator, governmental or administrative agency or regulatory authority (federal, state, county, local or foreign) (collectively, an “ Action ”) (i) that have had or would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect or (ii) adversely affects or challenges the legality, validity or enforceability of any of the Transaction Documents or the Shares. Neither the Company nor any Subsidiary, nor any director or officer thereof, is or has been the subject of any Action involving a claim of violation of or liability under federal or state securities laws or a claim of breach of fiduciary duty. There has not been, and to the knowledge of the Company, there is not pending or contemplated, any investigation by the Commission involving the Company or any current or former director or officer of the Company. The Commission has not issued any stop order or other order suspending the effectiveness of any registration statement filed by the Company or any Subsidiary under the Exchange Act or the Securities Act. Neither the Company nor any of its Subsidiaries is subject to any order, writ, judgment or decree of a court, arbitrator, governmental or administrative agency or regulatory authority (federal, state, county, local or foreign) that has had or would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. Except as has not had and would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, there is no investigation or review pending (or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened) by any court, arbitrator, governmental or administrative agency or regulatory authority (federal, state, county, local or foreign) with respect to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries.

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: The Borrowers each warrant and agree that each of the waivers and consents set forth herein are made with full knowledge of their significance and consequences, with the understanding that events giving rise to any defense waived may diminish, destroy or otherwise adversely affect rights which they otherwise may have against each other, the Administrative Agent, the L/C Issuers, the Lenders or others, or against collateral, and that, under the circumstances, the waivers and consents herein given are reasonable and not contrary to public policy or Law. If any of the waivers or consents herein are determined to be contrary to any applicable Law or public policy, such waivers and consents shall be effective to the maximum extent permitted by Law.

assistant: Consents
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 trial." (Eskin Cert. ¶ 5.) However, the certification from Mr. Ferrante is dated some two weeks after the April 26 letter was sent, and is expressly predicated on the withdrawal of plaintiffs' damages claims. The records of this Court indicate that the motion to which Mr. Eskin refers was in fact made on May 11, 2000. 3 . In cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, "a litigant is entitled to an award of nominal damages upon proof of a violation of a substantive constitutional right even in the absence of actual compensable injury.” Amato v. City of Saratoga Springs, N.Y., 170 F.3d 311, 317 (2d Cir.1999). However, plaintiffs may not recover punitive damages from the County of Westchester. See City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981) Options: A. holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against municipalities under 1988 B. holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against municipalities in actions brought pursuant to 42 usc 1983 C. holding that in employment discrimination cases falling under 42 usc 1983 municipalities are not subject to punitive damages for the actions of government officials D. holding that a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 usc 1983 E. holding that municipalities are immune from liability for punitive damages under 42 usc 1983 in part because a municipality can have no malice independent of the malice of its officials damages awarded for punitive purposes therefore are not sensibly assessed against the governmental entity itself

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against municipalities in actions brought pursuant to 42 usc 1983
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: agent for service of process is one of agency law with particular emphasis on the nature of the relationship and the degree of control exercised. In Cannon Manufacturing Co. v. Cudahy Packing Co., 267 U.S. 333, 45 S.Ct. 250, 69 L.Ed. 634 (1925), the United States Supreme Court held that a parent-subsidiary relationship, by itself, is not sufficient to justify severance of the subsidiary as an agent for the parent corporation. Although in Cannon service of process was made on the subsidiary as agent for the parent, rather than on the parent as in the present case, this factual distinction does not affect the Supreme Court’s reasoning concerning when one corporation becomes the other corporation’s agent for severance. See Akari Imeji Co. v. Qume Corp., 748 F.Supp. 588, 591 (N.D.Ill.1990) (<HOLDING>); Geick v. American Honda Motor Co., 117 F.R.D. Options: A. holding that a parent must exercise some control over the subsidiarys activities which does not require that the subsidiary be controlled to an ultimate degree by its parent although something more than mere passive investment by the parent is required the parent must have and exercise control and direction over the affairs of its subsidiary in order for venue to be proper B. holding that to establish that subsidiary is agent of parent for jurisdictional purposes the parent must exert control that is so pervasive and continual that the subsidiary may be considered an agent or instrumentality of the parent notwithstanding the maintenance of corporate formalities C. holding there is no precise test for defining how much control a foreign parent corporation must wield over its domestic subsidiary before the subsidiary will be deemed its agent for the purposes of service D. recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that parent was alterego of its subsidiary and was being sued for acts of its subsidiary E. holding that control person liability adequately alleged because as the sole shareholder of the subsidiary the parent corporation had the potential power to influence and direct the activities of its subsidiary

