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: OPINION The petition for review is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. See Boone v. Wright, 314 Or 135, 836 P2d 727 (1992) Options: A. holding that the 1989 amendment to ors 1385102 does not apply to persons whose convictions became final before august 5 1989 B. holding that 2255s one year limitations period is also a reasonable time for prisoners to bring 2255 motions whose convictions became final before the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act took effect C. holding that 2254 petitions of prisoners whose convictions became final before the passage of the aedpa are timely if filed within one year from the aedpas effective date D. holding that prisoners whose convictions became final on or before april 24 1996 must file their 2255 motions before april 24 1997 E. holding that petitioners whose convictions became final before the enactment of aedpa had a oneyear grace period after aedpas effective date to file their federal habeas petitions

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the 1989 amendment to ors 1385102 does not apply to persons whose convictions became final before august 5 1989
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 are solely responsible for all activities conducted through your account whether or not you authorize the activity ( except to the extent that activities occur because someone gains access to our system without using your identifiers and password ) .

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: Release by MYDX. Except as to those obligations created by this Agreement, MYDX does hereby fully and forever release, acquit and discharge BCI along with BCI’s, attorneys, officers, principals, directors, shareholders, joint and co-venturers, employees, subcontractors, advisors, insurers, agents, administrators, executors, heirs, consultants, BCI primary point of contact also referred to as the PPC, assigns and representatives of every nature, from any and all accounts, allegations, claims, costs, debts, demands, expenses, injuries, liabilities, liens, losses or damages, obligations, rights, actions at law in equity or otherwise, and causes of action whatsoever including any third Party right to indemnity or contribution in reference to any claim related (whether directly or indirectly) to the action, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, and those that exist as well as those that may come into existence in the future against BCI. This release shall be construed as broadly as possible in favor of BCI. As to such matters being released, MYDX expressly waives and relinquishes any right or benefit, which he has or may have under the provisions of Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California or under any similar statute or principle of common law, which provides as follows: “A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.” MYDX and BCI, and each of them, hereby expressly, understand and acknowledge the significance and consequences of the foregoing specific waiver of said Section 1542. The Parties, and each of them, intentionally waive the provisions of Section 1542 upon the advice of his; her or its legal counsel, and each Party accepts full responsibility for any injury, damage or loss which may hereafter arise in respect of such releases, although unknown or unanticipated at the time of execution of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, the combination of which shall be enforceable against the parties actually executing the counterparts, and all of which together shall constitute one instrument. Delivery of an executed counterpart signature page to this Agreement by facsimile or similar electronic transmission will be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart thereof and will be deemed an original signature for all purposes.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: on a public exchange”). But not every communication from'management to corporate shareholders amounts to solicitation under § 14(a). Sargent v. Genesco, 492 F.2d 750, 767 (5th Cir.1974); see also Brown v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R.R., 328 F.2d 122, 125 (7th Cir.1964); see generally 4 Louis Loss & Joel Seligman, Securities Regulation 1952 (3d ed. 1990) (listing examples of communications not covered by § 14(a) rules). Rather, it is only when management seeks consent or authorization for actions “requiring such approval” that § 14(a) steps in to ensure that approval is given with full knowledge. Gaines v. Haughton, 645 F.2d 761, 775 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1145, 102 S.Ct. 1006, 71 L.Ed.2d 297 (1982); see also Ash v. GAF Corp., 723 F.2d 1090, 1094 (3d Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); cf. TSC Indus., Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 Options: A. holding that even though the plaintiff failed to prove that he suffered a meaningful injury he was nevertheless entitled to nominal damages for the defendants violation of his first amendment rights B. holding that an infringement on the right to vote necessarily causes irreparable harm C. holding that complainant must show that he suffered harm from the infringement of his corporate suffrage rights to state a claim under 14a D. holding that the opposing party must show substantial harm E. holding that for any utpcpl claim plaintiff must show that he 1 justifiably relied on a defendants wrongful conduct or representation and 2 suffered harm as a result of that reliance

