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: v. State, 257 Ala. 502, 60 So.2d 202 (1952).” ’ ” Cockrell v. State, 890 So.2d 174, 180-81 (Ala.2004)(quoting Ex parte Bertram, 884 So.2d 889, 891 (Ala.2003), superseded by statute as stated in Hankins v. State, 989 So.2d 610 (Ala.Crim.App.2007)). The record shows that Holloway had more than three prior convictions in the State of Ohio for trafficking. As Judge Baschab wrote in her special writing in Williams v. State, 941 So.2d 342, 343 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) (Baschab, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part): “[T]he plain language of § 13A-12-281(a), Ala.Code 1975, indicates that the $2,000 penalty applies only if the previous conviction or convictions were for violations of the sections specifically enumerated in that statute. Compare Ex parte Bertram, 884 So.2d 889 (Ala.2003)(<HOLDING>).” Holloway’s Ohio convictions are not Options: A. holding that assault conviction for driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and causing serious bodily injury to the person of another with the motor vehicle qualified as a crime of violence under ussg 4b12a B. holding that based on the plain language of 325a191 alacode 1975 a prior outofstate conviction for driving under the influence cannot be used to enhance a defendants sentence for driving under the influence pursuant to 325a191 alacode 1975 C. holding that equally consistent circumstances of influence cannot be considered as evidence of undue influence D. holding that a felony driving under the influence conviction was not a violent felony under the acca because it differed from other crimes such as burglary explicitly listed in 924e2bii E. holding that driving while under the influence of intoxicants presents at the very least a serious potential risk that the driver will cause physical injury to another person

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that based on the plain language of 325a191 alacode 1975 a prior outofstate conviction for driving under the influence cannot be used to enhance a defendants sentence for driving under the influence pursuant to 325a191 alacode 1975
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 payment of cash or any issuance or transfer of Restricted Shares or other property to you, or to your legal representative, heir, legatee or distributee, in accordance with the provisions hereof, shall, to the extent thereof, be in full satisfaction of all claims of such Persons hereunder. The Company may require you or your legal representative, heir, legatee or distributee, as a condition precedent to such payment or issuance, to execute a release and receipt therefor in such form as it shall determine.

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: Although plainly not dispositive, Scrimminger is important for recognizing the importance of unified municipal representation in the State Legislature. The Court acknowledged that “dividends” would flow from restrained division of municipalities in district representation in that it would foster better relations between the municipality and State, and would curb the drawing of lines for partisan advantage. Id. at 498, 291 A.2d at 142. Similarly, the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that respect may be accorded to municipal boundaries as a “legitimate consideration” and “traditional districting principle.” Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315, 329, 93 S.Ct. 979, 987, 35 L. Ed.2d 320, 333 (1973); see also In re Legislative Districting, 370 Md. 312, 805 A.2d 292, 319 (2002) (<HOLDING>); In re Reapportionment, 160 Vt. 9, 624 A.2d Options: A. holding that njeither the right to associate nor the right to participate in political activities is absolute and congress may prohibit federal employees from participating in political activities in view of its interest in maintaining a nonpartisan work force B. recognizing that tribal sovereign immunity extends to agencies and subdivisions of the tribe C. holding that persecution was on account of political opinion because petitioners prosecutorial investigation into acts of political corruption was by its very nature political D. holding that the political subdivisions of a state are subject to federal diversity jurisdiction E. recognizing value of maintaining integrity of political subdivisions

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing value of maintaining integrity of political subdivisions
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 Borrower or Guarantor shall convey, sell, lease, assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of (collectively, “ Transfer ”), all or substantially all of its Property, business or assets (including, without limitation, receivables and leasehold interests) whether now owned or hereafter acquired (other than a Transfer that is an ordinary course securitization) or allow any Subsidiary (other than a special purpose entity established in accordance with customary secondary market procedures for the financing or sale of specified assets) to Transfer substantially all of its assets to any Person; provided that each Borrower or Guarantor may after prior written notice to the Lender allow such action with respect to any Subsidiary which is not a material part of the Borrowers’ overall business operations.

