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: no time remained in the limitations period when Banks filed his original petition, dismissal without prejudice would not benefit Banks. A recent Supreme Court case has clarified how district courts should treat unexhausted habeas claims. Under its guidance, we remand this matter to the district court. After Duncan, this court and sister circuits concluded that the statute-of-limitations concerns resulting from the enactment of AEDPA required a modification of Lundy’s rule: district courts confronted with a mixed petition containing potentially meritorious, unexhausted claims, should stay the petition and hold it in abeyance pending prompt exhaustion of state remedies, rather than dismissing the petition without prejudice. See Griffin v. Rogers, 308 F.3d 647, 652 & n. 1 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Duncan, 533 U.S. at 182-183, 121 S.Ct. 2120 Options: A. holding that a district court faced with a mixed petition should dismiss only the unexhausted claims in the habeas petition and stay further proceedings on the remaining portion until the petitioner has exhausted hisher remedies in state court B. holding that a district court faced with a mixed petition should stay the unexhausted claims pending exhaustion rather than dismiss them without prejudice for the same purpose it is preferable to stay proceedings pending exhaustion C. holding that insurance guarantee association stay statute did not suspend limitation period because action was not pending when stay was entered D. holding that such a stay is appropriate where in the absence of a stay the continuation of the proceedings in the trial court disrupts the arbitration proceedings and can render them ineffective E. holding that it was an abuse of discretion for a district court not to stay an exhausted petition pending exhaustion of a newly discovered claim

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a district court faced with a mixed petition should stay the unexhausted claims pending exhaustion rather than dismiss them without prejudice for the same purpose it is preferable to stay proceedings pending exhaustion
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: intended to grant the Planning Commission injunctive powers, it would have done so by expressly providing the Planning Commission such power. See generally id. The legislature’s intent is apparent. By omitting any reference authorizing the authority or lead agency, such as the Planning Commission, to order injunctive relief on its own, the CZMA makes clear that the power to enjoin is solely granted to the circuit court. See HRS §§ 206A-33 and 205A-6(c). Accordingly, the provisions of the CZMA undoubtedly affirm that injunc-tive authority rests with the circuit court. 2. By ordering Morgan to conduct a sand replenishment program, the Planning Commission improperly attempted to mandate injunctive relief. An injunction is an extraordinary remedy. Castle v. Kapena, 5 Haw. 27 (1884) (<HOLDING>); see also Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, Options: A. holding that the relevant inquiry when assessing irreparable injury is whether there is an adequate remedy in the absence of an injunction B. holding that an accounting is an extraordinary remedy C. holding that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy D. holding in review of a downward departure that an extraordinary reduction must be supported by extraordinary circumstances E. holding that once a plaintiff has met its burden in showing that an injunction is necessary no delay in the issuance of that injunction is appropriate absent extraordinary considerations here there are no extraordinary circumstances or considerations only the relatively standard posttrial motions

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy
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: of sentencing would, in effect, permit the Rule to read: “a determination that no such finding was necessary because the matter controverted was not taken into account in sentencing.” We reject such a reading of the Rule. II We next address what the Rule requires when a district court complies with the substantive requirements of the Rule, but fails to append to the presentence report the appropriate findings or determinations resolving the controverted matters. We hold that such a technical violation of the Rule is a ministerial error which does not require resentencing. The technical error must, however, be corrected by ordering the district court to append to the pre-sentence report the required findings or determinations. United States v. Knockum, 881 F.2d 730, 732 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); U.S. v. Gattas, 862 F.2d 1432, 1435; (10 Options: A. holding that appellate courts may not on appeal from the dismissal of a rule 32 petition consider claims not raise in the rule 32 petition B. holding that appellate courts may not on appeal from the dismissal of a rule 32 petition consider claims not raised in the rule 32 petition C. holding that a courts failure to provide a defendant with any portion of a habeas transcript was error D. holding that error will not be presumed from a silent record and that without the relevant transcript there is insufficient evidence to review the alleged error and the appellant carries the burden of demonstrating the alleged error in the record E. holding that ministerial error of failing to append rule 32 findings or determinations will not permit habeas relief because the error may be remedied by ordering the district court to attach the sentencing transcript

