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: the application letter referred to briefs that had been submitted to the Appellate Division and were attached to the letter. Id. at *4. Noting that the petitioner in Grey had mentioned only one issue his application letter whereas the petitioner presently before it had incorporated claims by reference, the Melendez court concluded that it faced a situation “quite different from Grey.” Specifically, the Melendez court found that “it is by no means obvious that [the one issue discussed in detail in the application letter] was the only point for which leave to appeal was sought,” and decided that the other claims incorporated by reference had been fairly presented to the state courts. Id. at *4-*5; see also Manning v. Artuz, No. 94-CV-3325, 1996 WL 294359, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. May 29, 1996) (<HOLDING>) Given the preferability of reviewing habeas Options: A. holding that appeal from a decision of the attorney general denying legal representation was before the appellate division as of right to review the final decision of a state officer B. holding that the attorney generals decision not to provide representation to an employee is reviewable by the appellate division not by the law division where the actions against the employee are pending C. holding that reconsideration of the correctness of property division was barred on appeal from the judgment enforcing that division D. holding that a transfer was a demotion where there was testimony that few people transferred voluntarily from jobs in the plaintiffs prior division to jobs in the plaintiffs new division everybody viewed a transfer from the plaintiffs new division to the prior division as a promotion and the two departments had different seniority systems E. holding that when an application letter included a statement referring to the appellate division briefs the claims in the briefs were fairly presented to highest state court because the fair import of this statement was that petitioner was requesting the new york court of appeals to review the same claims that were advanced in the appellate division

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that when an application letter included a statement referring to the appellate division briefs the claims in the briefs were fairly presented to highest state court because the fair import of this statement was that petitioner was requesting the new york court of appeals to review the same claims that were advanced in the appellate division
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 355 U.S. 369 78 S.Ct. 363 2 L.Ed.2d 352 I. N. GORDON, appellant,v.STATE OF TEXAS. No. 71. Supreme Court of the United States January 13, 1958 Rehearing Denied March 3, 1958. See 355 U.S. 967, 78 S.Ct. 530. Mr. B. R. Stewart, for appellant. Mr. C. K. Richards, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Texas (Mr. Will Wilson, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is affirmed. Twenty-first Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Carter v. Virginia, 321 U.S. 131, 64 S.Ct. 464, 88 L.Ed. 605.

assistant: 8
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 Collaborative Development Plan and each amendment and update thereto shall be prepared jointly by the Parties through the JDC. The JDC shall have the authority to amend the Collaborative Development Plan with […***…] days prior written notice to Neurocrine, including accelerating, decelerating, extending, adding or removing activities thereunder; provided that, (i) the amendment is consistent with the goals of the Collaborative Development Program and (ii) the number of Neurocrine FTEs funded pursuant to Section 7.3(a), the limitations on total numbers of FTEs in any given period and the allocation of Neurocrine FTEs across functional areas (e.g., CMC, pre-clinical, clinical) may not be decreased or extended or activities added that result in an increase, in either case except as set forth in Section 7.3(a) or with Neurocrine’s written approval, (iii) the Third Party activities set forth in the Third Party Development Contracts and Third Party Manufacturing Contracts will not be terminated except in accordance with their terms (and any associated expenses being payable pursuant to Section 7.3(b)).

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 1996. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 541 (9th Cir. 1992) , and we affirm. We affirm the district court’s finding that the tax liabilities for 1989, 1991 and 1992 are res judicata because the tax court adjudicated these deficiencies in a prior proceeding. See Baker v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Baker), 74 F.3d 906, 909-10 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (“a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action”). We uphold the district court’s deficiency findings for 1993 through 1996, and its penalty finding for 1992, because the government submitted Forms 4340 in support of these determinations, see Hughes, 953 F.2d at 535 (<HOLDING>), and the Collinses did not produce evidence Options: A. holding that the color of law element may be satisfied by the fact that an official gains access to the victim in the course of official duty B. holding that form 4340 shows in the absence of contrary evidence that notices and assessments were properly made C. holding that official certificates such as forms 4340 can constitute proof of the fact that the assessments were actually and properly made D. holding that as a matter of evidence juries may properly consider prior oral and written statements for the purpose of defining the contract that was actually made E. holding that form 4340 is probative evidence in and of itself and shows in the absence of contrary evidence that notices and assessments were properly made

