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: ERISA plan entities are defined as “the principals, the employer, the plan, the plan fiduciaries and the beneficiaries.” Id.; see also Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Neusser, 810 F.2d 550, 556 (6th Cir.1987). While PONI is certainly a traditional ERISA plan entity, MVP is clearly not. MVP’s sole responsibility is to provide record-keeping services for PONI pursuant to the parties’ oral agreement. We have previously stated that “[w]hen an ERISA plan’s relationship with another entity is not governed by ERISA, it is subject to state law.” Provident Bank, 170 F.3d at 617. Specifically, the ERISA Plan “acquire[sj the "same rights of action under state law as other entities not created by ERISA.” Id.; see also Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Castonguay, 984 F.2d 1518, 1522 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). MVP argues that even if it is not a principal Options: A. holding that a canadian registered retirement savings plan rrsp that was just like an american ira was nonexempt because the exemption statute exempts iras not plans just like iras B. holding that erisa doesnt purport to regulate those relationships where a plan operates just like any other commercial entity C. holding that erisa does not preempt the plaintiffs claim that the erisa plan administrator is liable for medical malpractice where the plaintiff premised the claim solely on state law and did not invoke the erisa plan D. holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant E. holding that where a governmental entity purchases a benefit plan on behalf of government employees and dele gates the administration to a private insurer the plan is a government plan exempt from erisa

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that erisa doesnt purport to regulate those relationships where a plan operates just like any other commercial entity
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 Credit Party and each Subsidiary thereof: (a) has all Governmental Approvals required by any Applicable Law for it to conduct its business as currently being conducted, each of which is in full force and effect, is final and not subject to review on appeal and is not the subject of any pending or, to its knowledge, threatened attack by direct or collateral proceeding; (b) is in compliance with each Governmental Approval applicable to it and in compliance with all other Applicable Laws relating to it or any of its respective properties; and (c) has timely filed all material reports, documents and other materials required to be filed by it under all Applicable Laws with any Governmental Authority and has retained all material records and documents required to be retained by it under Applicable Law except in each case of clause (a), (b) or (c) where the failure to have, comply or file could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company has all requisite power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and, after giving effect to the Shareholder Approval and the amendment to the Articles of Incorporation contemplated thereby, to perform its obligations hereunder in accordance with the terms hereof. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by the Company have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate action, including in compliance with Article ELEVENTH of the Articles of Incorporation. This Agreement has been, and at or prior to the Closing, will have been, duly executed and delivered by the Company, and this Agreement constitutes the legal, valid and binding obligation of the Company enforceable in accordance with its terms, except as enforceability may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, fraudulent transfer, reorganization, moratorium and similar laws relating to or affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights generally and by general equitable principles.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices shall be deemed given by prepaid reputable overnight courier, and addressed as set forth at the signature line below or to such other address as the party to receive the notice or request so designates by written notice to the other.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: away from Oklahoma, we believe this is outweighed by the inconvenience to a Georgia resident who would be forced to sue in a foreign forum on a cause of action allegedly arising from that nonresident’s introduction of defective or negligently maintained goods into our stream of commerce. J. C. Penney Co. v. Malouf Co., 230 Ga. 140 (196 SE2d 145); and (4) Our legislature has given the courts of this state through enactment of our long arm statute the authority to entertain litigation against nonresidents who commit a tortious injury in this state. We find, on the balance, it to be "reasonable” to subject Rebel Aviation to Georgia’s personam jurisdiction, even though its sole "contact” with Georgia is this single activ . 178 (201 A2d 387) cert. den. 380 U.S. 907 (13 LE2d 795, 85 SC 888) (<HOLDING>). But see Terasse v. Wisconsin Feeder Pig Options: A. holding that in analyzing whether a limited public forum has been created we consider the nature of the property or means of communication the governments purpose in permitting whatever limited access it has allowed and the conditions of access eg whether permission is required B. holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims C. recognizing a university campus as limited public forum D. holding in mcgee limited to suits involving contracts in which the forum has a unique interest E. recognizing that where plaintiff is from the forum state and defendant is from an alternate forum each forum can claim a connection to one of the parties