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that complainant must show that he suffered harm from the infringement of his corporate suffrage rights to state a claim under 14a
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: Commencing on the Effective Date, the Executive shall be paid an annual base salary (“ Base Salary ”) in the amount of $500,000.00, payable in accordance with the Company’s payroll practices. Subject to the Executive’s rights under Section 5.2, Base Salary is subject to increase or decrease, from time to time, in the sole and absolute discretion of the Board.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: trailers into service, they suffered sudden and accidental physical injury in the form of cracking, buckling, and de-arching. Therefore, the ‘impaired property’ exclusion does not negate coverage in this case.” Although we have rejected the circuit court’s determination that the cracking of the trailers was the occurrence in this case, our determination that the failure of the trailers to haul concentrated loads is properly characterized as the occurrence does fit within the circuit court’s rationale. In this case, the failure by the trailers was both “sudden” and “accidental,” both in terms of the initial failure of particular trailers and in terms of the discovery that all of the Dorsey trailers were flawed. See Claussen v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 259 Ga. 333, 380 S.E.2d 686 (1989)(<HOLDING>). See also Alabama Plating Co. v. United States Options: A. holding that an insurance policy providing that the insurance company would pay all reasonable expenses incurred by the insured at our request emphasis omitted did not establish an agreement that the insurer would cover attorney fees and costs to the insured in a declaratory action B. holding that the word sudden in a pollutionexclusion clause in a general liability insurance policy was ambiguous ie was capable of more than one reasonable interpretation and therefore would be interpreted in favor of the insured to mean unexpected and unintended C. holding that an insurance contract should be construed as a reasonable person in the position of the insured would have understood it and that if the language used in the policy is reasonably susceptible to different constructions it must be given the construction most favorable to the insured D. recognizing that a clause in an insurance policy was susceptible to a construction in favor of the insured but that such a construction would be unreasonable absurd and produce results never intended or contemplated by the parties E. holding that only if provisions in an insurance contract are open to more than one interpretation should it be construed strictly against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the word sudden in a pollutionexclusion clause in a general liability insurance policy was ambiguous ie was capable of more than one reasonable interpretation and therefore would be interpreted in favor of the insured to mean unexpected and unintended
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 agrees to pay to the Lender a commitment fee (the “ Revolving Commitment Fee ”) at a per annum rate equal to 0.125% on the average daily Available Revolving Commitment from the date of this Agreement to and including the Facility Termination Date, payable in arrears on the last day of each quarter hereafter and on the Facility Termination Date.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise provided herein, all the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon, shall inure to the benefit of and shall be enforceable by the respective successors and permitted assigns of the parties hereto. No Stockholder may assign any of its rights hereunder to any Person other than a Permitted Transferee. Each Permitted Transferee of any Stockholder shall be subject to all of the terms of this Agreement, and by taking and holding such shares such Person shall be entitled to receive the benefits of and be conclusively deemed to have agreed to be bound by and to comply with all of the terms and provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no successor or assignee of the Corporation shall have any rights granted under this Agreement until such Person shall acknowledge its rights and obligations hereunder by a signed written statement of such Person’s acceptance of such rights and obligations.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: v. Crapps, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 915, 916 (2005). First, Commonwealth v. Verde, 444 Mass. 279, 280 (2005), held that “a drag certificate is akin to a business record and the confrontation clause is not implicated by this type of evidence.” We ruled that a docket sheet, like a drug certificate, is a business record and thus does not trigger the confrontation clause. Commonwealth v. Crapps, supra. Second, we determined that a docket sheet was not testimonial “because authors of prior conviction records are not witnesses against criminal defendants.” Id. at 916 n.3, citing People v. Shreck, 107 P.3d 1048, 1060-1061 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004) (docket sheets are business records that are explicitly exempt from the Crawford standard). See Commonwealth v. Maloney, 447 Mass. 577, 591-592 (2006) (<HOLDING>). In June, 2009, the United States Supreme Options: A. holding that g l c 278 11 a allowing record of conviction to serve as prima facie evidence of prior conviction did not violate confrontation clause B. holding that doctrine does not violate right of confrontation C. holding appellate court erred in reversing conviction on confrontation clause grounds because appellant did not clearly articulate to trial court that confrontation clause demanded admission of evidence in question D. holding prior statement subject to crossexamination when made does not violate confrontation clause E. holding that hearsay argument for admission of evidence did not preserve confrontation clause challenge on appeal argument could have referred either to rules of evidence or confrontation clause but failed to identify confrontation clause as basis and thus did not put trial court on notice of issue

