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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution and delivery and performance of this Amendment by the Borrowers and each of the other Credit Parties will not violate any Federal, state or any other material law, rule, regulation or order or material contractual obligation of such Person in any material respect and will not result in, or require, the creation or imposition of any Lien (other than the Liens created by the Collateral Documents) on any of its Properties or revenues.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No ERISA Event has occurred or is reasonably expected to occur that, when taken together with all other such ERISA Events for which liability is reasonably expected to occur, could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. The present value of all accumulated benefit obligations under each Plan (based on the assumptions used for purposes of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 87) did not, as of the date of the most recent financial statements reflecting such amounts, exceed by more than $10,000,000 the fair market value of the assets of such Plan, and the present value of all accumulated benefit obligations of all underfunded Plans (based on the assumptions used for purposes of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 87) did not, as of the date of the most recent financial statements reflecting such amounts, exceed by more than $10,000,000 the fair market value of the assets of all such underfunded Plans. As of the Agreement Effective Date and throughout the term of this Agreement, (a) Borrower is not and will not be (i) an “employee benefit plan,” as defined in Section 3(3) of ERISA or (ii) a “plan” within the meaning of Section 4975(e) of the Code; (b) no assets of Borrower constitute or will constitute “plan assets” within the meaning of the United States Department of Labor Regulations set forth in 29 C.F.R. §2510.3-101, as modified by Section 3(42) of ERISA; (c) Borrower is not and will not be a “governmental plan” within the meaning of Section 3(32) of ERISA; and (d) no transactions by or with Borrower are or will be subject to federal, state or local statutes applicable to Borrower regulating investments of fiduciaries with respect to governmental plans.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: filed that statement on November 14, 2005. That claim is not at issue in the Reconsideration Motion. STANDARD OF REVIEW Plaintiffs seek relief pursuant to Rules 59(e) and/or 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and under Local Rule 60.1(c). Rule 59(e) provides that any motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Rule 60(b)(1) provides that the court may relieve a party from an order for reason of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that Rule 60(b) may be used to reconsider legal issues and to reconsider the court’s own mistake or inadvertence. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. E.E.O.C., 691 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); see also Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake Options: A. holding that the law in this circuit is that errors of law are cognizable under rule 60b B. holding claim is not cognizable C. holding that it is an abuse of discretion to make errors of law or clear errors of factual determination D. holding claim is cognizable E. holding that certificate is required to appeal denial of rule 60b motion challenging denial of habeas application and stating that eight circuit courts including eighth circuit are in accord on this issue

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the law in this circuit is that errors of law are cognizable under rule 60b
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: adjudication is fraught with an inherent risk of inconsistent results, making them inappropriate for Rule 54(b) certification. See Winecoff v. Compass Bank, 854 So.2d 611, 614 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (determining a Rule 54(b) certification to be inappropriate when a counterclaim related to the claim the trial court had ruled upon remained pending in the trial court). See also First Southern Bank v. O’Brien, 931 So.2d 50, 53 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (noting that “ ‘ “[a]p-pellate review in a piecemeal fashion is not favored, and trial courts should certify a judgment as final, pursuant to Rule 54(b), only in a case where the failure to do so might have a harsh effect” ’ ” (quoting other cases) (emphasis omitted)); and Ann Corp. v. Aerostar World, Inc., 781 So.2d 231, 234 (Ala.Civ.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). Because the trial court’s Rule 54(b) Options: A. holding that rule 54b certification was inappropriate where appeal and remaining counterclaim both arose from a contract dispute regarding moneys due from alleged unauthorized repairs B. holding that rule 54b certification order should contain specific findings setting forth reasons for certification C. holding that dismissal of some but not all claims or parties not immediately appealable absent rule 54b certification D. holding that entry of final judgment on a claim in a multiparty action pursuant to rule 54b should clearly articulate the reasons and factors underlying the decision to grant 54b certification E. holding rule 54b certification invalid because unaccompanied by any statement of reasons and factors underlying trial courts decision to grant certification