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: 508 (1993). See also United States v. Story, 503 F.3d 436, 438 (6th Cir.2007); United States v. Oliver, 397 F.3d 369, 379 (6th Cir.2005) (“a sentencing error affects substantial rights where it causes the defendant to receive a more severe sentence” (internal quotation and citation omitted)). In the instant case, Defendant claims that she was unaware of the maximum sentence before the plea hearing, and nothing in the record indicates that the defendant independently knew or was advised of the correct maximum sentence prior to the plea colloquy. Furthermore, the district court’s error may have caused Defendant to go to prison for longer than she thought possible for the crime she committed. Thus, the court’s error affects Defendant’s substantial rights. See, e.g., Syal, 963 F.2d at 906 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Walsh, 733 F.2d 31, 34 (6th Options: A. holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release B. holding that the failure to notify the defendant of the term of supervised release and its possible effect on his sentence was not harmless error where njothing in the record suggests that the defendant understood that his sentence would include supervised release andthere was no written plea agreement by which he might have been warned C. holding that invitederror doctrine precludes defendant from challenging sentence of supervised release where defendant requested sentence of supervised release D. holding that term of supervised release was not automatically terminated when defendant was deported from united states and thus defendants subsequent commission of another offense illegal reentry after deportation prior to expiration of term of supervised release violated condition of supervised release that defendant commit no new offenses E. holding that courts failure to tell defendant in rule 11 plea hearing that he faced a mandatory period of supervised release was harmless error because the defendant was on notice of the supervised release requirement set out in the plea agreement and the defendant did not claim he was unaware of the requirement only that court technically had failed to comply with requirements of rule

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the failure to notify the defendant of the term of supervised release and its possible effect on his sentence was not harmless error where njothing in the record suggests that the defendant understood that his sentence would include supervised release andthere was no written plea agreement by which he might have been warned
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT HEREBY IRREVOCABLY SUBMITS TO THE NON-EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF ANY UNITED STATES FEDERAL OR NEW YORK STATE COURT SITTING IN NEW YORK, NEW YORK, IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, THE OTHER TRANSACTION DOCUMENTS OR ANY DOCUMENT EXECUTED BY SUCH PERSON PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT, AND EACH SUCH PARTY HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AGREES THAT ALL CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING MAY BE HEARD AND DETERMINED IN ANY SUCH COURT AND IRREVOCABLY WAIVES ANY OBJECTION IT MAY NOW OR HEREAFTER HAVE AS TO THE VENUE OF ANY SUCH SUIT, ACTION OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT IN SUCH A COURT OR THAT SUCH COURT IS AN INCONVENIENT FORUM. NOTHING HEREIN SHALL LIMIT THE RIGHT OF ANY AGENT OR ANY LENDER TO BRING PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ANY LOAN PARTY IN THE COURTS OF ANY OTHER JURISDICTION. ANY JUDICIAL PROCEEDING BY ANY LOAN PARTY AGAINST ANY AGENT OR ANY LENDER OR ANY AFFILIATE OF ANY AGENT OR ANY LENDER INVOLVING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ANY MATTER IN ANY WAY ARISING OUT OF, RELATED TO, OR CONNECTED WITH THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY DOCUMENT EXECUTED BY SUCH LOAN PARTY PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE BROUGHT ONLY IN A COURT IN NEW YORK, NEW YORK.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise prohibited in this Agreement, if any dispute, controversy, claim or disagreement arising out of or relating to this Agreement (collectively, “Disputes”), the Parties shall use all reasonable endeavors to resolve the matter amicably. If one Party gives the other written notice that a Dispute exists and the Parties are unable to resolve the Dispute within thirty (30) days of service of notice, the such Dispute shall be referred to the American Arbitration Association for binding arbitration under the then existing Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association pursuant to and in accordance with Section 17.16(b). Without prejudice to a Party’s rights under Section 17.16(b), neither Party shall resort to arbitration against the other under this Agreement until thirty (30) days after the referral. This shall not affect a Party’s right, where appropriate, to immediately seek equitable relief in an appropriate federal or state court which relief may consist of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, an order compelling specific performance or similar order enforcing the obligations under this Agreement. The Parties expressly waive any right or entitlement they may otherwise have to a jury trial in the event such action is filed.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and the Division, it would be illogical to limit their ability to seek classwide relief to something narrower than the. abilities of priyate litigants. . Our determination that the EEOC and the Division satisfy their presuit conciliation requirements if they attempt to conciliate on behalf of a class of individuals prior to bringing suit is also consistent with the Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of the EEOC’s enforcement powers. The Court has held that. “[e]very aspect of Title VII’s conciliation’ provision smacks of flexibility.” Id. at 1654. Indeed, the EEOC “may seek specific relief for a group of aggrie (6th Cir.1984) (“The record establishes that the EEOC sought to conciliate the class based claim with Keco.”); EEOC v. Am. Nat’l Bank, 652 F.2d 1176, 1185-86 (4th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). . We further note that the conciliation Options: A. recognizing similar analysis applies to discrimination and retaliation claims B. holding that discriminatory employment practices are cognizable under title ix C. holding that any irregularities must indicate discriminatory hiring practices D. holding that in establishing intentional discrimination in employment proving a defendants efforts to cover up the discriminatory purpose is part of and often considerably assists the greater enterprise of proving wrongful intent E. holding that eeocs conciliation efforts regarding discriminatory practices at one branch office were sufficient to cover claims of similar discrimination at another branch