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that ministerial error of failing to append rule 32 findings or determinations will not permit habeas relief because the error may be remedied by ordering the district court to attach the sentencing transcript
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: shareholder does not have standing to bring a direct cause of action under federal law when the only damage alleged is the diminution in the value of the corporate shares.”). But the two concepts overlap and that is particularly true in the context of civil RICO claims. As a general matter, they overlap because a plaintiff who lacks standing to vindicate a derivative injury also will be unable to show proximate cause. And as a matter of RICO law, the two concepts overlap because they both grow out of the “by reason of’ limitation in RICO — namely, the requirement that claimants establish that their injury was “by reason of’ a RICO predicate act violation. The “by reason of’ limitation, in other words, bundles together a variety of “judici n., Inc., 973 F.2d 474, 487 (6th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); County of Oakland, 866 F.2d at 850-51 Options: A. holding that a shareholder lacks standing to bring a suit based on loss in value to his or her shares as this injury derives from and thus is not distinct from the injury to the corporation B. holding that beneficiaries of an estate lacked standing under rico to sue for an injury derivative of the estates injury C. holding that a rico plaintiff alleging destruction of the value of his stock lacks standing because his injury is derivative of the corporations injury D. holding that health care trust funds that paid medical claims could not sue tobacco companies under rico because their injury was derivative of smokers injury and stating a direct relationship between the injury and the alleged wrongdoing although not the sole requirement of rico proximate causation has been one of its central elements citations omitted E. holding that under rico plaintiff must prove an injury because of violation of statute

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a rico plaintiff alleging destruction of the value of his stock lacks standing because his injury is derivative of the corporations injury
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: VI. Notwithstanding the absolute nature of these words, the Supreme Court has held that jury trials are required only for “serious” crimes; “petty” offenses can be tried by a judge. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 159-62, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 1452-54, 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968). To determine if an offense is serious, a court must look to objective criteria, particularly “the severity of the maximum authorized penalty.” Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 68, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 1888, 26 L.Ed.2d 437 (1970) (plurality opinion). Where Congress has indicated the seriousness of a crime by setting a maximum penalty for it of more than six months imprisonment, a defendant is entitled to'a jury trial. See Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538, 541, 109 S.Ct. 1289, 1292, 103 L.Ed.2d 550 (1989) (<HOLDING>). However, “criminal contempt is unique in that Options: A. holding that in construing statute courts must first look to its plain language B. holding that courts must look to the state that rendered the judgment to determine whether the courts of that state would afford the judgment preclusive effect C. holding a defense of alcoholism was outweighed by the seriousness of the offense and the appellants prior disciplinary record D. holding that courts must look to objective indications of the seriousness with which society regards the offense E. holding that in determining whether a prior conviction is a violent felony a court generally must look only to the fact of conviction and the statutory definition of the prior offense

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that courts must look to objective indications of the seriousness with which society regards the offense
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: decision came down. In the present case, however, although the events which gave rise to the prosecution occurred before the final opinion and the mandate issued in Delgado, the conviction under review was not final until after August 24, 2000. III. Appellant argues that his burglary conviction should be reversed because the jury might have convicted him on the theory that he remained in the store, having decided to take the money, despite concluding that he did not remain in the store surreptitiously. A conviction that rests on alternative bases, one of which is legally inadequate, cannot be upheld, if a general verdict makes it impossible to say with certainty that the jury convicted under a theory that was legally adequate. See Mackerley v. State, 777 So.2d 969, 969 (Fla.2001) (<HOLDING>). Basic requirements of due process require Options: A. holding that where both firstdegree and felony murder were possible bases for a murder conviction a jury instruction that suggested the jury could rely on felony murder as the predicate offense for a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder was improper because under arizona law a conviction for conspiracy to commit firstdegree murder requires a specific intent to kill B. holding that reversal of conviction for felony murder was required where jury failed to find the defendant guilty of the underlying felony as essential element of the felony murder offense C. holding that first and seconddegree intentional murder verdicts are consistent with a felony murder verdict because lack of intent is not an element of seconddegree felony murder D. holding error is not harmless when the accused is convicted of firstdegree murder on a general verdict after a trial in which premeditation and felony murder theories are espoused if the felony underlying the felony murder charge is based on a legally unsupportable theory E. holding constitutional arizonas scheme of providing general verdicts for firstdegree murder based on either premeditation or felony murder without requiring jury unanimity

assistant: The best answer is D. holding error is not harmless when the accused is convicted of firstdegree murder on a general verdict after a trial in which premeditation and felony murder theories are espoused if the felony underlying the felony murder charge is based on a legally unsupportable theory
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 reimburse the Contractor for all reasonable expenses incurred by it in the course of performing its duties and services under this Consulting Agreement, provided the expenses are consistent with the Company’s policies in effect from time to time with respect to travel and other business expenses, and subject to, in the case of expenses in excess of $500, pre-approval by the CEO or his designee, and, in all cases, the Company’s requirements with respect to reporting and documentation of expenses.

