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: still stands at the threshold of the qualified immunity analysis. See, e.g., Turner v. Scott, 119 F.3d 425, 428 (6th Cir.1997) (“The question whether the uncontested facts demonstrated a constitutional violation is a pure question of law — and one from which an immediate appeal can be taken where qualified immunity has been denied.”); Sanderfer v. Nichols, 62 F.3d 151, 153 n. 2 (6th Cir.1995) (“the plaintiffs version of events, regardless of the sufficiency of the supporting evidence, does not state a claim”). Finally, it is clear that before addressing the substance of a claim of qualified immunity, the court must first determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim of a constitutional violation at all. See Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 609, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (<HOLDING>). The district court’s failure to rule on the Options: A. holding that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right B. holding that second element of qualified immunity test is whether the law violated was clearly established C. holding that in determining whether a state officer is entitled to qualified immunity for 1983 purposes courts may not consider whether the constitutional right was clearly established before determining first that a constitutional right was violated D. holding that the court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must first determine whether the plaintiff states a claim of a constitutional violation at all and then must determine whether the claimed right was clearly established before proceeding to the qualified immunity question E. holding that plaintiffs complaint stated a claim for a constitutional deprivation but that the contours of the right at issue were not clearly established and that official was therefore entitled to qualified immunity

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must first determine whether the plaintiff states a claim of a constitutional violation at all and then must determine whether the claimed right was clearly established before proceeding to the qualified immunity question
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: affidavit that he is the vice president of the company formerly known as John Deere, and is the custodian of the records pertaining to this case. He further avers that the payment bond and contract offered as summary judgment evidence are true and correct copies of the bond and contract in issue in this case. Fondren offered no argument or summary judgment evidence to suggest this testimony is not clear, positive, direct, free from contradictions, and readily controvertible. See Casso v. Brand, 776 S.W.2d 551, 558 (Tex.1989) (“could have been readily controverted” means “testimony at issue can by its nature be effectively countered by opposing evidence”); Larson v. Family Violence & Sexual Assault Prevention Ctr. of S. Tex., 64 S.W.3d 506, 513 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). If Fondren had evidence to contradict Options: A. holding that an unsworn letter is not proper summary judgment proof B. holding affidavit attesting to authenticity of letter was proper summary judgment evidence C. holding that affidavit attesting to stipulated agreement between parties was sufficient to raise genuine issue of fact concerning affirmative defense D. holding that unsworn pleadings do not constitute proper summary judgment evidence E. holding that the time of discovery of fraud is not a proper matter for summary judgment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding affidavit attesting to authenticity of letter was proper summary judgment evidence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) Any and all payments by or on account of Altria shall be made, in accordance with Section 2.13, free and clear of and without deduction for any and all present or future taxes, levies, imposts, deductions, charges or withholdings, and all liabilities with respect thereto, excluding, (i) in the case of each Lender and the Administrative Agent, taxes imposed on its net income, and franchise taxes imposed on it, by the jurisdiction under the laws of which such Lender or the Administrative Agent (as the case may be), is organized or any political subdivision thereof, (ii) in the case of each Lender, taxes imposed on its net income, and franchise taxes imposed on it, by the jurisdiction of such Lender’s Applicable Lending Office or any political subdivision thereof, (iii) in the case of each Lender and the Administrative Agent, taxes imposed on its net income and franchise taxes imposed on it, and any tax imposed by means of withholding, in each case to the extent such tax is imposed solely as a result of a present or former connection (other than connections arising from the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement, a Note or a Guarantee, receipt of payments or receipt or perfection of a security interest under this Agreement, a Note or a Guarantee, or engaging of any other transaction pursuant to or to enforce this Agreement, a Note or the Guarantee) between the Lender or the Administrative Agent, as the case may be, and the taxing jurisdiction, (iv) in the case of each Lender and the Administrative Agent, taxes imposed by the United States by means of withholding tax if and to the extent that such taxes shall be in effect and shall be applicable on the date hereof to payments to be made to such Lender’s Applicable Lending Office or to the Administrative Agent and (v) in the case of each Lender and the Administrative Agent, any withholding taxes imposed pursuant to FATCA (all such non-excluded taxes, levies, imposts, deductions, charges, withholdings and liabilities in respect of payments hereunder being hereinafter referred to as “ Taxes ”). If any Withholding Agent shall be required by law to deduct any Taxes from or in respect of any sum payable hereunder to any Lender or the Administrative Agent, (i) the sum payable shall be increased as may be necessary so that after making all required deductions (including deductions applicable to additional sums payable under this Section 2.14) such Lender or the Administrative Agent (as the case may be) receives an amount equal to the sum it would have received had no such deductions been made, (ii) such Withholding Agent shall make such deductions and (iii) such Withholding Agent shall pay the full amount deducted to the relevant taxation authority or other authority in accordance with applicable law.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that was built is not legitimately or rationally related to an existing health menace for the need for that sewer. And that’s the basis of the lawsuit.” Argument of Counsel for Plaintiffs at Hearing Before District Court on Motions to Dismiss, Oct. 16, 1996, Transcript at 16-17. We seek also to ascertain to what degree the requested relief — including a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and money damages — may be obtained in the courts of Delaware. (b) Resolution of the issues of law presented in the certified question will guide this Court’s analysis of the federal question whether a “plain, speedy and efficient” remedy is available to plaintiffs in the courts of Delaware. In the ab rs v. New Castle County Bd. of Assessment Review, 642 A.2d 1251, 1262-65 (Del.Super.1993) (<HOLDING>); (4) The important and urgent reasons for an Options: A. holding consistent with the board of claims position that the provisions of the procurement code have not altered or limited the exclusive jurisdiction of the independent administrative board over a particular nonprocurement matter B. holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration C. holding that discretion of zoning board was not sufficiently circumscribed to support substantive due process claim D. holding that taxpayer could not have presented substantive due process claim to the board of assessment review because of the limited jurisdiction of that board E. holding that the courts jurisdiction is limited to the appeal of final board decisions that are adverse to the claimant