assistant: The best answer is D. holding in mcgee limited to suits involving contracts in which the forum has a unique interest
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 questions concerning the construction, validity, enforcement and interpretation of this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Colorado, without regard to the principals of conflicts of law thereof. Each party agrees that all legal proceedings concerning the interpretations, enforcement and defense of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement (whether brought against a party hereto or its respective affiliates, directors, officers, shareholders, partners, members, employees or agents) shall be commenced exclusively in the state and federal courts of Colorado. Each party hereby irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts of Colorado for the adjudication of any dispute hereunder or in connection herewith or the transaction contemplated hereby or discussed herein, and hereby irrevocably waives, and agrees not to assert in any suit, action or proceeding, any claim that it is not an appropriate venue for such proceeding. Each party hereby irrevocably waives personal service of process and consents to process being served in any such suit, action or proceeding by mailing a copy thereof via registered or certified mail or overnight delivery (with evidence of delivery) to such party at the address in effect for notices to it under this Agreement and agrees that such service shall constitute good and sufficient service of process and notice thereof.

assistant: Governing 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: to support its policy of favoring the maintenance of class actions. King v. Kansas City S. Indus., Inc., 519 F.2d 20, 25-26 (7th Cir.1975). After certifying a class, the Court retains broad power to modify the definition of the class if it believes that the class definition is inadequate. BuycksRoberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322, 328-29 (N.D.Ill.1995). II. Analysis Murray argues that the proposed class meets each of the four Rule 23(a) prerequisites and requests that the Court grant certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). (R. 61, Pl.’s Mem. at 5-11) Although E*Trade refutes only the adequacy of Murray as class representative, the Court must consider whether Murray meets each requirement. Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181, 1188 (11th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); see also New Cingular Wireless Servs., 232 Options: A. holding that in the rule 23 class action context named plaintiff may appeal a denial of class certification even if his or her individual claims had been satisfied through the entry of judgment B. holding that where it is clear from the allegations on the face of the complaint that the party seeking class certification could prove no set of facts sufficient to satisfy the requirements of both civ r 23 a and civ r 23 b the trial court may deny a motion to certify made pursuant to civ r 23 c without first granting the movant an evidentiary hearing pursuant to civ r 23 c 1 C. holding that rule 23 applied even when the new york statute providing the cause of action prohibited class relief D. holding that class claims that fail to meet the requirements of rule 23 may be properly dismissed by granting a rule 12b6 motion E. holding that even if a defendant in a proposed class action does not seriously contest whether the rule 23 requirements have been met a court nevertheless has the responsibility of conducting its own inquiry as to whether the requirements of rule 23 have been satisfied in a particular case

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that even if a defendant in a proposed class action does not seriously contest whether the rule 23 requirements have been met a court nevertheless has the responsibility of conducting its own inquiry as to whether the requirements of rule 23 have been satisfied in a particular case
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: though it may be more expedient for the legislature to redraft the statute in its entirety. See Hill, 202 Ill. 2d at 156; McDougall, 389 Ill. at 155. Defendant further contends that the decision by another division of this appellate district in In re E.H., 355 Ill. App. 3d 564 (2005), which he claims held section 115 — 10 to be facially unconstitutional en toto, is “controlling.” We begin by initially noting that defendant misstates the effect that the decision of one appellate court panel has upon the subsequent considerations of another. We are not bound by the decisions of the other divisions of this district so that even if E.H. held as defendant claims, it would not be “controlling” over our analysis. Muller v. Health & Hospital Governing Comm’n, 106 Ill. App. 3d 383, 386 (1982) (<HOLDING>), rev’d on other grounds, 93 Ill. 2d 543 (1983) Options: A. holding res judicata applied to improper property division before holding parties were bound by their division agreement B. holding that appellate court is not bound by the agencys interpretation of a statute or its determination of a strictly legal issue C. holding that the attorney generals decision not to provide representation to an employee is reviewable by the appellate division not by the law division where the actions against the employee are pending D. holding itself not bound by the opinion of another division of its own appellate district E. holding that this court is not bound by decisions of the appellate division or the third circuit even where those decisions concern the same parties and legal issues