assistant: The best answer is C. holding there is no precise test for defining how much control a foreign parent corporation must wield over its domestic subsidiary before the subsidiary will be deemed its agent for the purposes of service
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: characteristics for a “sidewalk.” One, a sidewalk is a part of the street, constructed at or alongside of the street. And, two, it is exclusively reserved for pedestrian use. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the definitions employed in Central Life and Warren were more than dictum. Defining the term “sidewalk” was necessary to the court’s decision in both cases. We think the meaning followed in Central Life and Warren is the meaning the legislature had in mind when it used the word “sidewalk” in section 364.12(2)(b). The great majority of cases that have defined “sidewalk” have likewise concluded that the word refers to a walkway that is a part of the street or is at or along the side of the street. See, e.g., City of Birmingham v. Shirley, 209 Ala. 305, 96 So. 214, 215 (1923) (<HOLDING>); Manchester v. City of Hartford, 30 Conn. 118, Options: A. holding that sidewalk is simply a part of the street set apart for pedestrians B. holding that sidewalk is that part of a street that has been set aside for use by pedestrians C. holding that a sidewalk is a part of the road D. holding that in common parlance a sidewalk is the part of the street assigned to the use of pedestrians E. holding that in a city or town a sidewalk is that part of a street or highway that is intended or used by pedestrians

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that in common parlance a sidewalk is the part of the street assigned to the use of pedestrians
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Receiving Party agrees not to use, divulge, reproduce or otherwise make available the Confidential Information other than for the purposes of the Project and to disclose it only to its officers, agents, employees, partners, and professional advisors as necessary, who shall also be bound to comply with this Agreement. 7. Receiving Party shall not disclose any Confidential Information to any other person or entity other than as provided herein, without Casino’s prior written consent. Neither party nor any of its representatives shall contact, either directly or indirectly, any governmental official, lender or other third party (other than a representative as provided herein) to discuss the Project or the business or the assets of the other party, or a potential business transaction with or concerning the other party, without first obtaining the written consent of the other 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: The Transactions (a) do not require any consent or approval of, registration or filing with, or any other action by, any Governmental Authority, except such as have been obtained or made and are in full force and effect, (b) will not violate any material Requirement of Law applicable to the Borrower or any Subsidiary to the extent failure to comply with which could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, (c) will not violate the charter, by-laws or other organizational documents of the Borrower or any Subsidiary, (d) will not violate or result in a material default under any material indenture, agreement or other instrument binding upon the Borrower or any Subsidiary or their respective assets, or give rise to a right thereunder to require any material payment to be made by the Borrower or any Subsidiary or give rise to a right of, or result in, termination, cancelation or acceleration of any material obligation thereunder and (e) will not result in the creation or imposition of any Lien (other than a Lien permitted under Section 6.02 ) on any asset of the Borrower or any Subsidiary.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: certain additional criteria. § 39.6251(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). The administrative rule concerning section 39.6251 provides that "[a] young adult is considered to have been living in licensed care on the date of his or her 18th birthday if the young adult was in the legal custody of the Depart-meñt on the date of his or her 18th birthday.”' Fla. Admin... Code R. 65C-41.003 (2015). Thus, had the court placed R.J. in DCF’s custody when it adjudicated him dependent, R.J. may have been eligible for extended licensed care. As a remand ‘by the appellate court has the effect of restoring the case to the position it would have assumed absent the incorrect ruling, this case is not moot. See Wells Fargo Armored Servs. Corp. v. Sunshine Sec. & Detective Agency, Inc., 575 So.2d 179, 180 (Fla.1991) Options: A. holding that the erroneous admission of dna evidence is never harmless B. holding that the effect of a remand is to return this proceeding to the lower court as though the erroneous ruling never had been made C. recognizing that an appeal has never been an evidentiary proceeding so appellate court will not consider evidence not presented to the lower tribunal because function of appellate court is to determine whether lower tribunal committed error based upon the issues and evidence before it D. holding that an erroneous decision to exclude evidence is considered harmless unless the error had a substantial influence on the outcome or leaves this court in grave doubt as to whether it had such an effect E. holding that this court may reconsider an erroneous ruling as long as the appeal is current