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that taxpayer could not have presented substantive due process claim to the board of assessment review because of the limited jurisdiction of that board
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 Loan Party and each of their Subsidiaries have filed or caused to be filed (or have obtained appropriate extensions for filing of) all Federal and state income and other material tax returns and reports required to be filed, and have paid or caused to be paid all Federal and state income and other material taxes, assessments, fees and other governmental charges levied or imposed upon them or their properties, income or assets otherwise due and payable, except (a) those which are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings diligently conducted and for which adequate reserves have been provided in accordance with GAAP and which could not reasonably be expected to result in any Lien upon the Collateral other than a Permitted Lien or (b) which individually or in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. There is no proposed tax assessment against Borrower or any Subsidiary that would, if made, have a Material Adverse Effect. With respect to any contest referenced in clause (a) above, Borrower shall notify Administrative Agent in writing of the commencement of, and any material development in, the proceedings.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Credit Parties will, and will cause each of their respective Subsidiaries to, at the expense of the Borrower, make, execute, endorse, acknowledge, file and/or deliver to the Administrative Agent from time to time such conveyances, financing statements, transfer endorsements, powers of attorney, certificates, and other assurances or instruments and take such further steps relating to the Collateral covered by any of the Security Documents as the Administrative Agent may reasonably require.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: to the extent you choose to access and use the services , you do so at your own initiative and are responsible for compliance with any applicable laws in connection with such access and use of the services .