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that g l c 278 11 a allowing record of conviction to serve as prima facie evidence of prior conviction did not violate confrontation clause
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: rule,” then this court may, in its discretion, determine that the interests of fairness preclude retroactive application of the new rule. See id. at 6-8, 18 P.3d at 208-10. Ah Loo did not announce a "new” rule, but, rather, merely clarilied the existing proposition that a person temporarily and lawfully detained need not be given Miranda warnings until the moment of express or implied accusation has arrived. See Ah Loo, 94 Hawai'i at 212, 10 P.3d at 733; Melemai, 64 Haw. at 482, 643 P.2d at 544; Patterson, 59 Haw. at 362-63, 581 P.2d at 756. As such, there is no "new Ah Loo rule" to which to give retroactive application in the first instance. 27 . We use the term "arrest” in this opinion to mean "physical” arrest. Cf. State v. Vallesteros, 84 Hawai'i 295, 301, 933 P.2d 632, 638 (1997) (<HOLDING>). 28 . Although the circuit court's COLs do not Options: A. holding that an arrest requires either physical force or where that is absent submission to the assertion of authority B. holding avoiding arrest is not the same as resisting arrest C. holding that an arrest may involve either 1 taking the alleged violator into exlended physical custody or 2 issuing the individual a citation and noting that when we use the word arrest in this opinion we refer to physical arrest D. holding a defendants response to even an invalid arrest may constitute independent grounds for arrest E. recognizing that an arrest requires either physical force or where physical force is absent submission to the assertion of authority

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an arrest may involve either 1 taking the alleged violator into exlended physical custody or 2 issuing the individual a citation and noting that when we use the word arrest in this opinion we refer to physical arrest
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: In essence, Defendants are alleging a material variance. We find this argument to be without merit. “[A]n indictment or information ,‘is sufficient if it, first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against him which he must defend, and, second, enables.him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.’ ” United States v. Allard, 864 F.2d 248, 250 (1st Cir.1989), citing United States v. Serino, 835 F.2d 924, 929 (1st Cir.1987), quoting Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974); see also United States v. Fisher, 3 F.3d 456, 462-63 (1st Cir.1993), quoting United States v. Tormos-Vega, 959 F.2d 1103, 1115 (1st Cir.1992); Beech-Nut Corp., 659 F.Supp. at 1498 (<HOLDING>); United States v. J. Treffiletti & Sons, 496 Options: A. holding indictment sufficient where it tracked language of ffdca section identified dates of shipments products shipped and recipients of shipments B. holding that the complaint pled a claim under the unamended 3729a2 in part because it tracked the language of the statute C. holding that there was no jurisdictional defect when the language of the charging document tracked the statutory language even though the facts proffered at the plea hearing were insufficient to establish that the defendant committed the crime D. holding that an indictment that is substantially in the language of the code is sufficient inform and substance E. holding that an indictment under 922g1 was not required to allege a substantial effect on interstate commerce an indictment which tracked the statutory language was sufficient

assistant: The best answer is A. holding indictment sufficient where it tracked language of ffdca section identified dates of shipments products shipped and recipients of shipments
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 capitalized term which is defined in the Credit Agreement, but which is not defined in this Third Amendment, shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Credit Agreement, as amended hereby. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references in this Third Amendment refer to the Credit Agreement, as amended hereby.