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the effect of a remand is to return this proceeding to the lower court as though the erroneous ruling never had been made
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 following shall be added to the end of the first sentence of Section 2 of the Agreement: “…; provided, however, the Term shall extend as necessary in accordance with the Update Term to the TL Term as defined under [*****].

assistant: Terms
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: information: plaintiff had been eating and dining at the BEQ without paying; plaintiff had a $300.00 unpaid bill from a previous stay at the BEQ; a Pennsylvania court had issued a warrant for plaintiffs arrest for theft; and plaintiff resisted arrest when the Horsham Township Police were taking her into custody. These reasons are well within the Captain’s broad authority to “summarily exclude civilians from the area of -his command.” Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers, 367 U.S. at 893, 81 S.Ct. 1743. Even if the information given to Captain Blake regarding Fields’ outstanding bill and arrest warrant were ultimately shown to be false, it was objectively reasonable for him to rely on this information and issue the Ejectment Order. See Rogers v. Powell, 120 F.3d 446, 455 (3d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). There is no evidence of a constitutional Options: A. holding that in deciding whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity it is not only the evidence of clearly established law that is for the court but also whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful in light of the information the officer had B. holding that an officers report of misconduct by fellow officer is a matter of public concern C. holding officer may search vehicle for weapons if officer has reasonable belief based on articulable facts that officer or another may be in danger D. holding that the actions of an officer in reliance on what proves to be the flawed conclusions of a fellow officer may be reasonable nonetheless and thus protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity E. holding that an officer applying for a warrant without probable cause may be entitled to qualified immunity but is not entitled to absolute immunity

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the actions of an officer in reliance on what proves to be the flawed conclusions of a fellow officer may be reasonable nonetheless and thus protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity
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: his own statements that he was “over medicated and not in good shape at the time of plea” as proof that the plea was made involuntarily or unknowingly. This Court, however, has held that conclusory statements made by a defendant are, “absent any other evidence, insufficient to show that his plea was involuntary.” United States v. Kramer, 168 F.3d 1196, 1200 (10th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Groll, 992 F.2d 755, 758, n. 2 (7th Cir.1993). Indeed, in another case in which the defendant disclosed his use of prescription drugs at the plea hearing but later claimed he had been unable to understand “in depth” what was going on, this Court rejected the defendant’s arguments on the basis that he failed to support them with anything besides his own statements. Kramer, 168 F.3d at 1200 (<HOLDING>). As such, there is no indication that Mr. Options: A. holding that statements in medical records given for the primary purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment are nontestimonial B. recognizing it is common and reasonable for doctors to examine medical records and arrive at professional opinions C. holding that every citizen has a constitutional right of privacy in his or her medical records D. holding that the defendant failed to support his statements with actual evidence such as medical records or narcotic drug prescriptions or doctors affidavits E. holding that federal rule of evidence 8034 the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment does not apply to statements made by doctors