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: sentencing him to a term of two years’ imprisonment for a “Grade C” violation of supervised release. Francis asserts that the District Court violated the individualized sentencing provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and § 3583(e)(3), and failed to consider the (advisory) guidelines set forth in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines, when it stated that its sentence was based not only on the threat defendant posed to society, but also on its general philosophy of always imposing the maximum allowable sentence for supervised release violations. However, because the Court also made all of the relevant policy considerations and imposed a reasonable sentence within the statutory maximum, we affirm the District Court’s sentence. See United States v. Anderson, 15 F.3d 278, 283-84 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). We have reviewed all of the defendant’s Options: A. holding statutory error harmless where district court imposed the highest available sentence under guidelines range and considered sentencing to the statutory maximum B. holding that for purposes of apprendi the statutory maximum is the maximum sentence that may be imposed based solely on the jurys findings C. holding statutory maximum for prior conviction is the potential maximum sentence defined by the applicable state criminal statute not the maximum sentence which could have been imposed against the particular defendant according to the states sentencing guidelines D. holding that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where 1 the district court considered the applicable policy statements 2 the sentence is within the statutory maximum and 3 the sentence is reasonable E. holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where 1 the district court considered the applicable policy statements 2 the sentence is within the statutory maximum and 3 the sentence is reasonable
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: city’s welfare drove New Jersey citizens to allow casino operations, with strict controls, in Atlantic City. See Tose, 819 F.Supp. at 1319. The 1977 Casino Control Act establishes a comprehensive and elaborate regulatory framework for the casino industry, reflecting a concern that casinos be restrained in order to protect the public. See N.J.S.A. 5:12-1 to 190; see also Knight v. City of Margate, 86 N.J. 374, 380, 431 A.2d 833, 836-37 (1981). The Act typically regulates the gambling operators rather than penalizing the individual gamblers. For instance, casinos, rather than an underage gambler, are held liable when the latter enters a casino. See N.J.S.A. 5:12-119; see also Department of Law & Public Safety v. Boardwalk Regency, 227 N.J.Super. 549, 548 A.2d 206 (App.Div.1988) (<HOLDING>). When it passed the Act, the New Jersey Options: A. holding that 9613f1 is the exclusive vehicle for responsible parties to obtain contribution from other responsible parties B. holding plaintiff responsible for attorney error C. holding the defendant responsible for the greater of the actual or intended loss D. holding casino responsible for allowing two underage persons to gamble E. holding that specifying the persons responsible for inequitable conduct as the applicants satisfied the particularity pleading requirements of fedrcivp 9b

assistant: The best answer is D. holding casino responsible for allowing two underage persons to gamble
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: training, skill, or experience that may be helpful to the jury in understanding or determining the facts. Crime-scene analysis, which involves the gathering and analysis of physical evidence, is generally recognized as a body of specialized knowledge. See generally 2 Wigmore, Evidence § 417b at 499 (1979); State v. Russell, 125 Wash.2d 24, 882 P.2d 747 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1129, 115 S.Ct. 2004, 131 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1995); United States v. Meeks, 35 M.J. 64 (C.M.A.1992); People v. Nolan, 152 Ill.App.3d 260, 105 Ill.Dec. 336, 504 N.E.2d 205 (1987); and Hill v. State, 647 S.W.2d 306 (Tex.App.1982). Therefore, because crime-scene analysis is not scientific evidence, we conclude that we are not bound by the test enunciated in Frye. Cf. Ex parte Dolvin, 391 So.2d 677 (Ala.1980) (<HOLDING>). The proper standard to determine whether Options: A. holding that frye was inapplicable when evidence is in the nature of physical comparisons as opposed to scientific tests or experiments B. holding that the frye test of general acceptance in the scientific community was superceded by the federal rules C. holding under the restrictive frye test that pcrstr testing is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community D. holding use of mtdna analysis to prove identity satisfied frye test for admissibility of new or novel scientific evidence E. holding that federal rule of evidence 702 superceded the frye standard of admissibility of scientific evidence and that under rule 702 the district court had to determine that proffered expert testimony was both reliable and relevant