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that rule 54b certification was inappropriate where appeal and remaining counterclaim both arose from a contract dispute regarding moneys due from alleged unauthorized repairs
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 her state convictions for making terroristic threats were 439, 443-44 (7th Cir.2007). We likewise lack jurisdiction to review Sutariya’s equal protection and due process claims regarding her removal proceedings. As the record shows, Sutariya did not raise any constitutional challenges to the final order of removal; rather, she appears to only have raised some of them in her appeal of the IJ’s negative reasonable fear finding, which not only was in a separate context and dealt with different issues, but was filed more than ten days after she received notice of the DHS’s intent to issue a final order of removal. Therefore, we also lack jurisdiction over her constitutional challenges to the final order of removal. See Yang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 494 F.3d 1311, 1316 (11th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Amaya-Artunduaga, 463 F.3d at 1251 (holding Options: A. holding that we lack jurisdiction over unexhausted equal protection claims B. holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection C. holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised before the bia D. holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause E. holding that the state law violated equal protection principles

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that we lack jurisdiction over unexhausted equal protection claims
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 validity, interpretation and performance of this Warrant shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. The venue for any legal proceedings under this Warrant will be in the appropriate forum in the County of San Diego, State of California.

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: Each of Parent and each of its Subsidiaries has duly complied, and its Properties and business operations are in compliance, in all material respects with all Applicable Law, except where noncompliance could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. No Inventory has been produced in the U.S. in violation of the FLSA.

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: Mortgagor shall pay the Indebtedness when due under the Loan Agreement and the other Loan Documents and shall perform the Obligations in full when they are required to be performed pursuant to the Loan Agreement.

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: Each of Borrower and each Individual Owner is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing with full power and authority to own its assets and conduct its business, and is duly qualified and in good standing in all jurisdictions in which the ownership or lease of its property or the conduct of its business requires such qualification, and Borrower has taken all necessary action to authorize the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and the other Loan Documents by it, and has the power and authority to execute, deliver and perform under this Agreement, the other Loan Documents and all the transactions contemplated hereby. Each of Borrower and each Individual Owner is, and at all times since the date of its formation has been (but only to the extent that the applicable requirements set forth in Schedule V speak of a time prior to the Closing Date), a Special Purpose Bankruptcy Remote Entity. Borrower has provided Lender with true, correct and complete copies of Borrower’s and each Individual Owner’s current (and since the date of its inception) organizational documents.

assistant: Organizations
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, agreements, representations and warranties made by the Borrower herein and in the certificates or other instruments delivered in connection with or pursuant to this Agreement shall be considered to have been relied upon by the other parties hereto and shall survive the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the making of any Loans and issuance of any Letters of Credit, regardless of any investigation made by any such other party or on its behalf and notwithstanding that the Administrative Agent, any Issuing Bank or any Lender may have had notice or knowledge of any Default or incorrect representation or warranty at the time any credit is extended hereunder, and shall continue in full force and effect as long as the principal of or any accrued interest on any Loan or any fee or any other amount payable under this Agreement is outstanding and unpaid (other than contingent obligations in respect of which no claim has been made) or any Letter of Credit is outstanding and so long as the Commitments have not expired or terminated. The provisions of Section 2.12, Section 2.13, Section 2.14 and Section 9.03 shall survive and remain in full force and effect regardless of the consummation of the Transactions contemplated hereby, the repayment of the Loans, the expiration or termination of the Letters of Credit and the Commitments or the termination of this Agreement or any provision hereof.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in Adamowicz I. As a preliminary matter, in their opening brief. Plaintiffs misrepresent the applicable law for determining the adequacy of the Government’s search. Plaintiffs’ proffered legal standard for adequacy states: “a government agency must, at a minimum, submit declarations from its officers who actually supervised and conducted the search in question that contain detailed explanations of the search itself and that confirm that all files that may contain responsive materials were searched.” (Pis’ Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 4.) This statement is plainly misleading, and none of the cases in Plaintiffs’ lengthy string citation supports these legal requirements. Indeed, Carney—Plaintiffs’ main case in support of this proposition— clearly shows the law is otherwise. See 19 F.3d at 814 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs argue, first, that the search Options: A. holding deference is owed to the decisionmaker authorized to speak on behalf of the agency not to each individual agency employee B. holding that there is no right of recovery against individual defendants under the ada C. holding that there is no individual liability under title vii D. holding that the government need not prove actual notice to the prisoner E. holding that there is no need for the agency to supply affidavits from each individual who participated in the actual search