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that eeocs conciliation efforts regarding discriminatory practices at one branch office were sufficient to cover claims of similar discrimination at another branch
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If the Parties are unable to resolve the Dispute within ninety (90) days following the receipt of the Notice of Dispute, either Party may submit the matter to be resolved by binding arbitration conducted by the office of the American Arbitration Association in Houston, Texas (“ AAA ”). The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the AAA’s Commercial Arbitration Rules (the “ Rules ”) effective at the time of the Dispute. The Expedited Procedures of the Rules shall apply to any Dispute in which no disclosed claim or counterclaim exceeds $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and arbitration fees and costs. If the Expedited Procedures should apply, the arbitration shall be heard and decided by a single arbitrator to be appointed by the AAA. For all other Disputes, the arbitration shall be heard and decided by three arbitrators, one to be designated by each Party and the third arbitrator to be selected by the mutual agreement of the two arbitrators. Each Party shall designate its arbitrator within twenty (20) days of the respondent receiving notice of the arbitration. If either Party fails to select an arbitrator within such twenty-day period, the AAA shall designate such arbitrator. The arbitrators selected by the Parties shall select the third arbitrator within fifteen (15) days of their appointment. If the arbitrators selected by the Parties are unable or fail to agree upon the third arbitrator within such fifteen-day period, the AAA shall select the third arbitrator. Each arbitrator selected hereunder shall be knowledgeable in the oil and gas industry. The arbitrators shall make a reasoned award in writing and may allocate costs and fees among the Parties in connection with such award. The award shall be final and binding on each Party and for all purposes. Judgment upon a final award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. This Section 14 shall survive any termination of this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, for the purpose of designating arbitrators in an arbitration tribunal consisting of three arbitrators, the Sanchez Parties shall be treated as a single Party.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: than .08 a the time of the accident, then the jury must also find that the defendant was guilty of the DUI offense. In this case, one expert fixed the defendant’s blood alcohol level at the time of the crash as .185 or .19. A second expert testified that the defendant had the equivalent of eleven drinks of alcohol in his body at the time of the crash. According to the testimony, the maximum blood alcohol level he could have had at the time of the accident was .20, and the minimum was .12. The defendant had also ingested Valium, which further impaired him. The state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he drove with an unlawful blood alcohol level. As in Dodge, any presumption of impairment issues was a moot concern. See also Searles v. State, 816 So.2d 793, 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (<HOLDING>). The trial court believed that the granting of Options: A. holding that the giving of the presumption of impairment instruction was harmless error when there is sufficient evidence of actual impairment such that there is no doubt that the jury would have found impairment even without the erroneous instruction B. holding that unless an erroneous instruction was unlikely to have changed the result of the trial a reviewing court cannot say that giving the instruction was harmless error C. holding that the giving of an erroneous reasonable doubt instruction can never be harmless error D. holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction E. holding that a trial judge is obliged to give a correct jury instruction notwithstanding that request for instruction was technically erroneous if the evidence generates the subject matter of the jury instruction

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the giving of the presumption of impairment instruction was harmless error when there is sufficient evidence of actual impairment such that there is no doubt that the jury would have found impairment even without the erroneous instruction
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 omission or course of dealing on the part of Agent, any Lender or the holder of any Note (or, if there is no Note, the holder of the interest as reflected on the books and records of Agent) in exercising any right, power or remedy hereunder or under any of the other Loan Documents shall operate as a waiver thereof; nor shall any single or partial exercise of any such right, power or remedy preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, power or remedy hereunder or under any of the Loan Documents. The remedies herein provided are cumulative and in addition to any other rights, powers or privileges held under any of the Loan Documents or by operation of law, by contract or otherwise.