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that frye was inapplicable when evidence is in the nature of physical comparisons as opposed to scientific tests or experiments
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: fraud. See Grageda v. U.S. INS, 12 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir.1993); Goldeshtein, 8 F.3d at 647. However, we have included in this category acts “of baseness or depravity contrary to accepted moral standards,” Grageda, 12 F.3d at 921 (quotation omitted), such as spousal abuse, child abuse, and statutory rape which involve moral turpitude “by their very nature.” See id. at 922 (spousal abuse); Guerrero de Nodahl v. INS, 407 F.2d 1405, 1406-07 (9th Cir.1969) (child abuse); Bendel v. Nagle, 17 F.2d 719, 720 (9th Cir.1927) (statutory rape). Incest also involves an act of baseness or depravity contrary to accepted moral standards, and we hold that it too is a “crime involving moral turpitude.” See also II American Law Institute, Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 230.2 cmt. 2(d), 406-07 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Gonzalez-Alvarado, 39 F.3d at 246. Taking a Options: A. holding that although a state may be free to develop its own laws of search and seizure to meet law enforcement needs such laws may not authorize police conduct which trenches upon fourth amendment rights regardless of the labels which it attaches to such conduct B. recognizing general rule C. holding the statutory scheme of two federal laws was not void for vagueness and did not violate equal protection or due process even though the defendants conduct violated both laws D. recognizing that laws against incest reinforce a community norm of general and intense hostility toward such conduct E. recognizing this as the general rule

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that laws against incest reinforce a community norm of general and intense hostility toward such conduct
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: by precluding a defendant from raising an alternative perpetrator defense). 2. Legal Standard Because the legal framework applicable to alternative perpetrator evidence is set out at length in Jordan, this court need do no more than summarize the law. The Supreme Court has noted that special considerations arise when a court is faced with a defense theory of an alternative perpetrator: “Evidence tending to show the commission by another person of the crime charged may be introduced by accused when it is inconsistent with, and raises a reasonable doubt of, his own guilt; but frequently matters offered in evidence for this purpose are so remote and lack such connection with the crime that they are excluded.” Holmes, 547 U.S. at 327, 126 S.Ct. 1727 (quotation omitted); see also id. (<HOLDING>). As this court explained in MeVeigh: Although Options: A. holding that for sentencing purposes the government does not need to allege a defendants prior conviction or prove the fact of a prior conviction where that fact is not an element of the present crime B. holding that under rule 401 of the north carolina rules of evidence ejvidence that another committed the crime for which the defendant is charged generally is relevant and admissible as long as it does more than create an inference or conjecture in this regard it must point directly to the guilt of the other party under rule 401 such evidence must tend both to implicate another and be inconsistent with the guilt of the defendant C. holding that evidence of judicial bias does not satisfy section 2244b2b because it does not add to or subtract from the evidence of guilt D. holding that thirdparty guilt evidence may also be excluded where it does not sufficiently connect the other person to the crime as for example where the evidence is speculative or remote or does not tend to prove or disprove a material fact in issue at the defendants trial quotation omitted E. holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence relating to a purported additional suspect where the evidence was speculative and had little or no probative value