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that official certificates such as forms 4340 can constitute proof of the fact that the assessments were actually and properly made
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: 1999-NMSC-016, ¶ 25, 127 N.M. 254, 980 P.2d 37 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A reviewing court’s determination of what process is due in an administrative proceeding results from a balancing of (1) “the private interest that will be affected by the official action”; (2) “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards”; and (3) “the [g]overnment’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Id. ¶ 26 (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S nced against ABCWUA’s and NMIEC’s private interest in just and reasonable utility rates. See § 62-3-1 (B) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we turn to the second prong of Options: A. holding that a private invasion whether accidental or deliberate reasonable or unreasonable does not violate the fourth amendment because of its private character B. recognizing the public interest exception C. recognizing the private interest in reasonable and proper service at fair just and reasonable rates D. recognizing that the extent of the protection accorded a privacy right at common law rested in part on the degree of dissemination of the allegedly private fact and the extent to which the passage of time rendered it private E. recognizing private right of action

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing the private interest in reasonable and proper service at fair just and reasonable rates
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: After the date hereof, the Company shall provide the Purchaser and its Representatives with access, at reasonable times, on reasonable notice and during ordinary business hours, to such information related to the Purchased Assets in the Company’s possession as is reasonably necessary for financial reporting and accounting matters, the preparation and filing of any Tax Returns, reports or forms, or the defense of any Tax claim or assessment, and the Purchaser and its Representatives shall be permitted to make extracts from, or take copies of, any books, records or other documentation related to the Purchased Assets as may be reasonably necessary for such purposes.

assistant: Records
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 price as set by the market. An investor who buys or sells stock at the price set by the market does so in reliance on the integrity of that price. Because most publicly available information is reflected in market price, an investor’s reliance on any public material misrepresentations, therefore, may be presumed for purposes of a Rule 10b-5 action. Id. at 247, 108 S.Ct. at 992. Our circuit has adopted the theory that the unique nature of the public securities market distinguishes fraud on the market from other claims of garden-variety fraud. Our case law refers to this unique nature of the public securities market as the “integrity of the market.” Kirkpatrick v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 827 F.2d 718, 722 (11th Cir.1987); Shores v. Sklar, 647 F.2d 462, 469 (5th Cir. May 1981) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). While Kirkpatrick stated that the Options: A. holding reliance is still an element of a 10b5 action and that the fraud on the market theory subject to rebuttal is applicable to meet the reliance element in securities fraud cases where corporations make materially misleading statements in an impersonal and efficient market B. holding that reliance may be established by proof that securities not traded on the open market could not have been issued at all but for a fraudulent scheme of the defendants the plaintiff still had to prove that he relied on the integrity of the offerings of the securities market C. holding that for a section 10b violation the sec must prove that the defendant in connection with the purchase or sale of securities made a materially false statement or omitted a material fact with scienter and that the plaintiffs reliance on the defendants action caused injury to the plaintiff D. holding that proof of relevant market is essential under 2 E. holding damage award resulting from a breach of an agreement to purchase securities is the difference between the contract price and the fair market value of the asset at the time of the breach

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that reliance may be established by proof that securities not traded on the open market could not have been issued at all but for a fraudulent scheme of the defendants the plaintiff still had to prove that he relied on the integrity of the offerings of the securities market
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: have therefore determined that, in aid of the proper exercise of this Court’s certiorari jurisdiction, the Federal District Court in which this proceeding commenced should upon due notice to the State and all other interested parties make a judicial determination as to Rees’ mental competence and render a report on the matter to us. Id.; see also Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 180, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975) (“[E]videnee of a defendant’s irrational behavior, his demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial are all relevant in determining whether further inquiry is required, but ... even one of these factors standing alone may, in some circumstances, be sufficient.”); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385-86, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966) (<HOLDING>). Like the Supreme Court in Rees, we require Options: A. holding that further inquiry into falsity of defendants prior testimony in a rape case is barred B. holding that resentencing is required C. holding that further inquiry is required where a defendant displays irrational behavior D. holding that once probable cause is established officer is not required to investigate further E. holding that where the statutory scheme is clear the inquiry should end