assistant: Defined 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Intercompany Subordination Agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties hereunder, including, but not limited to, the validity, interpretation, construction, breach, enforcement or termination hereof, and whether arising in contract or tort or otherwise, shall be governed by, and shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, the law of the State of New York.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Seller agrees to sell its interest in and to the Assets to Purchaser and Purchaser agrees to buy the Assets from Seller, all in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. SSL Riverview agrees to sell its interest in and to the SSL Riverview Assets to Purchaser and Purchaser agrees to buy the SSL Riverview Assets from SSL Riverview, all in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement, together with any Partner Agreements and, to the extent applicable, the Registration Rights Agreement, the Exchange Agreement, the Tax Receivable Agreement, the Governance Agreement and the Class B Shareholders Agreement, constitutes the entire agreement among the Partners with respect to the subject matter hereof and, as amended and restated herein, supersedes any agreement or understanding entered into as of a date prior to the date hereof among or between any of them with respect to such subject matter, including (without limitation), the Initial Partnership Agreement, the Prior Partnership Agreement and all Supplementary Agreements. If any provision contained in this Agreement is in conflict with, or inconsistent with, Article II, Article III, Article IV or Article V of the Governance Agreement (such Articles, the “ Governance Articles ”), the Governance Articles shall govern and control.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that the parties engage in licensing negotiations, are insufficient on their own to create an actual controversy. See Phillips Plastics Corp., 57 F.3d at 1053. The closest Defendants come to asserting infringement by Livorsi is to inform Plaintiff that it “has not been singled out ... concerning possible patent infringement ...” and to request information regarding other businesses that “may also infringe upon [the ’781] patent....” (R. 13-1, Defs.’ Mem., Ex. 2 ¶¶ 1, 2 (emphasis added).) This language does not constitute an express charge of infringement. See Phillips Plastics Corp., 57 F.3d at 1052 (affirming dismissal of suit where the defendant’s letter to the plaintiff stated that certain of the plaintiffs products were “covered by” its patent); Shell Oil Co., 970 F.2d at 888-89 (<HOLDING>). Without an express charge of infringement by Options: A. holding that false statements are constitutionally protected B. holding that vague conclusory statements are insufficient C. holding that statements in proof of loss are not conclusive claimant could explain statements D. holding analysts statements insufficient to satisfy particularity requirements because plaintiffs failed to identify with specificity the statements made by a particular defendant or describe how those statements were false or misleading E. holding patentees statements were insufficient to create a reasonable apprehension of an infringement suit despite statements that the alleged infringers activities fall within are covered by and are operations under the patent

assistant: The best answer is E. holding patentees statements were insufficient to create a reasonable apprehension of an infringement suit despite statements that the alleged infringers activities fall within are covered by and are operations under the patent
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: 1286 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not Options: A. recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress B. holding that act did not bar intentional infliction of emotional distress claim C. holding that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was preempted where it was based on the same conduct as a preempted claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing D. holding that a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is distinct from a claim for emotional distress damages under the employment discrimination statute E. holding that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was preempted where it arose out of the same conduct as a preempted contract claim

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was preempted where it arose out of the same conduct as a preempted contract claim
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 term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall end on the third year anniversary of the Effective Date (the “ Term ”); provided, that on the third year anniversary of the Effective Date and on each successive year anniversary thereafter, the Initial Term shall automatically be extended for additional one-year periods (the Initial Term, together with any extension thereof, the “ Term ”) unless either Party provides the other Party with a notice of termination at least ninety (90) days before any such year anniversary. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Executive’s employment hereunder may be terminated during the Term, subject to Section 1(d) of the Standard Terms and Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

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: the state court prosecution. Price raised the issue at the original suppression hearing, and his motion to suppress was denied. He then pleaded guilty, but appealed the denial of the motion; his appeal was also denied. Obviously, Price was a party to the state criminal proceeding, and, given the seriousness of the charges, he was motivated to fully litigate the issue at the time. See Ayers, 895 F.2d at 1271-72. Price does not get two bites at the apple. The Supreme Court has expressly rejected the idea that “every person asserting a federal right is entitled to one unencumbered opportunity to litigate that right in a federal district court, regardless of the legal posture in which the federal claim arises.” Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 103, 101 S.Ct. 411, 419, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) (<HOLDING>). This is so even if “the state court’s Options: A. holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc 1983 B. holding that conditionsofconfinement claims must be brought in 42 usc 1983 civil rights complaint rather than in habeas petition C. holding that the state law of collateral estoppel applies in civil rights actions brought under 42 usc 1983 D. holding that collateral estoppel applies to 1983 claims E. holding that in actions brought under 42 usc 1983 federal courts apply the states statute of limitation for personal injury