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that thirdparty guilt evidence may also be excluded where it does not sufficiently connect the other person to the crime as for example where the evidence is speculative or remote or does not tend to prove or disprove a material fact in issue at the defendants trial quotation omitted
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: motion to dismiss where plaintiff had alleged that a back problem caused him “severe pain”); Candelaria v. Coughlin, No. 91 Civ. 2978, 1996 WL 88555, at *7-8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 1996) (Sand, J.) (denying cross-motions for summary judgment because, the parties disputed whether plaintiffs medical claims based on failure to provide proper wheelchair, failure to provide doctor-ordered heating pad, and refusal to treat blood in his urine were “serious” medical conditions); Orr v. Hoke, No. 91 Civ. 1256, 1995 WL 217541, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 1995) (Preska, J.) (rejecting defendants’ argument on summary judgment motion that delay of treatment for a severed finger did not cause plaintiff severe pain); Davidson v. Kalonick, No. 84 Civ. 6985, 1986 WL 3775, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. March 21, 1986) (<HOLDING>). The fact that the plaintiffs surgery was Options: A. holding that an assertion of pain sensation alone unaccompanied by any large medical complications does not amount to a serious medical need under the eighth amendment brackets and internal quotation marks omitted B. holding that plaintiffs allegation that he was denied prescribed pain medication because of a mdoc policy that narcotic pain medications must be given in the infirmary fails to establish an eighth amendment violation C. holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation D. holding that bruising and soft tissue injury even accompanied by residual pain does not rise to the level of a serious injury E. holding that plaintiff who alleged he was in pain and discomfort after a bilateral otoplasty sufficiently showed a serious medical need noting that pain though subjective and difficult to measure may well be serious

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that plaintiff who alleged he was in pain and discomfort after a bilateral otoplasty sufficiently showed a serious medical need noting that pain though subjective and difficult to measure may well be serious
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 real estate taxes, personal property taxes, sales taxes and similar liabilities, assessments or expenses currently due and payable with respect to the Property have been fully and timely paid or are being contested in accordance with the provisions of Section 7.3 of the Loan Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12416, at *45, 2011 WL 579339 at *8 (D.Minn. Feb. 8, 2011) (“the letters were not QWRs because [plaintiffs did not identify purported errors in their account or ask questions related to Chase’s servicing of their loan,” and because “[pjlaintiffs’ letters had no relation to Chase’s receipt or application of their payments”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ March 2010 notice did not qualify as a valid QWR and thus BAC’s failure to respond thereto does not subject BAC to RESPA liability. Furthermore, even assuming the notice was a valid QWR and that BAC failed to acknowledge receipt of Plaintiffs’ QWR or failed to respond timely and adequately to Plaintiffs’ questions therein, Plaintiffs nevertheless do not state a claim under 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e) , 836 (11th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ RE SPA claim brought Options: A. holding that prejudice or injury is a necessary element of standing B. holding an allegation of damages is a necessary element of any claim under 2605 C. recognizing that allegation of state action is a necessary element of a 1983 claim D. holding that showing damages caused by the failure to provide notice of transfer is a necessary element of a respa claim E. holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a 2 claim

assistant: The best answer is B. holding an allegation of damages is a necessary element of any claim under 2605
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: necessarily characterize it as an “accrued benefit” under the 2002 Regulation. Under this interpretation of the 2002 Regulation, Defendants’ rescission of the 1999 Benefits Increase for pre-February 1, 1999 retirees would clearly violate the anti-cutback rule. We reject Thornton’s interpretation of the 2002 Regulation because of the false dichotomy he draws between “ancillary” and “accrued” benefits. The Seventh Circuit recognized that a particular benefit, even if non-ancillary, would not be “accrued” for a retired participant if the benefit was “not included in the plan during the term of the participants’ employment.” See Williams, 497 F.3d at 713-14. Williams clarified the Seventh Circuit’s earlier position in Hickey v. Chicago Truck Drivers, 980 F.2d 465, 468-69 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>), upon which Thornton relied for the Options: A. holding pension conferred cola was an accrued benefit and not ancillary because it was intended to provide retirement income commenced only at retirement and was a benefit generally transferrable to succeeding employers B. holding that retirement benefits are accrued benefits under erisa C. holding that an extended earnings plan was not an employee pension benefit plan because the payment of benefits was not contingent upon retirement or the employee attaining a certain age D. holding former wifes cause of action accrued at the time of former husbands failure to pay her the portion of his retirement benefits to which she was entitled which was no earlier than the date of his actual retirement E. holding that disposable retirement pay from military pension was equal to gross retirement pay less federal income taxes