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that there is no need for the agency to supply affidavits from each individual who participated in the actual search
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: No modification, amendment, extension, discharge, termination or waiver of any provision of this Agreement, or of the Note, or of any other Loan Document, or consent to any departure therefrom, shall in any event be effective unless the same shall be in a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought, and then such waiver or consent shall be effective only in the specific instance, and for the purpose, for which given. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, no notice to or demand on Borrower shall entitle Borrower to any other or future notice or demand in the same, similar or other circumstances.

assistant: Modifications
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) If any Event of Default described in Section 20.01(d) , (e) , (f) , (g) or (l) shall occur, then to the extent permitted by law, this Lease and the Term and all rights of Tenant under this Lease shall expire and terminate on the date on which such Event of Default occurs, as if such date were the date herein definitely fixed for the expiration of the Term, and Tenant immediately shall quit and surrender the Premises, but Tenant shall remain liable for damages as hereinafter provided. If any Event of Default described in Section 20.01(a) , (b) , (c) , (h) , (i) , (j) or (m) shall occur and Landlord, at any time thereafter during the continuance of such Event of Default, at its option, gives written notice to Tenant stating that this Lease and the Term shall expire and terminate on the date specified in such notice, which date shall be not less than 5 days after the giving of such notice, then this Lease and the Term and all rights of Tenant under this Lease shall expire and terminate on the date specified in such notice as if such date were the date herein definitely fixed for the expiration of the Term, and upon any such expiration and termination, Tenant immediately shall quit and surrender the Premises, but Tenant shall remain liable for damages as hereinafter provided. Anything contained herein to the contrary notwithstanding, if such termination shall be stayed by order of any court having jurisdiction over any proceeding described in Section 20.01(f) or (g) , or by federal or state statute, then, following the expiration of any such stay, or if the trustee appointed in any such proceeding, Tenant or Tenant as debtor-in-possession shall fail to assume Tenant’s obligations under this Lease within the period prescribed therefor by law or within 120 days after entry of the order for relief or as may be allowed by the court, or if such trustee, Tenant or Tenant as debtor-in-possession shall fail to provide adequate protection of Landlord’s right, title and interest in and to the Premises or adequate assurance of the complete and continuous future performance of Tenant’s obligations under this Lease as provided in Section 20.13 , Landlord, to the extent permitted by law or by leave of the court having jurisdiction over such proceeding, shall have the right, at its election, to terminate this Lease on 5 days notice to Tenant, Tenant as debtor-in-possession or such trustee and upon the expiration of such 5 day period this Lease shall cease and expire as aforesaid and Tenant, Tenant as debtor-in-possession and/or said trustee shall immediately quit and surrender the Premises as aforesaid, but Tenant shall remain liable for damages as hereinafter provided. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed a waiver of Landlord’s rights and remedies under Section 365(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, and all such rights and remedies are hereby expressly reserved.

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: All financial statements furnished to Lender, fairly present the financial condition of each Obligor and their respective Subsidiaries as of the respective dates thereof or for the respective periods thereof and the results of their operations and cash flows for the periods then ended in conformity with GAAP applied on a consistent basis. Since the date of the most recent audited financial statements delivered to Lender under Section 5.1(b) , there has been no Material Adverse Effect with respect to any Obligor. No Obligor has any Indebtedness (other than Indebtedness permitted pursuant to Section 6.2) or any Contingent Obligations (other than Contingent Obligations permitted pursuant to Section 6.8 ).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company is a corporation, duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of Delaware, and the Company is duly qualified as a foreign corporation to transact business and is in good standing in each other jurisdiction in which such qualification is required, except where the failure to be so organized or qualified or be in good standing would not reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, business or results of operations of the Company and its subsidiaries, taken as a whole (a “Material Adverse Effect”). The Company possesses all requisite power and authority necessary to consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.