assistant: The best answer is D. holding itself not bound by the opinion of another division of its own appellate district
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: particular time charter does not act as a basis for the time charterer’s liability to injured longshoremen. See, e.g., Mallard v. Aluminum Co. of Canada, Ltd., 634 F.2d 236, 242 n. 5 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 816, 102 S.Ct. 93, 70 L.Ed.2d 85 (1981); Dougherty v. Navigazione San Paolo, S.P.A. Medafrica Line, 622 F.Supp. 1, 3-4 (E.D.Pa.1984). The reason most courts have held that a time charterer generally has no such liability is that a time charterer only rents space on a vessel; it exercises no control over vessel and makes no decisions about daily operation. Admittedly, authority exists for the proposition that Clause Eight imposes liability on the time charterer for injuries to persons unloading a ship. See Turner v. Japan Lines, Ltd., 651 F.2d 1300, 1306 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 967, 103 S.Ct. 294, 74 Options: A. holding that clause eight requires time charterer to indemnify shipowner for any damages awarded because of injury to longshoreman B. holding that clause 8 of the nype charter party expressly makes the time charterer hable for the vessels neghgence C. holding that a charter party creates no contractual duty towards a longshoreman on the part of a time charterer D. holding that limitation of liability clause was unambiguous E. holding that clause eight imposes liability on time charterer for injuries to longshoremen

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that clause eight imposes liability on time charterer for injuries to longshoremen
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: or exclusion.”); see also Field v. Mans, 516 U.S. 59, 67-75, 116 S.Ct. 437, 442-46, 133 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995)(discussing the “negative pregnant” rule of statutory construction, that the inclusion of a term in one section of a statute implies its intentional exclusion from another section). That is the same reasoning the Sixth Circuit used. See Rutledge, 33 F.3d at 674. Therefore, we hold that § 4B1.4(b)(3)(A) applies even if the defendant was not actually convicted of the crime of violence in connection with which he possessed the firearm. Instead, the government need only prove that a crime of violence was committed in connection with the firearm possession, and that proof can be by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Skenberg, 89 F.3d 1461, 1476 (11th Cir.1996)(<HOLDING>). In this case, the government met its burden. Options: A. holding at trial a criminal defendant has the burden to prove his insanity by a preponderance of the evidence B. recognizing that sentencing facts are based on the evidence and testimony presented at sentencing under a preponderance of the evidence standard C. holding that criminal conduct of which defendant is acquitted may be used as sentencing factor if proved by preponderance of the evidence D. holding that a defendant must prove an affirmative defense at sentencing stage by a preponderance of evidence E. holding that the government must prove the facts used in sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the government must prove the facts used in sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence
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: (1987), formerly 5 C.F.R. § 713.214(a)(1) (1978), which requires employees to bring charges to the attention of an EEO Counselor within 30 days of alleged discriminatory conduct. Federal government equal employment opportunity enforcement was later transferred to the EEOC by the President, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 901 etseq. (1982), in Section 3 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, 43 Fed. Reg. 19,807, 92 Stat. 3781, reprinted as an attachment to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-4 (1982). 7 . See, e.g., Stuckett v. United States Postal Service, 469 U.S. 898, 105 S.Ct. 274, 83 L.Ed.2d 210 (1984) (White, J., and Rehnquist, J., dissenting from denial of petition for writ of certiorari); Martinez v. Orr, 738 F.2d 1107, 1110 (10th Cir.1984); see also Hewlett v. Russo, 649 F.Supp. 457, 459 (E.D.Va.1986) (<HOLDING>). 8 . The Cooper v. Bell, court also offered Options: A. recognizing that past cases have decided both the administrative and district court time limit questions but according no significance to the difference in contexts B. holding that subject matter questions may be but are not necessarily decided before questions of personal jurisdiction C. holding that even district court cases decided by panels of three have no precedential value D. holding that constitutional questions will not be decided if case can be decided on other grounds E. holding that 60day time limit for notice of appeal in civil cases not 10day limit in criminal cases applies to 2255 proceedings

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that past cases have decided both the administrative and district court time limit questions but according no significance to the difference in contexts
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 payments to be made by the Performance Guarantor hereunder shall be made free and clear of any deduction or withholding. If the Performance Guarantor is required by Law to make any deduction or withholding on account of Tax or otherwise from any such payment, the sum due from it in respect of such payment shall be increased to the extent necessary to ensure that, after the making of such deduction or withholding, the Affected Parties receive a net sum equal to the sum which it would have received had no deduction or withholding been made.