assistant: The best answer is A. holding pension conferred cola was an accrued benefit and not ancillary because it was intended to provide retirement income commenced only at retirement and was a benefit generally transferrable to succeeding employers
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: 19 June order on 19 July 2012. II. Appellate Jurisdiction At oral argument, petitioner contended that we should dismiss the State’s appeal because in its 19 July 2012 notice of appeal it only appealed from the full order entered 19 June 2012 and not from the form order entered 7 June 2012. It is clear from the trial court’s rendition of its ruling at the hearing that the court would enter the form order but that it would also enter another order that more fully and accurately stated its findings and conclusions. The trial court did so on 19 July 2012. Effectively, this order amended the trial court’s prior order. Because the State timely appealed from the amended order, we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Cohen v. McLawhorn, 208 N.C. App. 492, 497, 704 S.E.2d 519, 523-24 (2010) (<HOLDING>). III. Preservation The State argues on appeal Options: A. holding appeal from an order dismissing action without prejudice was properly before this court B. holding that court lacked jurisdiction on appeal from injunction because the order was simply an interpretation of an earlier order C. holding that mothers failure to appeal prior contempt order precluded her challenge to prior order in appeal from later order entered based upon prior contempt order D. holding that appellant complied with rule 3as requirement to designate the judgment or order appealed where it was clear from the face of the notice of appeal which judgment appellant sought to appeal E. holding that the appeal was properly before the court where the appellant appealed from an order amending a prior order without appealing from the prior order

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the appeal was properly before the court where the appellant appealed from an order amending a prior order without appealing from the prior order
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 party may assign any of its rights or delegate any of its obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other parties, provided that TD Lux may assign its obligations to purchase the Shares hereunder to TD Bank or any of TD Bank’s wholly owned Subsidiaries without the consent of any other party. Subject to the preceding sentence, this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the parties and their respective successors, including without limitation any corporate successor by merger or otherwise. Nothing expressed or referred to in this Agreement will be construed to give any person, other than the parties to this Agreement and their respective successors, any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or with respect to this Agreement or any provision of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if you think somebody is violating your copyrights and want to notify us , you can find information about submitting notices and google 's policy about responding to notices in our help center .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall by 8:30 a.m. (New York City time) (i) on the fourth (4 th ) Business Day after this Agreement has been executed, issue a press release disclosing the material terms of the transactions contemplated hereby and (ii) within four (4) Business Days after this Agreement has been executed, file a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC (the “ 8-K Filing” ). From and after the issuance of such press release and the filing of the 8-K Filing, the Company shall have publicly disclosed all material, non-public information delivered to any of the Subscribers by the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, or any of their respective officers, directors, employees or agents. The Company and each Subscriber shall consult with each other in issuing any press releases with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby, and no Subscriber shall issue any such press release or otherwise make any such public statement without the prior consent of the Company, which consent shall not unreasonably be withheld. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company shall not publicly disclose the name of any Subscriber, or include the name of any Subscriber in any filing with the SEC or any regulatory agency, without the prior written consent of such Subscriber, except to the extent such disclosure is required by law in which case the Company shall provide the Subscribers with prior notice of such disclosure. The Company understands that any such disclosure shall cause irreparable harm and each Subscriber shall be entitled to injunctive relief and liquidated damages in connection therewith.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: entitled to relief from the stay under section 362(d)(1). 2. Section 862(d)(2) Colony also contends that it is entitled to relief from the stay under section 362(d)(2) because its collateral is not necessary for an effective reorganization. It argues that it is the only creditor of Mezz II and that a reorganization is not possible without its consent because Mezz II will have no accepting class of creditors. 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(10). See also, In re Swedeland Dev. Group, Inc., 16 F.3d 552, 568 (3d Cir.1994) (finding that the secured creditor’s assertion that it would oppose any proposed plan by debtor was “reason alone” to find that an effective reorganization was not realistically possible); John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Route 87 Bus. Park Assocs., 987 F.2d 154, 161 (3d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); In re 6200 Ridge, Inc., 69 B.R. 837, 844 Options: A. holding that a secured creditor is not entitled to receive any more than that to which it was entitled pursuant to the terms of the confirmed plan B. holding in the instant case although creditor obtained relief from the automatic stay it failed to object or appeal from the confirmation order accordingly creditor is bound by the confirmation order C. holding that secured creditor was entitled to relief from the stay because the debtors proposed plan had no reasonable prospect of confirmation as a result of its improper classification scheme D. holding that the secured creditor was only entitled to the amount of its claim as provided in the debtors chapter 13 plan when the destruction of the vehicle yielded insurance proceeds greater than the secured creditors claim E. holding that order denying confirmation of plan became final when upon being notified that the debtors did not intend to seek confirmation of an alternate plan the court dismissed their case