assistant: Expenses
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 Servicer hereby authorizes and hereby agrees from time to time, at its own expense, promptly to execute (if necessary) and deliver all further instruments and documents, and to take all further actions, that may be necessary, or that the Administrative Agent may reasonably request, to perfect, protect or more fully evidence the security interest granted pursuant to this Agreement or any other Transaction Document, or to enable the Administrative Agent (on behalf of the Secured Parties) to exercise and enforce their respective rights and remedies under this Agreement or any other Transaction Document. Without limiting the foregoing, the Servicer hereby authorizes, and will, upon the request of the Administrative Agent (with such request being hereby deemed to be an authorization as to such filing by the Administrative Agent), at the Servicer’s own expense, execute (if necessary) and file such financing statements or continuation statements, or amendments thereto, and such other instruments and documents, that may be necessary or desirable, or that the Administrative Agent may reasonably request (with such request being hereby deemed to be an authorization as to such filing by the Administrative Agent), to perfect, protect or evidence any of the foregoing.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be modified, amended, suspended or terminated, and any terms, representations or conditions may be waived, but only by a written instrument signed by each of the parties hereto or their successors in interest. No waiver hereunder shall constitute a waiver with respect to any subsequent occurrence or other transaction hereunder or of any other provision hereof.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: release and accepted the pitiful sum of $50 in settlement of the injuries received by him he was in the hospital of the railway company, at St. Louis, hundreds of miles away from his family and friends and advisers, surrounded by tire paid employés of the railway company, almost a monomaniac upon the subject of once more obtaining employment with the railway company; and the assurances from the claim agent that the sum accepted and the release signed by him only related to the slight injury mours & Co., 116 Hawai’i 277, 172 P.3d 1021, 1033-35 (2007) (same), Phipps v. Winneshiek County, 593 N.W.2d 143, 145-46 (Iowa 1999) (same), and Roth v. La Societe Anonyme Turbomeca France, 120 S.W.3d 764, 771-76 (Mo.Ct.App.2003) (same), with Taylor v. Hopper, 207 Cal. 102, 276 P. 990, 991-92 (1929) (<HOLDING>), and Shallenberger v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., Options: A. holding that no consideration existed for part of the settlement B. holding that a party may rescind a contract and avoid liability thereunder if the partys consent to the contract was procured by the other partys either fraudulent or nonfraudulent material misrepresentations C. holding that a plaintiff must rescind a settlement and return the consideration received thereunder before bringing a suit for fraud D. holding that in the context of a settlement contract the defrauded party may either 1 rescind the settlement or 2 ratify the settlement retain the proceeds and institute an action to recover fraud damages E. holding acceptance of settlement estopped plaintiff from subsequent suit