assistant: Organizations
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: percentage of fault. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2957(1). The current version of § 600.2925d, which shields a settling defendant from claims for contribution, does not provide for pro tanto claim reduction because, as Michigan courts have held, the rationale for set-offs no longer applies under a system of several liability: “There would be no need for a setoff because the tortfeasor-defendant not involved in the settlement would necessarily be responsible for an amount of damages distinct from the settling defendant on the basis of allocation of fault.” Markley v. Oak Health Care Investors of Coldwater, Inc., 255 Mich.App. 245, 255, 660 N.W.2d 344 (2003). See also Wrobbel v. Int’l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, No. 07-10110, 2010 WL 940279, at *5 (E.D.Mich. March 12, 2010) (<HOLDING>). The Court concludes that the Papas and Options: A. recognizing that enhancement requires control over a participant in the scheme not only control over the scheme itself B. holding that under michigans reformed tortliability scheme the defendant union was not entitled to a setoff for a settlement received by plaintiff and holding that michigans allocation of fault scheme would permit the trier of fact to allocate fault regardless of whether all tortfeasors were parties to the proceeding C. holding that 3240219b2 merely limits the liability of shortterm lessors the statute reduces responsibility for damages arising from the fault of others but preserves full liability for compensatory damages caused by ones own fault the statute merely caps the amount of damages for the vicarious liability of the lessor D. holding plaintiff not at fault in accepting a lump sum social security benefit a second time observing that the agencys fault finding might be appropriate if plaintiff were an accountant E. holding that the mere application for other benefits is not fault

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that under michigans reformed tortliability scheme the defendant union was not entitled to a setoff for a settlement received by plaintiff and holding that michigans allocation of fault scheme would permit the trier of fact to allocate fault regardless of whether all tortfeasors were parties to the proceeding
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: Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, each U.S. Lender agrees that any Domestic Borrower under the U.S. Tranche may from time to time request the U.S. Lenders to submit offers to make loans in Dollars (each such loan, a “ U.S. Bid Loan ”) to such Domestic Borrower from time to time on any Business Day during the Availability Period pursuant to this Section 2.7 ; provided that immediately after giving effect to any U.S. Bid Borrowing, (a) the U.S. Total Outstandings shall not exceed the U.S. Aggregate Commitments and (b) the aggregate Outstanding Amount of all U.S. Bid Loans shall not exceed the U.S. Bid Loan Sublimit. There shall not be more than five different Interest Periods in effect with respect to U.S. Bid Loans at any time.

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: In the Program (а) the words “herein,” “hereof” and “hereunder” refer to the Program as а whole and not to any particular Article, Section or other subdivision, (b) reference to any Article or Section, means such Article or Section hereof and (c) the words “including” (and with correlative meaning “include”) means including, without limiting the generality of any description preceding such term. The Article and Section headings herein are for convenience only and shall not affect the construction hereof.

assistant: Interpretations
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: Agent shall have received the result of recent lien, Tax and judgment searches in each of the jurisdictions reasonably requested by it and such lien searches shall reveal no Liens on any of the assets of the Credit Parties, other than Permitted Liens.

assistant: Liens
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: U.S. 1004, 109 S.Ct. 1638, 104 L.Ed.2d 154 (1989). But the weight of authority supports the view that an award of attorney’s fees does constitute affirmative relief. Courts outside Washington State that have considered the question have concluded not only that a request for attorney’s fees should be viewed as a request for affirmative relief, but also that a request for attorney’s fees waives an objection to in personam jurisdiction. Associate Discount Corp. v. Haviland, 218 So.2d 59, 61-62 (La.Ct.App.1969) (“By asking for attorney’s fees, the defendant did affirmatively invoke the jurisdiction of the court, and therefore ... made a general appearance, and subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the court....”); Forbess v. George Morgan Pontiac Co., 135 So.2d 594, 598 (La.Ct.App.1961) (<HOLDING>); In re Marriage of Adler, 271 Ill.App.3d 469, Options: A. holding that the court had appellate jurisdiction to review the merits of the case because only the collateral issue of attorneys fees remained to be decided on remand to the bankruptcy court B. holding that request for attorneys fees and damages to attached property in a motion to dissolve a writ of attachment said to be totally unnecessary to the inquiry of the jurisdiction constituted a submission by defendant to the exercise of jurisdiction over it personally by the court C. holding that in order to recover damages including attorneys fees for the damages consequent upon the improper suing out of the writ of attachment the proceedings must be begun as a proceeding to dissolve the attachment and not as a trial of the case on the merits D. holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider a motion to perfect and enforce an attorneys charging lien where the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine entitlement and amount of attorneys fees E. holding that since the court already determined that it had general jurisdiction over a defendant it was unnecessary to engage in the specific jurisdiction analysis

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that request for attorneys fees and damages to attached property in a motion to dissolve a writ of attachment said to be totally unnecessary to the inquiry of the jurisdiction constituted a submission by defendant to the exercise of jurisdiction over it personally by the court
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 obligations of the Executive pursuant to Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 will survive the termination of the employment of the Executive hereunder for the period designated under each of those respective sections.