assistant: Taxes
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 covenants, representations and warranties made in this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect so long as any Obligations remain outstanding. The obligations of Borrower to indemnify Lender with respect to the expenses, damages, losses, costs and liabilities described in Section 9.2 shall survive until all applicable statute of limitations periods with respect to actions that may be brought against Lender have run.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if you do not know whether you have reached the age of majority where you live , or do not understand this section , please ask your parent or legal guardian for help before you create a microsoft account or skype account .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: From and after the date hereof, the Agent shall make all payments in respect of [the][each] Assigned Interest (including payments of principal, interest, fees and other amounts) to [the][the relevant] Assignor for amounts which have accrued to but excluding the date hereof and to [the][the relevant] Assignee for amounts which have accrued from and after the date hereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither Borrower nor any Borrower Party (or their affiliates) shall use the name of Lender, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof, in any advertising, press release, "tombstone," or on any sign erected on the Property without the prior written approval of Lender in each instance; provided, however that Borrower shall have the right to disclose any of the foregoing names to the extent required under applicable laws (including, without limitation, securities laws applicable to Borrower or Guarantor).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 286 F.3d at 1299. The enhancement only applies if: (1) the defendant abused a position of trust with respect to the victim of the crime; and (2) the position of trust contributed in a significant way to facilitating the offense. Harness, 180 F.3d at 1236. Rogers fails to satisfy the plain error test. He has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed different sentences had it not employed the abuse-of-trust enhancement. The sentences Rogers received at the bottom of his Guidelines sentencing range, were within the sentencing range the court would have used had it not made the enhancement, and the court gave no indication that it would have been inclined to give lower sentences. Cf United States v. Wood, 430 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Fields, 408 F.3d 1356, 1361 Options: A. holding that consideration by a sentencing court of acquitted conduct was appropriate in establishing the applicable guideline range or in determining the sentence to impose within the guideline range B. holding that a defendant met the third prong of plain error analysis demonstrating prejudice resulting from a booker error where the sentencing judge made several statements indicating the mandatory guideline sentence was very very severe and sentenced the defendant at the low end of the guideline range C. holding in booker error case where defendant was sentenced at lowend of guideline range that defendant did not establish a reasonable probability of a different result where court expressed no desire to impose a lower sentence D. holding that the fact that the defendant was sentenced to the bottom of the mandatory guidelines range without more was insufficient to satisfy the third prongs requirement that the defendant show a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence under an advisory guideline system E. holding that there is simply no booker error where a defendant was sentenced to the statutory minimum sentence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding in booker error case where defendant was sentenced at lowend of guideline range that defendant did not establish a reasonable probability of a different result where court expressed no desire to impose a lower sentence
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 has filed all reports, schedules, forms, statements and other documents required to be filed by the Company under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act, including pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) thereof, for the two years preceding the date hereof (or such shorter period as the Company was required by law or regulation to file such material) (the foregoing materials, including the exhibits thereto and documents incorporated by reference therein, and any prospectus, prospectus supplement, amendment or supplement filed in relation thereto, together with the Prospectus and the Prospectus Supplement, being collectively referred to herein as the “ SEC Reports ”) on a timely basis or has received a valid extension of such time of filing and has filed any such SEC Reports prior to the expiration of any such extension. As of their respective dates, the SEC Reports complied in all material respects with the requirements of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act, as applicable, and none of the SEC Reports, when filed, contained any untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The Company has not been an issuer subject to Rule 144(i) under the Securities Act during the past three years. The financial statements of the Company included or incorporated by reference in the SEC Reports or the Registration Statement comply in all material respects with applicable accounting requirements and the rules and regulations of the Commission with respect thereto as in effect at the time of filing. Such financial statements have been prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles applied on a consistent basis during the periods involved (“ GAAP ”), except as may be otherwise specified in such financial statements or the notes thereto and except that unaudited financial statements may not contain all footnotes required by GAAP, and fairly present in all material respects the financial position of the Company and its consolidated Subsidiaries as of and for the dates thereof and the results of operations and cash flows for the periods then ended, subject, in the case of unaudited statements, to normal, immaterial, year-end audit adjustments. No other financial statements or schedules are required to be included in the Registration Statement or the Prospectus.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: their arguments to the jury.” State v. Miller, 271 N.C. 646, 659, 157 S.E.2d 335, 346 (1967). Further, the control of counsel’s arguments “must be left largely to the discretion of the trial judge,” State v. Johnson, 298 N.C. 355, 369, 259 S.E.2d 752, 761 (1979), because the trial judge ‘sees what is done, and hears what is said. He is cognizant of all the surrounding circumstances, and is a better judge of the lati tude that ought to be allowed to counsel in the argument of any particular case.’ State v. Thompson, 278 N.C. 277, supporting the jury’s verdict notwithstanding improper characterizations regarding the veracity of witnesses’ statements has been sufficient in some cases to prevent the imposition of a new trial. See e.g. State v. Sexton, 336 N.C. 321, 444 S.E.2d 879 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Thompson, 278 N.C. at 277, 179 S.E.2d at 315 Options: A. holding that it is improper for a prosecutor to assume the existence of prejudicial facts not in evidence B. holding it was improper for prosecutor to inject personal opinion in statements to the jury in closing argument C. holding that even if the statements were improperly admitted any error was harmless since there was overwhelming evidence connecting the defendant to the conspiracy D. holding that statements to the jury made by the prosecutor asserting that a defense witness was lying was improper but considering all the facts and circumstances revealed in the record which showed overwhelming evidence against the defendant such statements did not constitute a prejudicial error E. holding that prosecutors statements regarding his opinion as to the truthfulness of a defense witness considering the evidence against the defendant did not reach the level of the grossly improper statements which would require the trial court to correct them ex mero motu