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a plaintiff must rescind a settlement and return the consideration received thereunder before bringing a suit for fraud
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: courts typically engage in an analysis of ripeness. Specifically, courts consider three factors: (1) the adversity of the parties’ interests; (2) the probable conclusiveness of a judgment, and (3) the practical utility of the judgment to the parties. Step-Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Technology, 912 F.2d 643, 647 (3d Cir.1990). In addition to ripeness concerns, the question of whether to defer adjudication of the duty to indemnify also raises “a more basic concern with fairness given the insurer’s conflict of interest in representing an insured at the same time it attempts to establish facts that support the insured’s liability.” Couch on Insurance 3d. § 227:37. To extent that basic notions of fairness are implicated, this issue has also been character *1 (E.D.Pa. May 10, 2005) (<HOLDING>). Hartford suggests that it will be harmed if Options: A. holding that because the settlement agreement here specifically did not contain any admission of liability the plaintiff must therefore prove some liability on the part of defendant B. holding that where there has been no settlement or judgment of liability regarding the underlying claim any imposition of liability is not so immediate as to warrant declaratory relief on the issue of indemnification C. holding that the insureds liability has been established by the settlement and the insurer may not later relitigate the issue D. holding that fouryear limitation period on indemnification claim does not commence until the party seeking indemnification has paid a judgment or has made a voluntary payment of its legal liability to an injured party E. holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that where there has been no settlement or judgment of liability regarding the underlying claim any imposition of liability is not so immediate as to warrant declaratory relief on the issue of indemnification
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: claim for failure to abide by these strictures. In addressing that assertion, we note that the specificity requirement extends only to the particulars of the allegedly misleading statement itself. See Educadores Puertorriqueños en Acción v. Hernández, 367 F.3d 61, 66 (1st Cir.2004). The other elements of fraud, such as intent and knowledge, may be averred in general terms. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). After careful perscrutation, we deem this line of defense unavailing. The Larkin and Prentiss letters are unarguably specific as to speaker, content, context, and time. These statements are sufficient to shield the fraudulent misrepresentation count from dismissal at the pleading stage. See, e.g., Powers, 926 F.2d at 111; see also Philippe v. Shape, Inc., 688 F.Supp. 783, 786-87 (D.Me.1988) (<HOLDING>). We note, however, that the complaint Options: A. holding that a complaint satisfied rule 9b because it identified the misrepresentations at issue the specific dates on which they were made and the specific persons responsible for making them B. holding that a plaintiff satisfied rule 9b by pleading which machines were the subject of alleged fraudulent transactions and the nature and subject of the alleged misrepresentations C. holding that if the alleged misrepresentations are material a plaintiff is entitled to recovery whether or not the misrepresentations caused the alleged damage D. holding that rule 9b applies to fca E. holding that documents affixed to complaint that contained alleged misrepresentations satisfied rule 9b

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that documents affixed to complaint that contained alleged misrepresentations satisfied rule 9b
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: Young doctrine applies “even though [prospective relief may be] accompanied by a substantial ancillary effect on the state treasury”). This case is not like the Supreme Court’s decision in Coeur dAlene Tribe. There, the Court held that Ex parte Young did not apply because the relief the Native American tribe sought “would diminish, even extinguish, the State’s control over a vast reach of lands and waters long deemed by the State to be an integral part of its territory.” 521 U.S. at 282, 117 S.Ct. 2028. Unlike that case, a state’s interest in patents does not “uniquely implicate sovereign interests.” Id. In the absence of a “core sovereign interest,” a state’s injunction suit against state officers “may properly proceed in a district court.” Cahill, 217 F.3d at 100; see id. at 104 (<HOLDING>); Oregon v. Heavy Vehicle Elec. License Plate, Options: A. holding state of connecticut may sue new york state officials for declaratory and injunctive relief in federal district court in suit over lobster rights B. holding that there is an exception to eleventh amendment immunity for actions seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials for alleged violations of federal law C. holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer D. holding that the eleventh amendment does not prevent private individuals from bringing suit against state officials for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief for ongoing violations of federal law E. holding that sovereign immunity barred a suit against state officials when the relief sought required state officials to retroactively pay federal benefits

assistant: The best answer is A. holding state of connecticut may sue new york state officials for declaratory and injunctive relief in federal district court in suit over lobster rights
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 failure or delay of any Party in exercising any right or remedy hereunder will operate as a waiver thereof, nor will any single or partial exercise of any such right or power, or any abandonment or discontinuance of steps to enforce such right or power, or any course of conduct, preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right or power. Any agreement on the part of any Party to any such waiver will be valid only if set forth in a written instrument executed and delivered by a duly authorized Person on behalf of such Party.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 440 (1987) overruled on other grounds by Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991) (citing Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 303-304, 305, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976) (plurality opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Loving v. United States (Loving II), 62 M.J. 235, 236 (C.A.A.F.2005) (" ‘Death is different' is a fundamental principle of Eighth Amendment law.”); Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 995, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) ("The penalty of death differs from all other forms of criminal punishment, not in degree but in kind.” (quoting Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 306, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972))); United States v. Curtis (Curtis I), 32 MJ. 252, 255 (C.M.A.1991) (<HOLDING>); see also Jeffrey Abramson, Death-is-Different Options: A. recognizing that 18 usc 922g1 treats actual and constructive possession the same B. holding that although not essential to the outcomes of two previous cases the court of appeals should have followed the texas supreme courts statements in those cases C. recognizing that the supreme court treats capital and noncapital cases differently D. holding that the court of appeals has jurisdiction over murder cases under the constitution even if thornton directs such cases to be transferred to the supreme court E. holding that district court opinion which cites controlling authority that is pending review in florida supreme court allows supreme court to exercise jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that the supreme court treats capital and noncapital cases differently
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower will, and will cause each Restricted Subsidiary to, comply with all Requirements of Law and judgments, writs, injunctions, decrees and orders of any Governmental Authority, whether now in effect or hereafter enacted, applicable to it or its property (including without limitation the USA Patriot Act), except where the failure to do so would not reasonably be expected to result in 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: 7. Confidential Information shall not include information which is: d. If the Receiving Party receives a court order to disclose Confidential Information. In this case Receiving Party shall (i) promptly notify the Disclosing Party in order to allow the latter to act and avoid such disclosure, and