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

user: Representatives: any employees, officers, directors, professional advisors or consultants in relation to each Party and any of its Affiliates, who are actively and directly engaged in the Purpose; 4.1. Notwithstanding clause 3.1 of this Agreement, the Receiving Party may disclose the Confidential Information: a) to its and its Affiliate’s Representatives, provided always that the Receiving Party procures that such Representatives shall comply with the confidentiality obligations as set out in clause 3 of this Agreement, and the Receiving Party agrees to be liable for the actions or omissions of such Representatives in relation to the Confidential Information as if they were the actions or omissions of the Receiving Party; and

assistant: No
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: bound to construe his pleadings liberally; much less ought we to construe them in such a way as to construct for Elzy the case that he has not made. And even if we were to find that the mere mention in the § 2255 proceedings of trial counsel’s failure to file an appeal was sufficient to raise an ineffective assistance claim, which the district court should have considered in order to determine whether it could proceed to the merits of Elzy’s claim that the Government breached the plea agreement, we would be constrained to hold that Elzy has waived the issue on appeal because he neither mentioned it in his motion for a certificate of appealability nor raised it in his brief on appeal. In short, the failure of the district court to notice and hold an evidentiary hearing on an Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that in this case we are Options: A. holding that a district court has the power to raise the aedpa limitations period sua sponte because the defense implicates values beyond the interests of the parties B. holding that a court may sua sponte take judicial notice of its docket C. holding that appellate court may raise issues of default sua sponte where necessary to protect inter alia the finality of federal criminal judgments D. holding court may raise procedural default sua sponte if doing so will further the interests of judicial efficiency conservation of scarce judicial resources and orderly and prompt administration of justice E. holding that because concerns of finality of criminal judgments judicial economy and orderly administration of justice substantially implicate important interests beyond those of the parties appellate court may raise frady defense sua sponte

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that because concerns of finality of criminal judgments judicial economy and orderly administration of justice substantially implicate important interests beyond those of the parties appellate court may raise frady defense sua sponte
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, in each case, as could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect: the Borrower and the Restricted Subsidiaries own, license or possess the right to use, all of the trademarks, service marks, trade names, domain names, copyrights, patents, patent rights, licenses, technology, software, know-how database rights, design rights and other rights to Intellectual Property that are reasonably necessary for the operation of their businesses as currently conducted, and, without conflict with the rights of any Person. No Intellectual Property, advertising, product, process, method, substance, part or other material used by the Borrower or any Restricted Subsidiary in the operation of its business as currently conducted infringes upon any rights held by any Person except for such infringements, individually or in the aggregate, which could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. No claim or litigation regarding any of the Intellectual Property is pending or, to the knowledge of the Borrower and the Restricted Subsidiaries, threatened against the Borrower or any Restricted Subsidiary, which, individually or in the aggregate, could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Intellectual Property
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, delivery and performance by OWNER of this Agreement and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby have been duly authorized by all necessary actions, as the case may be, on the part of OWNER. OWNER has duly executed and delivered this Agreement and this Agreement constitutes a valid and binding agreement of OWNER.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any and all notices or other communications or deliveries required or permitted to be provided hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed given and effective on the earliest of: (a) the date of transmission, if such notice or communication is delivered via facsimile at the facsimile number or email attachment as set forth on the signature pages attached hereto at or prior to 5:30 p.m. (New York City time) on a Trading Day, (b) the next Trading Day after the date of transmission, if such notice or communication is delivered via facsimile at the facsimile number or email attachment as set forth on the signature pages attached hereto on a day that is not a Trading Day or later than 5:30 p.m. (New York City time) on any Trading Day, (c) the second (2 nd ) Trading Day following the date of mailing, if sent by U.S. nationally recognized overnight courier service or (d) upon actual receipt by the party to whom such notice is required to be given. The address for such notices and communications shall be as set forth on the signature pages attached hereto. To the extent that any notice provided pursuant to any Transaction Document constitutes, or contains material, non-public information regarding the Company, the Company shall promptly file such notice with the Commission pursuant to a Current Report on Form 8-K.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise provided in the Plan, no modification or waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by the party against whom it is sought to be enforced. The failure of any party hereto at any time to require performance by another party of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the right of such party to require performance of that provision, and any waiver by any party of any breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any continuing or succeeding breach of such provision, a waiver of the provision itself, or a waiver of any right under this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the Loan Parties and its Restricted Subsidiaries has duly complied, and its Properties and business operations are in compliance with all Applicable Law, except where noncompliance could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. There have been no citations, notices or orders of material noncompliance issued to any Loan Party or Restricted Subsidiary under any Applicable Law, except where noncompliance could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: so that Lexington could make an informed decision whether to incur the expense of defending against the action. Because the complaint failed to give such notice, Lexington asserts that entry of the default judgment violated its due process rights and deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to enter a default judgment. Moreover, Lexington argues that the posited defect necessarily infected the entire default judgment, rendering it void. We begin our analysis by noting what is not in dispute on review: the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction in this action and, because Lexington was properly served with summons and the original complaint, the court also had personal jurisdiction over Lexington. See School Dist. No. 1, Mult. Co. v. Nilsen, 262 Or 559, 566, 499 P2d 1309 (1972) (<HOLDING>); Woods v. Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc., 341 Options: A. holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties B. holding that court had jurisdiction over common law counts related to fca claim even though not presented to contracting officer C. holding that court had no supplemental jurisdiction over claim by shareholder for breach of merger agreement that was the subject of the dispute between the merger partners over which the district court had subject matter jurisdiction D. holding that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over a commonlaw wrongful discharge claim E. holding that an oregon court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action if constitution statute or common law tells court to do something about specific kind of dispute presented