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the defendant failed to support his statements with actual evidence such as medical records or narcotic drug prescriptions or doctors affidavits
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: WL 1468435, at *3 (S.D.Ohio Mar. 30, 2015) ("Upon default and the acceleration of the loan, the maturity date advances and any subsequent payment is no longer considered a voluntary prepayment. The lender forfeits the collection of a prepayment premium in such a scenario unless the parties' agreement contains a 'clear and unambiguous’ clause requiring payment of the prepayment premium upon default and accel- ' eration. This general rule created the problem that a borrower might actually intentionally default to acquire the right to prepay without penalty, so lenders began including provisions in loan documents to ensure the prepayment penalty would be enforceable after default.”) (citations omitted)). 26 . S. Side House, 451 B.R. at 269 (citations omitted). 27 . Id. at 270. 28 . Id. (<HOLDING>). 29 . United Merchants and Mfrs., Inc. v. Options: A. holding that a preexisting or antecedent debt may constitute sufficient consideration to support a mortgage B. holding mortgage lenders claim for a postdefault postacceleration prepayment premium pursuant to escape clause in mortgage documents that prohibited debtor from evading prepayment fee by tendering full amount of debt postforeclosure had to be disallowed because the debtor in proposing to pay mortgage debt over time in plan of reorganization was not tendering full amount of debt and was not attempting to prepay this accelerated debt C. holding that a mortgagee could enforce mortgage covenants requiring the mortgagors to keep the property free of encumbrances even after it foreclosed by advertisement and purchased the property for the full amount of the mortgage debt because the mortgage covenants concerned title to the mortgaged property rather than repayment of the debt D. holding that a debt collectors filing of a lawsuit on a debt that appears to be timebarred is an unfair and unconscionable means of collecting the debt E. holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or

assistant: The best answer is B. holding mortgage lenders claim for a postdefault postacceleration prepayment premium pursuant to escape clause in mortgage documents that prohibited debtor from evading prepayment fee by tendering full amount of debt postforeclosure had to be disallowed because the debtor in proposing to pay mortgage debt over time in plan of reorganization was not tendering full amount of debt and was not attempting to prepay this accelerated debt
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: retroactive application of the statute may still be impermissible if it violates a constitutional provision. See St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 316,121 S.Ct. 2271 (noting that Congress may enact retrospective laws “within constitutional limits”); see also Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 267, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (noting that “[a]bsent a violation of [a constitutional provision], the potential unfairness of retroactive civil legislation is not a sufficient reason for a court to fail to give a statute its intended scope”). This court has previously determined that the retroactive application of the stop-time rule to proceedings that were currently pending when the IIRIRA was enacted does not violate the due process clause. Gonzalez-Torres, 213 F.3d at 902-03; see also Rojas-Reyes, 235 F.3d at 121— 24 (<HOLDING>). There is no reason to treat the due process Options: A. holding that being placed in removal proceedings rather than deportation proceedings does not violate a petitioners due process rights B. holding that retroactive application of the stoptime rule to proceedings pending when the iirira was enacted does not violate substantive or procedural due process rights C. holding no retroactive application D. holding that doctrine does not violate due process E. holding retroactive application

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that retroactive application of the stoptime rule to proceedings pending when the iirira was enacted does not violate substantive or procedural due process rights
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: Without limiting anything in this Section 3 the Company will use its reasonable best efforts and continue to cooperate with CEC and other parties in the implementation of the Restructuring, including providing, making available and/or providing access to the premises, properties, businesses, operations, books and records and other information that is reasonably requested in connection with implementing the Restructuring (subject to existing confidentiality obligations among various parties, attorney/client and other privileges and immunities and other customary limitations appropriate under the circumstances) and responding timely, and causing applicable personnel to respond timely, to such requests.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: However, it ruled Dougherty’s testimony about appellant’s alleged hearsay statements was inadmissible because the evidence failed to establish the reliability of those statements. Appellant contends sufficient corroborating evidence established the reliability of the proffered statements and, thus, that the trial court erred in excluding them. We hold the trial court erred as a matter of law in ruling that the testimony of the hearsay declarant—appellant—was unavailable. Because appellant had complete control over his own availability as a witness, we hold that he failed as a matter of law to prove his testimony was unavailable, and we conclude the trial court’s refusal to admit the statements was not error. See Perry v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 572, 581-82, 701 S.E.2d 431, 436-37 (2010) (<HOLDING>). “ ‘[T]he sufficiency of the proof to Options: A. holding that appellate court in affirming trial courts decision may rely in part on a ground not presented to trial court B. holding that despite a trial courts failure to make specific factual findings an appellate court is free to affirm on any grounds for which there is sufficient record to permit conclusions of law C. holding an appellate court is not limited to the grounds offered by the trial court in support of its decision and may affirm on any ground on which additional factual findings are not required D. holding that an appellate court may affirm a grant of summary judgment on any ground appearing in the record even if the circuit court did not rely on it E. holding that an appellate court may affirm the result reached by a district court on alternative grounds