assistant: Yes
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: knowledge of a recurring danger can establish constructive notice, a substantial number of jurisdictions have held that “[a] defendant who has actual knowledge of an ongoing and recurring dangerous condition can be charged with constructive notice of each specific reoccurrence of the condition.” Milano v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 73 A.D.3d 1141, 903 N.Y.S.2d 78, 79 (App. Div. 2010); see also Blair v. West Town Mall, 130 S.W.3d 761, 765-66 (Tenn. 2004) (“plaintiffs may prove that a premises owner had constructive notice of the presence of a dangerous condition by showing a pattern of conduct, a recurring incident, or a general or continuing condition indicating the dangerous condition’s existence”); Mahoney v. J.C. Penney Co., 1962- NMSC 086, 71 N.M. 244, 377 P.2d 663, 673 (1963) (<HOLDING>); Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d Options: A. holding construction company had actual notice of dangerous condition that its employees created B. holding that warrantless search as probation condition was a valid limitation to the defendants fourth amendment rights when defendant asserted the condition was not reasonably related to rehabilitation C. holding that a cause of action on the theory of strict liability may be properly pled by alleging 1 the manufacturers relationship to the product in question 2 the unreasonably dangerous condition of the product and 3 the existence of a proximate causal connection between the condition of the product and the plaintiffs injury D. holding that plaintiffs failure to object to the improper comments of defendant during closing arguments resulted in waiver of plaintiffs right to argue the issue on appeal because the trial court was not given an opportunity to rule on the issue E. holding that when a possessor knows that a dangerous condition frequently reoccurs plaintiffs had a right to go to the jury on the issue of defendants negligence even where plaintiffs could not show how long the condition remained on the stairs

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that when a possessor knows that a dangerous condition frequently reoccurs plaintiffs had a right to go to the jury on the issue of defendants negligence even where plaintiffs could not show how long the condition remained on the stairs
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: from Edmond’s Sixth Amendment claim that she sought Lyles’ indictment to deny Edmond his counsel of choice, we need look no farther than Imbler v. Pachtman. In Imbler, the Supreme Court accorded absolute immunity to a prosecutor who was accused of maliciously and unlawfully charging the plaintiff with murder. 424 U.S. at 415-16, 96 S.Ct. at 988. While recognizing that “[a]t some point ... the prosecutor no doubt functions as an administrator rather than as an officer of the court” and that “[d]rawing a proper line between these functions may present difficult questions,” the Imbler Court specified that absolute immunity protects prosecutors’ decisions “whether and when to prosecute.” Id. at 431 n. 33, 96 S.Ct. at 995 n. 33; see also Taylor v. Kavanagh, 640 F.2d 450, 452 (2d Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Edmond’s Sixth Amendment claim against Amell Options: A. holding that malicious prosecution claim accrues when underlying prosecution is terminated B. recognizing that decision to initiate prosecution is immunized under imbler C. recognizing that ejquity will not enjoin a criminal prosecution solely to prevent such a prosecution D. holding in case where key witness cooperated only after his arrest that even though the prosecution has probable cause it is under no duty to initiate criminal proceedings until it is satisfied that it can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt E. recognizing third partys right to initiate dependency proceedings under chapter 39

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that decision to initiate prosecution is immunized under imbler
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) Each borrowing by any Borrower from the Lenders hereunder, each payment by any Borrower on account of any facility fee and any reduction of the Revolving Commitments of the Lenders shall be made pro rata according to the respective Revolving Percentages of the relevant Lenders.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Unless otherwise defined in this Amendment, capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Temporary Limited Waiver or the Credit Agreement, as applicable. All references to herein, hereto and words of similar import mean this Amendment.