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an oregon court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action if constitution statute or common law tells court to do something about specific kind of dispute presented
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 Plan is adopted, and is effective, as of the first day of the Company’s 2017 fiscal year and will be effective for the 2017 Plan year (which coincides with Progressive’s 2017 fiscal year, except that investment returns are calculated on a calendar year basis).

assistant: Effective Dates
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 the Court's ruling on the earlier motion to dismiss, the Court does not find the text and structure of the SRA inconsistent with the Court’s interpretation of the pleading standard. For example, plaintiffs refer to the proportionate liability provisions of the SRA, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(g), to support their position that liability for non-knowing behavior still exists under the new law. Section 78u-4(g)(2)(A) states, "[a]ny covered person against whom a final judgment is entered in a private action shall be liable for damages jointly and severally only if the trier of fact specifically determines that such covered person knowingly committed a violation of the securities laws.’’ This provision, however, applies generally to the Securities Exchange Ac F.2d 315, 319 (5th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Alternatively, they may be admissible not to Options: A. holding that daily reports prepared by agency investigator were not records within a system of records since they were retrievable by the investigators identifier and not accessed by plaintiffs name B. holding letter from specialist to treating physician fell within business entry exception to the hearsay rule C. holding florida drivers handbook hearsay and not within any recognized exception to hearsay rule D. holding that gun shop records kept pursuant to government requirements are admissible business records E. holding that shipping reports prepared by private citizen and submitted to the government pursuant to law fell within government records exception to hearsay rule

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that shipping reports prepared by private citizen and submitted to the government pursuant to law fell within government records exception to hearsay rule
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: During the period from the date hereof to the Separation Date, the Executive shall undertake in good faith to effect a smooth and effective transition of his duties and responsibilities to the successor designated by the Board and perform the other duties and responsibilities of his positions and shall continue to be compensated in accordance with the terms and conditions of his Employment Agreement, including receiving equity grants in February 2017 in accordance with Section 3(c)(i) thereof.