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that secured creditor was entitled to relief from the stay because the debtors proposed plan had no reasonable prospect of confirmation as a result of its improper classification scheme
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 notices or communications required in this Agreement or permitted to be given shall be in writing and delivered personally, by a recognized courier service, by a recognized overnight delivery service, by facsimile or by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, at the applicable address or facsimile number indicated on the signature pages hereto (or such other address as provided by the parties from time to time in accordance with this Section 4.2 ) and any such notice shall be deemed to have been given and received on the day it is personally delivered or delivered by courier or overnight delivery service or sent by facsimile or, if mailed, when actually received.

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: The terms and conditions of this Agreement are strictly confidential. I will not discuss or reveal the existence or the terms of this Agreement to any persons, entities, or organizations except as follows: (a) as required by law or court order; (b) by me to my immediate family; or (c) to my attorney, financial planner and accountant. I must ensure that any person or entity described in subsections (b) and (c), to whom such disclosures are made must, as a condition of such disclosure, agree to keep the terms of this Agreement strictly confidential. This confidentiality provision does not prohibit me from providing this Agreement to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, or other Government Agencies.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Release Agreement is personal to Executive and shall not, without the prior written consent of the Company, be assignable by Executive. This Release Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Company and its respective successors and assigns and any such successor or assignee shall be deemed substituted for the Company under the terms of this Release Agreement for all purposes. As used herein, “successor” and “assignee” shall include any person, firm, corporation or other business entity which at any time, whether by purchase, merger, acquisition of assets, or otherwise, directly or indirectly acquires the ownership of the Company, acquires all or substantially all of the Company’s assets, or to which the Company assigns this Release Agreement by operation of law or otherwise.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Parties understand and agree that if Employee initiates the arbitration or files a counterclaim, Employee shall be required to pay AAA’s Initial Case Management Fee and/or other applicable fees but Employee’s payment shall be limited up to the amount the Employee would have had to pay had the matter been filed in a court. The Company shall pay all other remaining arbitration administrative costs and arbitrator’s fees.

assistant: Costs
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 Plan may be amended, whether prospectively or retroactively, in whole or in part, at any time, or from time to time, whether upon termination or otherwise, as to any or all of its provisions, by, or pursuant to authorization contained in, a resolution adopted by the Board; provided, however, that no amendment may reduce the accrued benefit of any Participant (calculated as if the Plan then terminated).

assistant: Amendments
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: we reserve the right to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you , and in such case , you agree to cooperate with our defense of such claim .