assistant: The best answer is C. holding an appellate court is not limited to the grounds offered by the trial court in support of its decision and may affirm on any ground on which additional factual findings are not required
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: note that "we ordinarily do not address ineffective-assistance arguments on direct appeal, especially where, as here, the factual basis for the claims is not well developed.” United States v. Duka, 671 F.3d 329, 353 n. 18 (3d Cir. 2011). 4 . Our certificate of appealability directed the parties to focus on three issues: (1) the impact of the Waiver on Murray's claim concerning his right to effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal; (2) whether a § 2255 petition is the proper vehicle for such a claim; and (3) whether Murray’s rights were, in fact, violated by a denial of his right to effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. In light of our conclusion concerning the first issue, we do not reach the second and third issues raised in our certificate. Mabry, 536 F.3d at 242 Options: A. holding obliquely raising issue in footnote insufficient to surmount waiver threshold B. holding that a failure to file an appeal is within the scope of the waiver because the failure does not undermine the validity of the plea or waiver C. holding that a plea agreement with a waiver of direct appeal rights does not include a waiver of collateral remedies because the government could have included a waiver of collateral rights in the plea agreement and chose not to do so D. holding that the validity of a collateral waiver is a threshold issue E. holding that collateral review of the validity of a jury waiver in the absence of a rule 23a writing is not available absent any indication the defendant was prejudiced by the technical error

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the validity of a collateral waiver is a threshold issue
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All terms used in this Agreement which are defined in Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (the “Code”) currently in effect in the State of New York and which are not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings herein as set forth therein.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the parties. See id. at 719, 47 S.E.2d at 31. Thus, we are not compelled by the Full Faith and Credit Clause to enforce this conveyance. Nevertheless, plaintiff argues that even if this Court determines that the Kansas divorce judgment did attempt to determine the title to North Carolina real property, the remainder of the judgment should be enforced. Essentially, plaintiff contends that the last sentence in Paragraph 19 could be “severed” to allow sale of the property and an equitable division of the proceeds as per the previous sentences in the paragraph. Plaintiff supports his argument by citing case law which tends to suggest that only those parts of a foreign judgment that attempt to determine ultimate title to North Carolina property are void. See id. at 720, 47 S.E.2d at 32 (<HOLDING>); Kirstein v. Kirstein, 64 N.C. App. 191, 193, Options: A. holding that a foreign subsidiary that is not registered to do business in north carolina has no place of business employees or bank accounts in north carolina does not design manufacture or advertise its products in north carolina and does not solicit business in north carolina cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in north carolina even if some of the companys products do enter north carolina through the stream of commerce B. holding to the extent that the foreign decree attempts to affect title to property in north carolina it is void C. holding that so much of the foreign judgment as attempts to affect the title to north carolina property is a nullity D. holding that any part of a foreign decree which attempted to determine ultimate title to north carolina realty is void E. holding that north carolina court lacked personal jurisdiction over illinois bank even though some of its customers resided in north carolina and loan proceeds were used in north carolina