assistant: Duties
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: off the Debtor’s income tax refund without first seeking relief in this Court, I find that no damages would be warranted, or were proven, for such violation here. ACCORDINGLY, the Debtor’s Motion to Reopen this Case and to Compel Turn over of the 2004 federal income tax refund is DENIED. All other requests for relief are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 . 11 U.S.C. § 553(a). 2 . In re Hal, Inc., 122 F.3d 851, 852 (9th Cir.1997). 3 . Citizens Bank of Maryland v. Strumpf, 516 U.S. 16, 116 S.Ct 286, 289, 133 L.Ed.2d 258 (1995). 4 . United States v. Maxwell, 157 F.3d 1099, 1102 (7th Cir.1998) (permitting the Small Business Administration to set off a debt owed by the debtors against a debt owed by the U.S. Navy to the debtors); In re Hal, Inc., 122 F.3d at 853 (permitting setoff of a debt owed (<HOLDING>). 9 . In re Pigott, 330 B.R. at 801-02. 10 . Options: A. holding that the trial court lacked authority to order a refund where the defendants case did not meet the specific statutory requirements authorizing a refund B. holding under section 7422a that the district court lacked jurisdiction over a taxpayers refund claim because the taxpayer failed to file a refund claim before the statute of limitations had run C. holding that a refund may include additional taxes paid after the filing of a refund claim so long as the total does not exceed the portion of tax paid prior to the administrative claim D. holding that a taxpayer only has a refund right after the irs has credited the refund to other underpaid taxes therefore the refund was not part of the bankruptcy estate E. holding that the taxpayer met the claim requirement where the taxpayer first filed a timely letter with the irs that requested a refund and subsequently filed a formal refund claim

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a taxpayer only has a refund right after the irs has credited the refund to other underpaid taxes therefore the refund was not part of the bankruptcy estate
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: Report Ex. 15. Despite Strougo’s contentions and as demonstrated by the SLC’s Final Report, the SLC pursued its investigation in a thorough and diligent manner. From June through December 1998, the SLC interviewed 11 witnesses and conducted a comprehensive review of approximately 36,000 pages of documents. The SLC requested documents from Defendants throughout the course of its investigation and prepared memoranda of its interviews and meetings. The SLC’s Report and the five volumes of exhibits thereto outline the SLC’s reconstruction of the history of the events surrounding Strougo’s allegations, and the SLC’s findings and conclusions based on its efforts. This is a reasonable investigation and thus, the SLC has demonstrated its good faith. See Rosengarten, 613 F.Supp. at 1501 (<HOLDING>); Grossman, 89 F.R.D. at 664 (holding that the Options: A. holding that benefiting fiduciary must show he acted in good faith and that transactions were fair and equitable B. holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision C. holding that the transaction must be fair and equitable and in good faith D. holding the bad faith rationale inapplicable given that the defendants acted in good faith in appealing the case and in raising defenses to the plaintiffs claims E. holding that special litigation committee acted in good faith based upon a 33page report several exhibits interview summaries meeting minutes and a chart of the movement and volume of the corporations stock during the relevant time period

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that special litigation committee acted in good faith based upon a 33page report several exhibits interview summaries meeting minutes and a chart of the movement and volume of the corporations stock during the relevant time period
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, the Parent, each Existing Revolving Credit Lender (subject to Section II above) and each Extended Revolving Credit Lender shall have delivered executed counterparts of this Amendment to the Administrative Agent.

assistant: 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Note may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same Note. Borrower hereby acknowledges receipt of a true, correct and complete counterpart of this Note.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth in Section 23, no waivers of any breach of this Agreement extended by PLx or DPRX to Stockholder shall be construed as a waiver of any rights or remedies of PLx or DPRX, as applicable, with respect to any other stockholder of DPRX who has executed an agreement substantially in the form of this Agreement with respect to Shares held or subsequently held by such stockholder or with respect to any subsequent breach of the Stockholder or any other such stockholder of DPRX. No waiver of any provisions hereof by any party shall be deemed a waiver of any other provisions hereof by any such party, nor shall any such waiver be deemed a continuing waiver of any provision hereof by such party.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: between exposure to a toxin and subsequent adverse health effects.” Young, 567 F.Supp.2d at 128. A temporal relationship is sufficient to establish causation only where “the circumstances of the exposure and the timing of the illness [are] so compelling as to render further evidence of causation unnecessary!.]” Id. at 128. A. Acute injuries Specific causation of plaintiffs’ acute injuries may be established through expert testimony or through lay testimony establishing a temporal relationship between exposure to the toxin and the acute injury. Temporal evidence without expert testimony may be sufficient to prove specific causation for acute injuries where the symptoms from exposure to the toxin were experienced immediately, or nearly so. See McCallum, 2005 WL 1048735, at *11-12 (<HOLDING>). In G.C. ex rel. Johnson v. Wyndham Hotels & Options: A. holding no triable issue of fact existed where employee had not asked for accommodation B. holding that evidence that symptoms known to be associated with toxin poisoning exhibited three days after exposure and eyewitness testimony that the plaintiff was exposed to the toxin created a genuine issue of triable fact C. holding that the nonmoving party must come forward with significant probative evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact D. holding that plaintiff failed to show genuine issue of material fact on equitable estoppel claim E. holding nonmoving partys affidavit created genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of an employment relationship