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that statements to the jury made by the prosecutor asserting that a defense witness was lying was improper but considering all the facts and circumstances revealed in the record which showed overwhelming evidence against the defendant such statements did not constitute a prejudicial error
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: be liberally construed.” See Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir.1998). However, both the Supreme Court and this Court have concluded that a defendant’s pro se status in civil litigation generally will not excuse mistakes he makes regarding procedural rules. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 1984, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993) (explaining that the Court "never [had] suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation shall be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel,” because "experience teaches that strict adherence to the procedural requirements specified by the legislature is the best guarantee of evenhanded administration of the law”); see also Wayne v. Jarvis, 197 F.3d 1098, 1104 (11th Cir.1999) Options: A. holding that liberal construction of the pleading requirements for pro se litigants does not equate with liberal deadlines B. holding that although pro se litigants are entitled to liberal construction of their pleadings pro se litigants must follow procedural rules C. recognizing that although pro se litigants are not entitled to greater rights than represented litigants due process principles permit the imposition of a procedural bar only after consideration of the pro se litigants reasonable expectations about what had occurred D. holding that a pro se litigants failure to comply with the filing deadlines for a notice of appeal set out in federal rule of bankruptcy procedure 8002 meant that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the litigants appeal E. holding that rule 56f applies to pro se litigants

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that liberal construction of the pleading requirements for pro se litigants does not equate with liberal deadlines
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: than in the precise and legalistic language usually found in an indictment, a presentment or an arrest warrant.” Carratt v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 55, 59, 205 S.E.2d 653, 656 (1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 973 (1975). The purpose of this requirement ‘ ‘is to apprise the subject of the search of the offense being investigated and the evidence sought, and to advise the officers in advance as to what they are to be searching for.” Id. at 60, 205 S.E.2d at 656. Here, the affidavit specifically describes the offenses being investigated as breaking and entering, grand larceny, and possession of stolen property. This language “substantially” alleges, in general terms, the offenses that are the basis of the search. Compare Moore v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 569, 570, 179 S.E.2d 458, 459-60 (1971) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the affidavit describes the Options: A. holding that where jury was instructed on both a greater offense and lesserincluded offense and the jury convicted on the lesserincluded offense the double jeopardy provision prohibited retrial on the greater offense B. holding that no offense alleged where affidavit described offense as felony C. holding that a felony drug offense is an offense punishable by more than one year as defined in 21 usc 80244 2000 regardless of whether the state of conviction classified the particular offense as a misdemeanor or felony D. holding that reversal of conviction for felony murder was required where jury failed to find the defendant guilty of the underlying felony as essential element of the felony murder offense E. holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that no offense alleged where affidavit described offense as felony
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 any arbitrator or court of competent jurisdiction determines that Executive or the Company has violated any of Executive ’s or the Company’s respective promises or obligations contained in the Change in Control Agreement or this Release Agreement , then the injured party shall be entitled to recover, in addition to its damages, all costs and expenses incurred in its enforcement efforts, including actual attorneys’ fees, from the violating party. In addition, the parties acknowledge and agree that a breach by a party of any of its promises or obligations contained in the Change in Control Agreement or this Release Agreement shall cause the other party irreparable harm and that the other party and its affiliates shall be entitled to seek injunctive relief, in addition to damages, for any such breach.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you irrevocably agree that the courts of england and wales shall have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve any dispute or claim of whatever nature arising out of or relating to this policy and consent or otherwise to the use of your personal data , and that the laws of england and wales shall govern such dispute or claim .