assistant: Definitions
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: Borrower agrees to indemnify Lender from and against any and all claims, losses and liabilities, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees, growing out of or resulting from this Agreement (including without limitation enforcement of this Agreement), except claims, losses or liabilities resulting solely and directly from Lender’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. The indemnification provided for in this Section shall survive the payment in full of the Loan.

assistant: Indemnifications
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: as a popularity contest nor should it be used to measure or compare the skill or cleverness of the lawyers involved.” Juries are presumed to follow jury instructions, Brown v. Ornoski, 503 F.3d 1006, 1018 (9th Cir.2007), and such instructions can “alleviat[e] any appearance of impartiality the judge’s questioning may have conveyed,” Kennedy, 901 F.2d at 710. In light of the district court judge’s extensive curative instructions, the strength of the evidence of Scott’s guilt on the offenses for which he was convicted, and the jury’s independence in rejecting five of the alleged predicate acts, we conclude that Scott was not prejudiced by any improper conduct on the judge’s part, either individually or in the aggregate. See United States v. Morgan, 376 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. McDonald, 576 F.2d Options: A. holding that a thirtyminute delay in providing curative instructions to a jury for improper conduct did not result in prejudice against the defendant B. holding court did not abuse discretion in deciding to deal with the jurors note solely by giving a curative instruction when there was no evidence of misconduct or prejudice C. recognizing that use of curative or limiting instructions is within the district courts discretion D. holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict E. holding that the trial judges misconduct at trial did not prejudice the defendant in light of the courts curative instructions

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the trial judges misconduct at trial did not prejudice the defendant in light of the courts curative instructions
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 any way suggest that it is a payment in lieu of taxes. Instead, the dividend-based payment is calculated based on a percentage of the City’s equity or investment in the properties of the electric division. This sum is not in the nature of an ad valorem tax and is separate and distinct from tax equivalent payments calculated based on the value of the utility’s property. See Town of Middleton v. City of Bolivar, No. W2011-01592-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 2865960, at *18-24 (Tenn.Ct. App. July 13, 2012) (examining the distinction between PILOT payments and other types of fees). Accordingly, the City is not entitled to subtract the dividend based payment required by subsection 693(6) from the total tax equivalent payment made by MLGW prior to calculating Shelby County’s share. See id. at *23 (<HOLDING>). In summary, we agree with the trial court’s Options: A. holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to require a defendant to pay all back taxes B. holding that the gas laws mandate that pilots be in lieu of all state city and local taxes or charges did not bear on the utilitys authority to pay franchise fees that were not in the nature of property taxes and that the utility was required to pay both franchise fees and pilots C. holding that charges should be given more precise content by taxes and fees D. holding that taxes were a claim against the estate that had to be filed in probate court thus reversing an order requiring heirs to pay taxes on estate property because the district court did not have jurisdiction E. holding that permit fees imposed by statute were not taxes

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the gas laws mandate that pilots be in lieu of all state city and local taxes or charges did not bear on the utilitys authority to pay franchise fees that were not in the nature of property taxes and that the utility was required to pay both franchise fees and pilots
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the statute unambiguously defines the operative event as the discovery of the disposition of the asset, the statute cannot mean, that the one-year period runs from the claimant’s discovery of facts showing that the disposition of the asset may have been fraudulent as to creditors. To make the existing statutory term “transfer” carry that meaning, we would in effect have to delete it and replace it with a phrase like “fraudulent nature of the transfer” or “facts constituting the cause of action.” It is not within our authority, however, to rewrite an unambiguous statute. See Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla.1999) (“We are not at liberty to add words to statutes that were not placed there by the Legislature.”); FINR II, Inc. v. Hardee Cty., 164 So.3d 1260, 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (<HOLDING>). That exercise is instead the respo'nsibility Options: A. holding that the court may not under the guise of statutory construction rewrite a statutory provision B. holding that a court may not rewrite the statute to insert an additional requirement not placed there by the legislature C. holding that the courts in the absence of ambiguity should as a general rule confine themselves to a construction of a statute as written and not attempt under the guise of construction to supply omissions or remedy possible defects in the statute or to insert exceptions not made by the legislature D. holding that the legislature may create or expand privileges by statute E. holding that a court may not rewrite the insurance contract under the guise of judicial interpretation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a court may not rewrite the statute to insert an additional requirement not placed there by the legislature
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to hear this appeal only if such jurisdiction is provided by the collateral order doctrine. In Cohen, the Court stated that 28 U.S.C. § 1291 does not “permit appeals, even from fully consummated decisions, where they are but steps towards final judgment in which they will merge.” Id. at 546, 69 S.Ct. at 1225. “The purpose is to combine in one review all stages of the proceeding that effectively may be reviewed and corrected if and when final judgment results.” Id. The collateral order doctrine carves out a “narrow exception to the normal application of the final judgment rule,” Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 798, 109 S.Ct. 1494, 1498, 103 L.Ed.2d 879 (1989), limited to orders that (1) c calf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 113 S.Ct. 684, 121 L.Ed.2d 605 (1993) (<HOLDING>); and Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 63 S.Ct. Options: A. holding that the mitchell rationale applies to claims of eleventh amendment immunity made by states and state entities B. holding that 1983 does not override a states eleventh amendment immunity C. holding that state did not waive eleventh amendment immunity by removing case to federal court D. holding that 1983 does not override states eleventh amendment immunity E. holding that the eleventh amendment applies in 1981 litigation