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 U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 391 U.S. 592 88 S.Ct. 1753 20 L.Ed.2d 842 James A. WATTS et al., Petitioners,v.SEWARD SCHOOL BOARD et al. No. 325. Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 26, 1968. June 3, 1968 George Kaufmann, Washington, D.C., for petitioners. Theodore M. Pease, Jr., Anchorage, Alaska, for respondents. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment, 421 P.2d 586; 423 P.2d 678, is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Alaska for further consideration in light of Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, Will County, Illinois, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811. 2 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK joins, would reverse the judgment outright for the reasons stated by him in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S., p. 575, 88 S.Ct., p. 1738, 20 L.Ed. 811. 3 Mr. Justice WHITE dissents.

assistant: 3
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: Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Seller and its respective partners, members, affiliates, property managers, and their respective officers, directors, agents, employees and representatives (collectively, the “ Indemnified Parties ”) from and against any and all liens, claims, or damages of any kind or nature, including any demands, actions or causes of action, assessments, losses, costs, expenses, liabilities, interest and penalties, and reasonable attorneys’ fees suffered, incurred, or sustained by any of the Indemnified Parties caused by the entry on the Property by Purchaser, its agents or representatives or any other due diligence activities pursuant to this Agreement (“ Claims ”), except to the extent such Claims are caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of any of the Indemnified Parties.. Purchaser will promptly restore the Property substantially to its condition before any damages that may have been caused by Purchaser or its agents or representatives in the conduct of the review. Notwithstanding anything set forth herein to the contrary, the indemnification and restoration obligations of Purchaser in this Section shall survive Closing or the earlier termination, for any reason, of this Agreement.

assistant: Indemnity
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: placed most of the blame on himself. While the statement proved appellant was at the scene of the murder, Profitte did not specify how, or if, appellant participated in the offense. Therefore, Profitte did not give his statement merely to shift blame, curry favor, or divert attention to another. All the circumstances surrounding the taking of Profitte’s statement, along with the corroborated facts in the statement, give credence to its reliability. The statement was, therefore, admissible under the rule of Cofield, and we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Sergeant Belk to testify in this regard. See Coffin v. State, 885 S.W.2d 140, 149 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); compare Zarychta v. State, 961 S.W.2d 455, 457, 460 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] pet. ref d) (<HOLDING>). We overrule the first point of error. In the Options: A. holding to the contrary when statement of the codefendant contradicted defendants confession about crucial fact of whether defendant ordered codefendant to shoot victim or pleaded with codefendant not to shoot victim B. holding that before a defendant is entitled to introduce evidence of the victims character for violence there must be sufficient evidence to support a finding that the victim was the first aggressor and that once the defendant testified that he was attacked and cut by the victim without provocation before using the victims utility tool to stab the victim the defendant was clearly entitled to question the victim about past acts of violence reflected in court documents from the state of oregon C. holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction D. holding that the witnesss prior statement that the victim was lying flat on his back when he was shot impermissibly contradicted the witnesss trial testimony that the victim was on top of another individual at that time E. holding that consent is not a defense to the crime of aggravated battery even though the defendant alleged that the victim procured the weapon and invited the defendant to shoot him because the public has a stronger and overriding interest in preventing and prohibiting such acts

assistant: The best answer is A. holding to the contrary when statement of the codefendant contradicted defendants confession about crucial fact of whether defendant ordered codefendant to shoot victim or pleaded with codefendant not to shoot victim
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower will, and will cause each of its Subsidiaries to, (i) comply with all laws, rules, regulations and orders of any Governmental Authority applicable to it or its property (including without limitation Health Care Laws and Environmental Laws) and (ii) perform in all material respects its obligations under material agreements to which it is a party, in each case except where the failure to do so, individually or in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. The Borrower will maintain in effect and enforce policies and procedures designed to ensure compliance by the Borrower, its Subsidiaries and their respective directors, officers, employees and agents with Anti- Corruption Laws and applicable Sanctions.