assistant: Jurisdiction
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: Until the Separation Date, the Company will pay you a prorated salary at the annualized rate of Three Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars ($340,000), to be paid in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll practices (“Base Salary”).

assistant: Base Salary
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: Executive acknowledges and agrees that the Company’s remedies at law for a breach or threatened breach of any of the provisions of Agreement would be inadequate and, in recognition of this fact, Executive agrees that, in the event of such a breach or threatened breach, in addition to any remedies at law, the Company, without posting any bond or other security, shall be entitled to obtain equitable relief in the form of specific performance, a temporary restraining order, a temporary or permanent injunction or any other equitable remedy which may then be available, without the necessity of showing actual monetary damages, in addition to any other equitable relief (including without limitation an accounting and/or disgorgement) and/or any other damages as a matter of law.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns permitted hereby, except that no Loan Party may assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the Agent and the Lenders. Nothing in this Agreement, expressed or implied, shall be construed to confer upon any Person (other than the parties hereto, their respective successors and assigns permitted hereby, Participants to the extent provided in subsection (c) of this Section and, to the extent expressly contemplated hereby, the Related Parties of each of the Credit Parties) any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Agreement.

assistant: Successors
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 HEREBY WAIVES TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY THE OTHER PARTY IN CONNECTION WITH ANY MATTER ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THE TRANSACTION, THIS AGREEMENT, THE PROPERTY OR THE RELATIONSHIP OF BUYER AND SELLER HEREUNDER.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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: over the “fog line” on the shoulder once, this movement does not constitute a violation of Missouri law. While the parties did not raise this issue, the section of Route 44 on which the incident occurred was a two-lane highway, which would appear to fall outside the scope of the statute. Furthermore, the phrase “as nearly as practicable” indicates that the statute was not intended to comprehend minor swerv ing. See United States v. Freeman, 209 F.3d 464, 466 (6th Cir.2000) (“[w]e cannot ... agree that one isolated incident of a large motor home partially weaving into the emergency lane for a few feet and an instant in time constitutes a failure to keep the vehicle within a single lane 'as nearly as practicable”’) (citing United States v. Gregory, 79 F.3d 973, 978 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>)). Because I find Sugar credible when he says Options: A. holding that when a statute is patterned after a similar provision in another states statute it is proper to resort to judicial constructions placed on the statute by the courts of the state whose statute provided the model in determining the proper construction B. holding that an isolated incident of a vehicle crossing into the emergency lane of a roadway does not violate state statutes requirement that vehicles remain entirely in a single lane as nearly as practical C. holding that similar jurisdictional bar precluded review only of administration of statute not of challenge to statute itself D. holding that one isolated incident of partially weaving into emergency lane does not constitute a traffic violation in tennessee E. holding that a uhaul trucks similar one time entry into the emergency lane failed to constitute a violation of a statute nearly identical to the statute at issue