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that further inquiry is required where a defendant displays irrational behavior
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: suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time.” 407 U.S. at 146, 92 S.Ct. at 1923. The Cheung Tin Wong court concluded that whether the INS investigator’s actions in that case were characterized as “mere questioning” or a “brief stop of a suspicious individual . . .” they should be tested according to the standard of whether he had a reasonable suspicion that the petitioner was an alien' at the time he stopped the taxi. The court found that the investigator’s actions had been justified under that standard. 152 U.S.App.D.C. 70-71, 468 F.2d at 1127-28. See also Au Yi Lau, supra, 144 U.S.App.D.C. at 153—54, 445 F.2d at 223-24 (<HOLDING>). The principles articulated in Au Yi Lau and Options: A. holding landlord jointly liable when he knew of or acquiesced in the tenants trespass B. holding that custodial interrogation by police must not occur prior to suspect being informed of his or her right to counsel and against selfincrimination C. holding defendant was in custody under miranda while being detained under terry D. holding that defendant was in custody when police questioned him in his bedroom late at night E. recognizing that one accosted in apparent attempt to avoid being questioned was not clearly detained against his will when he thereafter readily acquiesced in the investigators interrogation

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that one accosted in apparent attempt to avoid being questioned was not clearly detained against his will when he thereafter readily acquiesced in the investigators interrogation
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: We have jurisdiction' over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Rieco has been granted in forma pauperis status, we review this appeal for possible dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Our review of orders dismissing certain defendants and granting summary judgment to others is plenary. See McGreevy v. Stroup, 413 F.3d 359, 363 (3d Cir.2005) (stating standard of review over an order granting summary judgment); Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir.1996) (stating standard of review over dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)). The District Court correctly concluded that Judge Dalton is immune from suit because Rieco sued him for actions he took in his role as a judge. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (<HOLDING>). The Court also correctly concluded that McCoy Options: A. holding that absolute immunity protects judges so long as their acts are judicial in nature internal quotation omitted B. recognizing that under texas law governmental immunity embraces two principles immunity from liability and immunity from suit C. holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit D. recognizing judicial immunity for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction E. holding that judges have immunity from suit for judicial acts

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that judges have immunity from suit for judicial acts
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: Your employment remains terminable at will by the Company or by you at any time (for any reason or for no reason), subject to the provisions contained herein. This Agreement is governed by California law. No amendment or other modification of this Agreement shall be effective unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto. The Company may withhold from any amounts payable under this Agreement such federal, state, local or foreign taxes as shall be required to be withheld pursuant to any applicable law or regulation.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices, requests and other communications to any party hereunder shall be given in the manner prescribed in Section 9.01 of the Credit Agreement with respect to the Administrative Agent at its notice address therein and with respect to any Guarantor, in care of LMI at the address of LMI set forth in the Credit Agreement or such other address or telecopy number as such party may hereafter specify for such purpose by notice to the Administrative Agent in accordance with the provisions of such Section 9.01.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: is so excessive that it violates due process can involve consideration of whether the punitive damages award exceeded the amount necessary to accomplish the goals of punishment and deterrence. Murray v. Laborers Union Local No. 324, 55 F.3d 1445, 1453 (9th Cir.1995) (citing Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 17, 111 S.Ct. 1032, 113 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991)). The Supreme Court did not reject deterrence as a legitimate factor in the consideration of whether or not an award is unconstitutionally excessive in either BMW or State Farm. See BMW, 517 U.S. at 584, 116 S.Ct. 1589 (noting only that deterrence could not justify a punitive damages award without considering whether less drastic measures could be expected to achieve that goal); State Farm, 538 U.S. at 419, 123 S.Ct. 1513 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, in a post-BMW case, the Ninth Options: A. holding that conduct must be beyond the fraud which supported compensatory damages to award punitive damages B. holding prebmw that deterrence is relevant to the determination of constitutionally permissible punitive damages C. recognizing that deterrence relates to reprehensibility in that the conduct must be so reprehensible as to warrant imposition of punitive damages as a further sanction to achieve punishment and deterrence D. recognizing the conduct giving rise to punitive damages must be a proximate cause of the harm inflicted E. holding that perhaps the most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendants conduct

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that deterrence relates to reprehensibility in that the conduct must be so reprehensible as to warrant imposition of punitive damages as a further sanction to achieve punishment and deterrence
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: Upon the issuance or Modification by any LC Issuer of a Facility LC, such LC Issuer shall be deemed, without further action by any party hereto, to have unconditionally and irrevocably sold to each Lender, and each Lender shall be deemed, without further action by any party hereto, to have unconditionally and irrevocably purchased from such LC Issuer, a participation in such Facility LC (and each Modification thereof) and the related LC Obligations in proportion to its Pro Rata Share.