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 and the Founding Members hereby represent to Investor as follows: each of the Company and the Founding Members has full corporate or other power and authority to execute, deliver and perform this Agreement; this Agreement has been duly and validly authorized by their respective boards of directors, board of managers or members, as applicable, and executed and delivered by each of them; assuming the truth and accuracy of the representations and warranties of Investor in Section 10, this Agreement constitutes a valid binding obligation of each of them, enforceable against each of them in accordance with its terms, except as such enforceability may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, fraudulent conveyance reorganization, moratorium or other similar laws now or hereafter in effect relating to creditors’ rights generally and by general equitable principles; and, as of June 15, 2018 and June 30, 2018, as applicable, the Company will have available and ready funds sufficient to pay the amounts required to be paid by the Company under Section 2.

assistant: Representations
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: Midlothi-an correctly notes that, “[s]inee a trademark is not only a symbol of origin, but a symbol of a certain type of goods or services and their level of quality, a substantial change in the nature or quality of the goods sold under a mark may so change the nature of the thing symbolized that the mark becomes fraudulent and/or that the original rights are abandoned.” 3 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 17:24 (4th ed.1996). It is well settled that a company can be liable under unfair-competition laws, including the Lanham Act, not only when it infringes upon the mark of a second company, but also when it ‘passes off one of its own products for another of its products. Royal Baking Powder Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 281 F. 744 (2d Cir.1922) (<HOLDING>). In this context, however, such use of a Options: A. holding that though we do not have exclusive jurisdiction over unfair competition claims our own circuit law nonetheless determines when inequitable conduct also constitutes unfair competition B. holding that as in an action alleging infringement of a mark likelihood of confusion is the essence of an unfair competition claim C. holding in a prelanham act context that a manufacturer of baking powder unlawfully deceived the public and engaged in an unfair method of competition when it substituted a key ingredient in its wellknown brand of powder to create an inferior powder while continuing to use a similar label D. holding that antitrust violations are unfair methods of competition under the ftc act E. holding that the title of an act is not an index but is merely a label

assistant: The best answer is C. holding in a prelanham act context that a manufacturer of baking powder unlawfully deceived the public and engaged in an unfair method of competition when it substituted a key ingredient in its wellknown brand of powder to create an inferior powder while continuing to use a similar label
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: There are no actions, suits, proceedings, or investigations pending or, to the best of its knowledge, threatened by or against the Company or affecting the Company or its properties, at law or in equity, before any court or other governmental agency or instrumentality, domestic or foreign, or before any arbitrator of any kind. The Company does not have any knowledge of any material default on its part with respect to any judgment, order, injunction, decree, award, rule, or regulation of any court, arbitrator, or governmental agency or instrumentality or of any circumstances which, after reasonable investigation, would result in the discovery of such a default.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: credence to Ms. Thompson-Wright’s tip. The justification for detaining appellant was markedly enhanced when Officer Chih learned (before taking him to the show-up) that appellant had recently arrived at the apartment (making it more likely that he was out in the neighborhood at the time of the robbery). Assessing the totality of these circumstances, the trial court properly avoided the “sort of divide-and-conquer analysis” in which appellant engages. Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 274, 122 S.Ct. 744. It did not err in concluding that the police acted reasonably in commanding appellant not to make any sudden moves, in patting him down to check for weapons, and in detaining him until the show-up procedure was complete. See Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972) (<HOLDING>); Womack v. United States, 673 A.2d 603, 608 Options: A. holding that a limited search of the outer clothing of a suspect for weapons is reasonable where the officer has a reasonable articulable basis for believing that the suspect may be armed and presently dangerous B. holding officer may search vehicle for weapons if officer has reasonable belief based on articulable facts that officer or another may be in danger C. holding that an officer making a reasonable investigatory stop should not be denied the opportunity to protect himself from attack by a hostile suspect and he may conduct a weapons search limited in scope to this protective purpose D. holding that absent probable cause to arrest a police officer may approach an individual to conduct a brief investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal conduct is afoot E. holding that long authorizes protective search of vehicle for weapons during terry stop even when suspect is outside vehicle and effectively under police control