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the mitchell rationale applies to claims of eleventh amendment immunity made by states and state entities
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: 955 (Tex.1983) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). As discussed above, Judge Rynd initially rescinded the August 26, 2008 writ of habeas corpus at the beginning of the September 3, 2008 hearing, stating “I believe it’s not in the best interest of the child to have the writ of habeas corpus issued.” However, Judge Rynd’s final ruling, at the September 3, 2008 hearing, denied the writ on the finding that “there is a seriou .-San Antonio 1984, orig. proceeding) (finding that habeas corpus application was used inappropriately to decide final custody where later hearing was not contemplated). Moreover, the order does not provide Bradshaw with any visitation with, or access to, C.S.B., and is an improper denial of Bradshaw’s right to visitation with C.S.B. See In re Lau, 89 S.W.3d at 759-60 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Bradshaw’s fifth issue is Options: A. recognizing right of fit parent to prevent visitation by grandparents which right can only be overridden by court based on evidence that the prevention of the visitation would harm the child B. holding order improperly denied relators right to visitation with his child C. holding conclusory statements in visitation dispute were not adequate to support awarding visitation rights D. holding order was nonfinal where order reserved jurisdiction to determine integrallyrelated visitation and child support issues E. holding it is the relators burden to provide this court with a sufficient record to establish his or her right to mandamus relief

assistant: The best answer is B. holding order improperly denied relators right to visitation with his child
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 that end , these terms provide for a two-part process for individuals to whom section 19.1 applies : ( 1 ) an informal negotiation directly with airbnb 's customer service team , and ( 2 ) a binding arbitration administered by the american arbitration association ( `` aaa '' ) using its specially designed consumer arbitration rules ( as modified by this section 19 ) .

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 headings used in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and do not constitute a part of this Agreement and shall not be deemed to limit, characterize, or in any way affect any provision of this Agreement, and all provisions of this Agreement shall be enforced and construed as if no headings had been used in this Agreement.

assistant: Headings
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 Option Price shall be payable in full upon the exercise of any Option and, at the discretion of the Committee, an Option Certificate can provide for the payment of the Option Price either (a) in cash, or (b) by check, or (c) in Stock which is acceptable to the Committee, or (d) through any cashless exercise procedure which is effected by an unrelated broker through a sale of Stock in the open market and which is acceptable to the Committee, or (e) through any cashless exercise procedure which is acceptable to the Committee, or (f) in any combination of such forms of payment. Any payment made in Stock shall be treated as equal to the Fair Market Value of such Stock on the date the certificate for such Stock (or proper evidence of such certificate) is presented to the Committee or its delegate in such form as acceptable to the Committee. Any method for the payment of the Option Price permitted pursuant to this § 7.4 may be used for the payment of any withholding requirements under § 16.3. Each Option Certificate shall be deemed to include the right to pay the Option Price in accordance with the procedure described in § 7.4(c) or § 7.4(e).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) During the Term and thereafter, the Employee shall not make any oral or written statement or comment that disparages, diminishes or injures, or that a reasonable person would expect at the time such statement or comment is made to likely have the effect of disparaging, diminishing or injuring, the reputation or goodwill of the Company or its affiliates, or any of its or their respective directors, officers or employees; provided , however , that nothing herein shall prevent the Employee from (i) making truthful statements in good faith in response to any governmental or regulatory inquiry or in any judicial, administrative or other proceeding or government investigation or (ii) providing any information that may be required by applicable law.

assistant: Non-Disparagement