assistant: Participations
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 lead Buyer for all reasonable costs and expenses (whether the transaction is consummated or not) incurred by it or its affiliates in connection with the structuring, documentation, negotiation and closing of the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents (including, without limitation, as applicable, all reasonable legal fees of outside counsel and disbursements of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, counsel to the lead Buyer, any other reasonable fees and expenses in connection with the structuring, documentation, negotiation and closing of the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents and due diligence and regulatory filings in connection therewith) (the “ Transaction Expenses ”) and shall be withheld by the lead Buyer from its Purchase Price at the Closing, less $30,000 previously paid by the Company to Kelley Drye & Warren LLP; provided, that the Company shall promptly reimburse Kelley Drye & Warren LLP on demand for all Transaction Expenses not so reimbursed through such withholding at the Closing. The Company shall be responsible for the payment of any placement agent’s fees, financial advisory fees, transfer agent fees, DTC (as defined below) fees or broker’s commissions (other than for Persons engaged by any Buyer) relating to or arising out of the transactions contemplated hereby (including, without limitation, any fees or commissions payable to the Placement Agent, who is the Company’s sole placement agent in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Agreement). The Company shall pay, and hold each Buyer harmless against, any liability, loss or expense (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and out-of-pocket expenses) arising in connection with any claim relating to any such payment. Except as otherwise set forth in the Transaction Documents, each party to this Agreement shall bear its own expenses in connection with the sale of the Securities to the Buyers.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Executive’s or the Company’s failure to insist upon strict compliance with any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of such provision or any other provision of this Agreement. A waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any other provision, and any waiver of any default in any such provision shall not be deemed a waiver of any later default thereof or of any other provision.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the date hereof, the authorized common stock of the Company consists of 500,000,000 authorized shares of Common Stock, $0.0001 par value per share, of which 66,986,567 shares are issued and outstanding; and 4,728,700 shares are planned to be reserved for issuance upon conversion of the Note. All of such outstanding shares of capital stock are, or upon issuance will be, duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable. .

assistant: Capitalization
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: substance of the evidence is apparent from the context in which the question was asked.’ ” State v. Glass, 2000 ND 212, ¶ 8, 620 N.W.2d 146 (quoting State v. Jensen, 2000 ND 28, ¶ 17, 606 N.W.2d 507 (citing N.D.R.Ev. 103)). The substance of the evidence is not demonstrated when Lemons’ counsel stated only that J.R. would provide “credible exculpatory evidence.” The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lemons’ motion for a continuance. See Erban, 429 N.W.2d at 413 (concluding no abuse of discretion when trial court denied a continuance when a subpoenaed witness could not be located and the defendant failed to advise the court of the expected content of the witness’s testimony if called at trial); see also Flattum-Riemers v. Peters-Riemers, 2001 ND 121, ¶ 15, 630 N.W.2d 71 (<HOLDING>). C [¶ 15] Even though Lemons failed to Options: A. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify B. recognizing that the burden on summary judgment shifts to the nonmoving party once the moving party has met its initial responsibility of showing the absence of a triable issue of fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case C. holding no abuse of discretion when the moving party failed to make an offer of proof by showing what the witness would testify to if present D. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify E. holding that there was no abuse of discretion in allowing a defendants surprise fact witness to testify because the plaintiff did not request a continuance

assistant: The best answer is C. holding no abuse of discretion when the moving party failed to make an offer of proof by showing what the witness would testify to if present
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 Executive Order No. 10096, 15 Fed.Reg. 389 (1950). Consequently, the Commissioner could not have addressed the on-sale bar even if it had been raised by the government. Because the on-sale bar was not and could not have been raised before the Commissioner, the court cannot conclude that, during the rights determination, this issue was (1) decided, (2) actually litigated, (3) essential to the judgment, or (4) that the government had a fair opportunity to litigate the issue. In other words, not one of the four requirements of issue preclusion is satisfied with respect to the on-sale bar. The government cannot, therefore, be collaterally estopped from raising that issue in the instant case. Cf. Zacharin v. United States, No. 96-5076, 1997 WL 63177, at *5 n. 4 (Fed.Cir. Feb. 14, 1997) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff argues that a decision regarding Options: A. holding that age disclosed on a drivers license constituted an admission where the party swore to the truth of the statements made in the license application B. holding that the government could not be precluded from raising the express license in the instant infringement suit on the basis of the commissioners earlier decision because the commissioner did not have authority under executive order 10096 to consider the express license C. holding that the plaintiff was precluded from raising the issue for the first time on appeal D. holding that possession of a drivers license is irrelevant to the offense of failing to present a license which is completed by failing to present the license when requested to do so by an officer E. holding that department of transportation did not have control of motorists drivers license because although the department of transportation may have had a duty to recall the motorists license this authority to revoke does not involve physical possession or actual control sufficient to bring the license within the ambit of the personal property exception to sovereign immunity