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an officer making a reasonable investigatory stop should not be denied the opportunity to protect himself from attack by a hostile suspect and he may conduct a weapons search limited in scope to this protective purpose
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 maximum term of confinement, but he has not successfully challenged that sentence in any state or federal proceeding. And because a favorable decision in this action would necessarily call into question the duration of that sentence, this action is not cognizable under Heck. See Williams, 453 F.3d at 177. Accordingly, we will affirm the orders of the District Court granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss and denying Lyszkow-ski’s motion filed under Rule 59(e). However, because it appears that the District Court improperly applied the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity to dismiss the claims against Silvestri with prejudice, we will modify the order of dismissal to reflect that these claims are dismissed without prejudice. See Curry v. Yachera, 835 F.3d 373, 379 (3d Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>). * This disposition is not an opinion of the Options: A. holding that the bare assertion that a dismissal without prejudice was favorable to the plaintiff was insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss B. holding that a dismissal under heck is without prejudice to a claims reassertion following a favorable termination C. holding borough could not appeal dismissal of complaint without prejudice because dismissal without prejudice is comparable to a nonsuit under the former practice of lavf D. holding that a dismissal of a defendant who did not agree to settlement is not a favorable termination if dismissal of that defendant was a condition of settlement E. holding that a dismissal in the interest of justice can be a favorable termination under certain circumstances

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a dismissal under heck is without prejudice to a claims reassertion following a favorable termination
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the Borrower Subsidiaries (i) is a corporation, limited partnership, general partnership, limited liability company or trust duly organized under the laws of its State of organization and is validly existing and in good standing under the laws thereof, (ii) has all requisite power to own its property and conduct its business as now conducted and as presently contemplated except where the failure to be so qualified would not be reasonably likely to have a Material Adverse Effect and (iii) is in good standing and is duly authorized to do business in its jurisdiction of organization or formation and in each jurisdiction where a Collateral Property is owned or leased by it (to the extent required to do so under applicable law), and in each other jurisdiction where a failure to be so qualified would be reasonably likely to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Subsidiaries
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: Sopher’s motion to dismiss. The Walkers are free to pursue their state law claims against Sopher as well as their cause of action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for those allegations relating to Sopher’s failure to disclose or maintain exculpatory evidence and for other misconduct wMch allegedly occurred in the investigatory phase of these proceedings. Sopher is otherwise immune from suit here. 1 . Although Jack and Eleanor Walker included numerous exhibits to their response, these attachments add nothing substantive to their complaint which contains over one hundred pages of allegations and, accordingly, the Court declines this opportunity to convert Sopher’s motion into one for summary judgment. See Wilson-Cook Medical, Inc. v. Wilson, 942 F.2d 247, 252 (4th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). 2 . The tissue samples mysteriously Options: A. holding that a rule 12b6 motion is only converted to a motion for summary judgment when a court accepts and considers matters outside of the pleadings B. holding that only motions filed under 12b6 can be converted to a summary judgment motion C. holding that where a court considering a rule 12b6 motion relies on matters outside the pleading the motion must be treated as a rule 56 motion for summary judgment D. holding that by considering matters outside of the pleadings the trial court converted a rule 12b6 motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion E. holding that district courts consideration of matters outside the pleadings converted the defendants rule 12 motion into one for summary judgment

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a rule 12b6 motion is only converted to a motion for summary judgment when a court accepts and considers matters outside of the pleadings
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Promptly after a MacroGenics Indemnitee or an Incyte Indemnitee (each, an “ Indemnitee ”) receives notice of a pending or threatened Claim, such Indemnitee shall give written notice of the Claim to the Party from whom the Indemnitee is entitled to receive indemnification pursuant to Sections 14.1 or 14.2, as applicable (the “ Indemnifying Party ”). However, an Indemnitee’s delay in providing or failure to provide such notice shall not relieve the Indemnifying Party of its indemnification obligations, except to the extent it can demonstrate prejudice due to the delay or lack of notice.

assistant: Notices