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the state law of collateral estoppel applies in civil rights actions brought under 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: Id. Second, the area searched must be one “from which an attack could be immediately launched,” and thus in any event must be capable of concealing at least one person. Id. Both of these conditions are satisfied here. Although the exact location of Lemus’s arrest was disputed in the district court, the district court found that he was apprehended shortly after he had “stepped into the apartment breaking the threshold of the sliding glass door.” This finding was not clearly in error. Even taking Lemus’s account of the events as authoritative, it is clear that at most Lemus was only partially outside the living room when he was arrested. The living room thus “immediately adjoined” the area where Lemus was arrested. Cf. Peals v. Terre Haute Police Dep’t, 535 F.3d 621, 628 (7th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, Options: A. holding that plaintiffs allegations that police officers moved into plaintiffs unoccupied house without their consent broke the new locks that the plaintiffs put on their house filed unsupported charges against the plaintiffs perjured themselves in testifying against the plaintiffs and threatened physical violence against them did not sufficiently shock the conscience so as to violate substantive due process B. holding that it was not a constitutional violation under buie for a police officer to enter the plaintiffs house after the plaintiffs arrest in the attached garage C. recognizing affirmative duty of a police officer to prevent the violation of constitutional rights by another officer D. holding that discharge of a police officer for the choice to enter into a relationship with the wife of his superior officer on the force was rational E. holding that the evidence was sufficient to preclude inference where he tried to enter the house drunk and was staying at the neighboring house

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that it was not a constitutional violation under buie for a police officer to enter the plaintiffs house after the plaintiffs arrest in the attached garage
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors and permitted assigns of each of the parties; provided however that no party may assign this Agreement or the obligations and rights of such party hereunder without the prior written consent of the other parties hereto.

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: Any obligation of the Company to provide you the Retention Payment is conditioned on you signing and returning to the Company, a timely and effective general release of claims in the form that has customarily been used by the Company with similarly situated executives.

assistant: Releases
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: immunity with regard to their decision to charge Munchinski. Specifically, the Court stated: Munchinski alleges that the Prosecutors ignored Bowen’s inconsistent interview statements and thus could not have reasonably believed there was probable cause to arrest and charge him. The arrest of a criminal defendant and the filing of charges are at the core of the prosecutorial function, and “[a] prosecutor is absolutely immune when making [the decision to initiate a prosecution], even where he acts without a good faith belief that any wrongdoing has occurred.” Kulwicki v. Dawson, 969 F.2d 1454, 1464 (3d Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for this conduct. Id.; see also Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 129, 118 S.Ct. 502, 139 L.Ed.2d 471 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Munchinski v. Solomon, 618 Fed.Appx. 150, 154 Options: A. holding that prosecutors have absolute immunity B. holding that a prosecutors preparation and filing of an information and a motion for an arrest warrant are protected by absolute immunity C. holding that a prosecutors filing of an arrest warrant and charging documents are protected by absolute immunity D. holding that the prosecutors activities in preparing and filing an information and motion for an arrest warrant were protected by absolute immunity E. holding that a police officer who secures an arrest warrant without probable cause cannot assert an absolute immunity defense

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a prosecutors filing of an arrest warrant and charging documents are protected by absolute 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties acknowledge and agree that (a) each party may publicly disclose its entry into this Agreement and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby (by press release, filing of a Form 8-K, or otherwise), provided that it provides the other party a reasonable opportunity to review and comment upon such disclosure prior to the time it is made, and (b) each party may file this Agreement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Following the initial disclosure of information made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the prior sentence, each party may thereafter disclose such information in a manner consistent with the statements contained in the initial disclosure.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: A Restricted Stock Award is an Award of actual shares of Common Stock (“Restricted Stock”) that provides that such Restricted Stock may not be sold, assigned, transferred or otherwise disposed of, pledged or hypothecated as collateral for a loan or as security for the performance of any obligation or for any other purpose until the restrictions set forth in the Award Agreement lapse.

assistant: General
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 Chairman shall be solely responsible for all tax payments related to his services as a director with Gores Holdings, and Gores Holdings shall not deduct or withhold from any such amounts payable under this Agreement any federal state, local or other taxes.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: microsoft and the names , logos , and icons of all microsoft products , software , and services may be either trademarks or registered trademarks of microsoft in the united states and/or other countries .