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that so much of the foreign judgment as attempts to affect the title to north carolina property is a nullity
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Agreement, JPMorgan may assign any of its rights or duties hereunder to any one or more of its Affiliates without the prior written consent of Counterparty. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Master Confirmation to the contrary requiring or allowing JPMorgan to purchase, sell, receive or deliver any Shares or other securities to or from Counterparty, JPMorgan may designate any of its Affiliates to purchase, sell, receive or deliver such Shares or other securities and otherwise to perform JPMorgan’s obligations in respect of any Transaction and any such designee may assume such obligations. JPMorgan may assign the right to receive Settlement Shares to any third party who may legally receive Settlement Shares. JPMorgan shall be discharged of its obligations to Counterparty only to the extent of any such performance. For the avoidance of doubt, JPMorgan hereby acknowledges that notwithstanding any such designation hereunder, to the extent any of JPMorgan’s obligations in respect of any Transaction are not completed by its designee, JPMorgan shall be obligated to continue to perform or to cause any other of its designees to perform in respect of such obligations.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the parties shall, and shall cause their respective affiliates to, execute such documents and perform such further acts as may be reasonably required or desirable to carry out or to perform the provisions of this Agreement, including negotiating in good faith a definitive Shareholder Instrument.

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: those responses as such, as indicated in his 1999 letter to the president of the University. The fact that he held out hope that the president would intercede on his behalf does not change the accrual date for the statute of limitations because that date is measured by the standard of when a person, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of his injury. See Stewart, 2006 WL 626921, at *4 (statute of limitations under the ADA accrues “when the plaintiff knew or had reason to know of the injury serving as the basis for his claim.”); see also Fox v. DeSoto, 489 F.3d 227, 233 (6th Cir.2007) (“Under federal law, the limitations period begins to run when a plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury that forms the basis of his claim.”); Soignier, 92 F.3d at 551 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff contends Options: A. holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered B. holding that the statute of limitations begins to run under federal law when plaintiffs knew or should have known of the injury which forms the basis of their claims C. holding that under the ada discovery of the original act of discrimination not future confirmation of the injury or determination that the injury is unlawful is when the statute of limitations begins to run D. holding that the statute of limitations period begins to run when the allegedly discriminatory pension plan is applied to the plaintiffs and leaving determination of the actual date the statute begins to run on each claim to the district court E. holding that georgias statute of limitations for personal injury actions should be applied to discrimination claims brought under the rehabilitation act and title ii of the ada

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that under the ada discovery of the original act of discrimination not future confirmation of the injury or determination that the injury is unlawful is when the statute of limitations begins to run
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: have been satisfied, the case should be remanded.”) (citation omitted). 3. Timeliness of Removal Finally, the Younts challenge the timeliness of the removal of this case. A defendant seeking to remove a case in diversity jurisdiction must file a notice of removal within thirty days after service of the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). If, however, a case is not removable at the outset, a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after the defendant receives “a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first rity, that the thirty-day time period applies to all removals, including those in which fraudulent joinder to defeat diversity jurisdiction is claimed. See, e.g., Poulos v. Naas Foods, Inc., 959 F.2d 69, 73 n. 4 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). See also Jernigan v. Ashland Oil Inc., 989 Options: A. holding that removal was untimely where the removing defendant could have ascertained from the face of a complaint that certain nondiverse codefendants were fraudulently joined but did not seek removal based on fraudulent joinder until after the state court granted a motion to strike the plaintiffs allegations against the diversitydefeating codefendants B. holding that removal based on fraudulent joinder was not timely where it occurred more than thirty days after the removing defendants learned of facts showing that a nondiverse codefendant was fraudulently joined C. holding that a removal notice must be filed within a reasonable time after fraudulent joinder becomes evident D. holding that failure to remove within thirty days after receiving a statecourt complaint from which the removing defendant could have discerned fraudulent joinder of a nondiverse party rendered removal untimely E. holding that a notice of removal based on fraudulent joinder was procedurally defective because it was filed more than thirty days after defendants could have intelligently ascertained that the action was removable

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that failure to remove within thirty days after receiving a statecourt complaint from which the removing defendant could have discerned fraudulent joinder of a nondiverse party rendered removal untimely