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: character in order to show that on a particular occasion the- person -acted in accordance with the character.” This Court reviews a ruling that evidence was admitted consistent with Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403 for abuse of discretion. United States v. Moon, 802 F.3d 135, 144 (1st Cir.2015). “Only rarely — and in extraordinarily compelling circumstances — will we, from the vista of a cold appellate record, reverse a district court’s on-the-spot judgment concerning the relative weighing of probative value and unfair effect.” United States v. Bayard, 642 F.3d 59, 63 (1st Cir.2011). tinder Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), evidence of previous crimes or acts may be admitted for the purpose of “proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, p 0 (5th Cir.2011) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). ; At trial, the district court permitted A.L. Options: A. holding that evidence the victim tried to keep defendant from fleeing the scene of a crime and defendant killed victim in order to escape supported the finding that murder was committed to avoid arrest B. holding on a criminal appeal that prior bad acts evidence is admissible to prove intent to commit the charged crime C. holding evidence that defendant prostituted another female a year prior to crime admissible because defendant contested his intent to prostitute the victim D. holding that corroborative evidence of prior specific acts of violence by victim may be admissible in selfdefense case where the defendant knew of the act E. holding that evidence of uncharged incest with the same victim is admissible to illustrate the relationship existing between the defendant and the victim

assistant: The best answer is C. holding evidence that defendant prostituted another female a year prior to crime admissible because defendant contested his intent to prostitute the victim
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging civil rights violations related to his state court conviction for indecent exposure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Beets v. County of Los Angeles, 669 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir.2012) (dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994)); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.2010) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed as Heck-barred Middleton’s claims against the Santa Barbara County defendants because success on his claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, and Middleton failed to allege that his conviction has been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (<HOLDING>). We do not consider the district court’s Options: A. holding that in order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid a plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal expunged by executive order declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination or called into question by a federal courts issuance of a writ of habeas corpus B. holding that a claim for damages that would invalidate a conviction or sentence that has not already been invalidated or reversed on direct appeal by executive order by an authorized state tribunal or by a writ of habeas corpus is not cognizable under 1983 C. holding that a state prisoner must bring his claim in habeas only if by prevailing he would necessarily prove the unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement D. holding that a plaintiff requesting relief under 1983 had no cause of action unless and until the conviction or sentence is reversed expunged invalidated or impugned by the grant of a writ of habeas corpus E. holding that that if the success of a 1983 damages claim brought by a prisoner would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence the prisoner may only bring the claim where the conviction or sentence has been invalidated

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that in order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid a plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal expunged by executive order declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination or called into question by a federal courts issuance of a writ of habeas corpus
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: See, e.g., Davis, 121 Wn.2d at 4; State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443, 447-48, 584 P.2d 382 (1978). These requirements have been denominated as the " 'legal’ ” and "’factual’ ” prongs of the lesser included offense test. State v. Walden, 67 Wn. App. 891, 893, 841 P.2d 81 (1992). Under the legal prong, an instruction on the lesser offense is proper "only if the charged crime 'could not be committed’ without also committing the lesser offense.” Walden, 67 Wn. App. at 893 (quoting State v. Curran, 116 Wn.2d 174, 183, 804 P.2d 558 (1991)). Under this test, a lesser included instruction is inappropriate when alternative means exist by which the charged crime can be committed, one of which would not result in the commission of the alleged lesser included offense. See Davis, 121 Wn.2d at 5-6 (<HOLDING>); see also Curran, 116 Wn.2d at 183 (holding Options: A. holding that in the conviction and sentencing for criminal offenses committed in the course of one criminal episode it is the intent of the legislature that there be a separate conviction and sentence for each criminal offense unless one of the offenses is a degree of the other a necessarily included lesser offense subsumed in the other or both offenses are identical B. holding that an offense is factually lesser included if the charging instrument alleges that the means used to commit the crime charged include all of the elements of the alleged lesser included offense C. holding that reviewing court in a proper case may modify a judgment of conviction below and affirm it as a conviction of a lesser degree of the offense charged or of a lesser crime included therein where the errors do not affect the conviction of the lesser offense D. holding that there are no lesser included offenses of second degree felony murder because of the multiple means of committing the offense E. holding that the defendant who was charged with felony murder was not entitled to a lesser included instruction on manslaughter because manslaughter is neither a lesser included offense nor an inferior degree crime with respect to felony murder

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that there are no lesser included offenses of second degree felony murder because of the multiple means of committing the offense