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: I t sh a ll g ive p r o mp t wr i t t e n n ot ic e t o t he A g e nt a nd t h e L e nd e r s o f a n y l i t i g a t i on or g o v e r nm e n t a l p r o ce e di n g s p e n d i ng o r , to i t s k n o w l e d g e , th rea t e n e d a g a i n st it w h i c h c ould r e a s o n a b l y b e e x p e c t e d t o h a ve a M a t er i a l A d v er se E ffec t.

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: Except as provided in this Framework Agreement or any other Transaction Agreement, neither this Framework Agreement nor any other Transaction Agreement, respectively, may be assigned or otherwise transferred, nor may any right or obligation hereunder or under another Transaction Agreement be assigned or transferred by any Party without the consent of the other Parties; provided , that, subject to the terms of the No-Petition Letter, Buyer may transfer or assign any or all of the Transaction Agreements and its rights and obligations thereunder at any time during which an Event of Default has occurred and is continuing. Any permitted assignee shall assume all obligations of its assignor under this Framework Agreement and any other applicable Transaction Agreements. Any attempted assignment not in accordance with this Section 9.7 shall be void.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: benefits claimant cannot perform the full range of sedentary work, a strict, mechanical application of the grids is improper; rather, the claimant must be evaluated on an individual basis, and that such evaluation on an individual basis can “can be met only by calling a vocational expert to testify as to the plaintiffs ability to perform some particular job.” Nelson v. Bowen, 882 F.2d 45, 49 (2d Cir.1989) (reversing district court’s decision upholding denial of plaintiffs claim for disability benefits and remanding for further evaluation of plaintiff on an individual basis, including testimony by a vocational expert, given that the grids do not apply to claimants who are unable to perform a full range of sedentary work); see also Bapp v. Bowen, 802 F.2d 601, 605-06 (2d Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). However, the testimony of a vocational expert Options: A. holding reliance on the grid proper where claimants nonexertional impairments limited right shoulder range of motion and partial hearing loss did not significantly compromise range of work for which claimant was otherwise qualified B. holding that at step four the claimant bears the burden of proving that she cannot perform her past relevant work C. holding that similar impairments do not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her impairment rendered the plaintiff unable to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes within a geographical area to which she had reasonable access D. holding that application of the grids is inappropriate if a claimant suffers from nonexertional impairments which diminish his or her ability to perform a full range of work E. holding that the ability to perform a substantial majority of work in rfc assessment suffices for purposes of grids

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that application of the grids is inappropriate if a claimant suffers from nonexertional impairments which diminish his or her ability to perform a full range of work
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 shall be eligible for vacation as provided to similarly situated employees under policies set forth in the Company’s, if there is one, or other policies in place, which vacation time shall be taken at such time or times in each year so as not to materially and adversely interfere with the business of the Company. Unused vacation will be paid out and may not be carried over from any one-year period to any other period except as may be required by law.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. No amendments, modifications or supplements of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing by the Parties. The Exhibits and Schedules are part of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the label the same. [564 U.S. 619] The federal duty to ask the FDA for help in strengthening the corresponding brand-name label, assuming such a duty exists, does not change this analysis. Although requesting FDA assistance would have satisfied the Manufacturers’ federal duty, it would not have satisfied their state tort-law duty to provide adequate labeling. State law demanded a safer label; it did not instruct the Manufacturers to communicate with the FDA about the possibility of a safer label. Indeed, Mensing and Demahy deny that their state tort claims are based on the Manufacturers’ alleged failure to ask the FDA for assistance in changing the labels. Brief for Respondents 53-54; cf. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 121 S. Ct. 1012, 148 L. Ed. 2d 854 (2001) (<HOLDING>). B 1 Mensing and Demahy contend that, while Options: A. holding claim based on failure to disclose information to the epa preempted B. holding that state claims for fraudulent submissions to the fda were preempted C. holding that state law fraud on the fda claims were impliedly preempted by the food drug and cosmetic act D. holding that federal drug and medical device laws preempted a state tortlaw claim based on failure to properly communicate with the fda E. holding with respect to class iii device not subject to pma process that negligent marketing and inadequate warning claims were preempted but defective design claim was not preempted because no fda design requirement existed