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that evidence that symptoms known to be associated with toxin poisoning exhibited three days after exposure and eyewitness testimony that the plaintiff was exposed to the toxin created a genuine issue of triable fact
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices, requests and demands pursuant hereto shall be made in accordance with Section 14.2 of the Credit Agreement. All communications and notices hereunder to any Guarantor shall be given to it in care of the Borrower at the Borrower’s address set forth in Section 14.2 of the Credit Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Purchaser, severally and not jointly with the other Purchasers, covenants that neither it nor any Affiliate acting on its behalf or pursuant to any understanding with it will execute any purchases or sales, including Short Sales of any of the Company’s securities during the period commencing with the execution of this Agreement and ending at such time that the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are first publicly announced pursuant to the initial press release as described in Section 4.4. Each Purchaser, severally and not jointly with the other Purchasers, covenants that until such time as the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are publicly disclosed by the Company pursuant to the initial press release as described in Section 4.4, such Purchaser will maintain the confidentiality of the existence and terms of this transaction and the information included in the Disclosure Schedules attached hereto. N otwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, the Company expressly acknowledges and agrees that (i) no Purchaser makes any representation, warranty or covenant hereby that it will not engage in effecting transactions in any securities of the Company after the time that the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are first publicly announced pursuant to the initial press release as described in Section 4.4, (ii) no Purchaser shall be restricted or prohibited from effecting any transactions in any securities of the Company in accordance with applicable securities laws from and after the time that the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are first publicly announced pursuant to the initial press release as described in Section 4.4 and (iii) no Purchaser shall have any duty of confidentiality or duty not to trade in the securities of the Company to the Company or its Subsidiaries after the issuance of the initial press release as described in Section 4.4. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the case of a Purchaser that is a multi-managed investment vehicle whereby separate portfolio managers manage separate portions of such Purchaser’s assets and the portfolio managers have no direct knowledge of the investment decisions made by the portfolio managers managing other portions of such Purchaser’s assets, the covenant set forth above shall only apply with respect to the portion of assets managed by the portfolio manager that made the investment decision to purchase the Securities covered by this Agreement.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: apple is not responsible for the investigation , defense , settlement and discharge of any third party claim that the apps or your possession and use of the apps infringe that third party 's intellectual property rights .

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a common-law joint tenancy includes a right of survivorship even when no words of survivorship are used in the granting instrument. Peebles v. Peebles, 223 Tenn. 221, 443 S.W.2d 469, 470 (1969) (quoting Jones v. Jones, 185 Tenn. 586, 206 S.W.2d 801, 803 (1947)); Bunch v. Bunch, No. 02A01-9705-CH-00106, 1998 WL 46217, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 1998) (citing Jones, 206 S.W.2d at 803); see also Durant v. Hamrick, 409 So.2d 731, 742 (Ala. 1981) (Adams, J., dissenting) (commenting that “to say ‘joint tenancy with right of survivorship’ is redundant”). If, however, the four unities are not present at the time of the conveyance, the conveyance results, in a.tenancy in common, which does not include a right of survivorship. See Runions v. Runions, 186 Tenn. 25, 207 S.W.2d 1016, 1017 (1948) (<HOLDING>). There are important differences among the Options: A. holding that regardless of whether the property was held as tenants in common or by the entirety the husband was entitled to hold property as a homestead B. holding a joint tenancy with right of survivorship is created by express language in the granting instrument C. holding that when a husband first acquired property and then conveyed it to his wife they could not hold the property as tenants by the entirety or joint tenants because the four unities did not coincide so the deed created a tenancy in common with a right of survivorship D. holding that where deed purports to create tenancy by entireties between two people who are not husband and wife joint tenancy with right of survivorship is created E. holding husband and wife may hold life estates as tenants by the entireties

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that when a husband first acquired property and then conveyed it to his wife they could not hold the property as tenants by the entirety or joint tenants because the four unities did not coincide so the deed created a tenancy in common with a right of survivorship