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a uhaul trucks similar one time entry into the emergency lane failed to constitute a violation of a statute nearly identical to the statute at issue
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the Court’s attention in the underlying criminal case.” However, the district court further noted that “no motion or request for relief was ever filed on this issue.” Thereafter, McCamey pleaded guilty to • reduced charges and was. sentenced. The district court ruled that McCamey was not eligible for relief under the PCRA on this claim because he failed to pursue it in the district court or on appeal, ¶ 9 The district court did not err in determining that the" statute of limitations claim was barred under section 78B-9-106(l)(c) of the PCRA unless the exception in section 78B-9-106(3) applied. In addition, by pleading guilty to the amended charges, McCamey waived any pre-plea issues, including statutory and constitutional claims. See State v. Rhinehart, 2007 UT 61, ¶ 15, 167 P.3d 1046 (<HOLDING>); James v. Galetka, 965 P.2d 567, 573 (Utah Ct. Options: A. recognizing that a voluntary and understanding guilty plea entered without the benefit of a plea bargain waives all nonjurisdictional defects that occurred before the entry of the plea B. holding entry of a guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional issues C. holding that a voluntary guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings D. holding defendant by pleading guilty admits all essential elements of offense charged E. holding that by pleading guiltya defendant is deemed to have admitted the essential elements of the crime charged and thereby waives all nonjurisdictional defects including alleged preplea constitutional violations

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that by pleading guiltya defendant is deemed to have admitted the essential elements of the crime charged and thereby waives all nonjurisdictional defects including alleged preplea constitutional violations
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: or alter their child’s behavior. That corrective intent is lacking in a battery.” Ceaser v. State, 964 N.E.2d 911, 917 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), transfer denied, 969 N.E.2d 86 (Ind. 2012). “[0]ften the only way to determine whether the punishment is a non-criminal act of discipline that was unintentionally harsh or whether it constitutes the [crime] of child abuse is to look at the parent’s history of disciplining the child.” State v. Taylor, 701 A.2d 389, 396 (Md. 1997). In such cases, “[a] parent’s other disciplinary acts can be the most probative evidence of whether his or her disciplinary corporal punishment is imposed maliciously, with an intent to injure, or with a sincere desire to use appropriate corrective measures.” Id.; see People v. Taggart, 621 P.2d 1375, 1384-85 (Colo. 1981) (<HOLDING>), abrogated on other grounds by James v. Options: A. recognizing right of this court to regulate and discipline members of the bar B. holding prior bad acts evidence is admissible where there is an articulation or identification of the consequential fact to which the proffered evidence of other acts is directed C. recognizing that prior acts of excessive discipline may be admissible to negate any claim of accident or justification D. recognizing that a 11 evidence must be relevant to be admissible E. holding that corroborative evidence of prior specific acts of violence by victim may be admissible in selfdefense case where the defendant knew of the act

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that prior acts of excessive discipline may be admissible to negate any claim of accident or justification
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: behalf of the State or State entities, such claims are authorized under Missouri Antitrust Law, Mo. Stat. Ann. §§ 416.011 et seq. The Court will not dismiss Missouri’s claims for equitable monetary relief on its own behalf under the MPA because it is not clear that the definition of “persons” in Mo. Stat. Ann. § 407.010(5) excludes the State; it may be included in the category of “other legal entity.” Additionally, as discussed above, the requirement that the goods be purchased “primarily for personal, family or household purposes” does not exclude the State or State entities. Defendants do not contest the State’s authority to seek restitution and/or disgorgement on behalf of indirect purchasers under the MPA in light of Campos v. Ticketmaster Corp., 140 F.3d 1166, 1172 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The MPA also authorizes civil penalties up to Options: A. holding that injunctive relief was unwarranted when the jurys award already included prospective relief B. holding that even if indirect purchasers are barred from seeking damages relief they may still obtain injunctive relief C. holding that lack of subject matter jurisdiction precluded court from awarding injunctive relief as well as damages D. holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer E. holding that an arbitration agreement between a charging party and an employer precludes the eeoc from seeking purely monetary relief in federal court on behalf of the charging party but not from seeking broad injunctive relief

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that even if indirect purchasers are barred from seeking damages relief they may still obtain injunctive relief
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: Nothing contained in the Disclosure Schedules (as defined below) shall impact the treatment of any Liability as an Excluded Liability or for purposes of indemnification pursuant to Section 6 or otherwise. Company and Parent, jointly and severally, represent and warrant to Buyer that, except as set forth in the Disclosure Schedules (the “ Disclosure Schedules ”), the statements in this Section 3 are true and correct as of the Effective Date and as of the Closing Date, except to the extent such representations and warranties are specifically made as of a particular date (in which case such representations and warranties will be true and correct as of such date). The Disclosure Schedules shall be arranged in sections and subsections corresponding to the numbered and lettered sections and subsections in this Section 3 .

assistant: Representations