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that federal drug and medical device laws preempted a state tortlaw claim based on failure to properly communicate with the fda
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 a letter asking the postconviction court to reconsider its ruling. The post-conviction court considered Brown's request, but reaffirmed its previous ruling. 4 . Brown argues that he is bringing his claim under Minn. R.Crim. P. 15.05, rather than under Minn. Stat. ch. 590 (2014), and therefore the procedural requirements of Minn. Stat. § 590.01 should not apply. We have held that “[w]hen a criminal defendant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea under Rule 15.05, after the defendant has been sentenced, the motion to withdraw the plea must be raised in a petition for postconviction relief.” James v. State, 699 N.W.2d 723, 727 (Minn.2005). Therefore, Brown’s motion to withdraw his pleas must meet the requirements of Minn.Stat. ch. 590. See State v. Coles, 862 N.W.2d 477, 481-83 (Minn.2015) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Because we conclude that Brown’s petition Options: A. holding a petitioner accomplished a full and fair presentation of his claims because they were included in a copy of the amended petition for postconviction relief which was attached in the appendix of his petition for review to the arizona supreme court B. holding that circuit court should have treated the habeas petition as a motion for postconviction relief C. holding if the plea agreement was not conditioned on the sentencing guidelines an appellant is not entitled to relief because his sentence is not illegal D. holding that a petition to correct sentence was properly considered as a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to rule 371 because it challenged a judgment entered on a plea of guilty on grounds cognizable under the rule E. holding that because the defendants challenge to his sentence implicated his plea agreement the defendants request must be construed as a petition for postconviction relief

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that because the defendants challenge to his sentence implicated his plea agreement the defendants request must be construed as a petition for postconviction 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: charged. Id. III. Mendez-Casillas argues that the pre-IIRIRA version of § 1326 should apply to his case, given that both parties stipulated at trial that he illegally reentered the U.S. prior to the enactment date of IIRIRA. The pre-IIRIRA version of § 1326(a) required a defendant to have been previously “arrested and deported” in order to be found guilty of the crime of illegal reentry after deportation. We have previously endorsed the view that “arrested” and “deported” constitute two distinct elements of a pre-IIRIRA § 1326 offense. See United States v. Bahena-Cardenas, 70 F.3d 1071, 1073 (9th Cir.1995). In Bahena-Cardenas, we held that the separate “arrest” element required a warrant of deportation to have been issued by the INS in conformity with its reg 89-90 (9th Cir. 1999) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Pacheco-Medina, 212 Options: A. holding that application of the privilege is not limited to persons in custody or charged with a crime it may also be asserted by a suspect who is questioned during the investigation of a crime B. holding that a district court may not rely on a charging document without first establishing that the crime charged was the same crime for which the defendant was convicted C. holding that the crime of being found in the us continues until the ins discovers the defendant but that such discovery also completes the crime and thereby provides a limitation on where venue may lie for purposes of criminal prosecution D. holding that counsel did not admit the defendant was guilty of a crime when counsel noted that if the evidence established the commission of any crime that crime was voluntary manslaughter not murder E. holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the crime of being found in the us continues until the ins discovers the defendant but that such discovery also completes the crime and thereby provides a limitation on where venue may lie for purposes of criminal prosecution
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 Original Lenders shall have received (1) (a) audited combined balance sheets and related statements of income, stockholders’ equity and cash flows of MVWC and its Subsidiaries for the two most recently completed Fiscal Years ended at least 90 days before the Original Closing Date and (b) unaudited combined balance sheets and related statements of income, stockholders’ equity and cash flows of MVWC and its Subsidiaries for each subsequent Fiscal Quarter ended at least 90 days before the Original Closing Date; and (2) the Opening Balance Sheet, prepared on a pro forma basis after giving effect to the Spin-Off as if the Spin-Off had occurred as at the last day of the second Fiscal Quarter of Fiscal Year 2011; provided that to the extent such financial statements referred to in items (1) or (2), as the case may be, are included in the filing of the required financial statements on form 10-K and form 10-Q or in the Form 10 (as it may be supplemented or amended until it becomes effective under the Exchange Act) by MVWC, such filed financial statements will satisfy the foregoing requirements.

assistant: Financial Statements