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the government could not be precluded from raising the express license in the instant infringement suit on the basis of the commissioners earlier decision because the commissioner did not have authority under executive order 10096 to consider the express license
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 representations and warranties of the Company contained in this Agreement shall be true and correct in all material respects (other than those which are qualified as to materiality, Material Adverse Effect or other similar term, which shall be true and correct in all respects) on and as of the Closing Date with the same force and effect as though made on and as of the Closing Date (except that representations and warranties made as of a specific date shall be true and correct in all material respects (except as aforesaid) on such date); the Company shall have in all material respects performed and complied with all covenants and agreements required by this Agreement to be performed or complied with by the Company on or prior to the Closing Date; and the Company shall have delivered to the Purchaser a certificate, dated the date of the Closing Date and signed by an executive officer of the Company, to the foregoing effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to Life Political Action Comm. v. Gardner, 99 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 1996), to support their standing argument in this regard. In that case, the court held that if a plaintiff launches a pre-enforcement challenge to a statute, which, “on its face, abridges First Amendment rights,” the plaintiff can claim injury from either a threat of enforcement or a First Amendment chilling effect. Id. at 13. Both injuries, however, “hinge on the existence of a credible threat that the challenged law will be enforced.” Id. at 14; see also Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979) (“A plaintiff who challenges a statute must demonstrate a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute’s operation or enforcement.”); Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1972) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 17. At the trial court hearing, Mr. Carter Options: A. holding that the threat of irreparable harm must be immediate B. holding that plaintiffs who alleged a subjective chill of their first amendment rights failed to establish specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm C. holding that chilling effect claim must still be rooted in specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm to convey standing D. recognizing that violation of privacy right even without objective harm is still compensable E. holding all that is required to impose a duty to warn is that the defendant knew or should have known of a specific threat made to harm a specific person

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that chilling effect claim must still be rooted in specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm to convey standing
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: By this Agreement the Parties mutually terminate and cancel the Employment Agreement effective immediately rendering all its terms, obligations and provisions no longer in effect. The Parties agree that this Agreement satisfies all requirements for termination of the Employment Agreement under its terms and provisions, including but not limited to, amendment and notice provisions. Notwithstanding the termination above described, the Company and Executive have agreed that Executive will continue to perform the duties of Chief Financial Officer and Chief Investment Officer on an interim basis until such time as the Company has retained the services of a duly qualified individual or individuals to perform such duties, or upon sooner request of the Company. Upon the retention of such individual(s), or upon sooner request of the Company, Executive agrees to relinquish the title of Chief Financial Officer and/or Chief Investment Officer.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this Agreement is held to be unenforceable for any reason, such provision will be adjusted rather than voided, if possible, in order to achieve the intent of the parties to the maximum extent possible. In any event, all other provisions of this Agreement will be deemed valid and enforceable to the full extent possible.

assistant: Severability
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 FTCA’s contractor exception to liability, Congress did not simultaneously adopt the various state exceptions to the independent contractor rule. 412 U.S. at 528, 93 S.Ct. 2215. Rather, Congress expressly granted jurisdiction for suits brought against the United States for its employees’ conduct, and not the conduct of contractors. State common law principles cannot overcome this federal statute. See Roditis v. United States, 122 F.3d 108, 111 (2d Cir.1997); Berkman v. United States, 957 F.2d 108, 112-13 (4th Cir.1992); Flynn v. United States, 631 F.2d 678, 681-82 (10th Cir.1980); Alexander v. United States, 605 F.2d 828, 835 (5th Cir.1979); Gibson v. United States, 567 F.2d 1237, 1243-44 (3d Cir.1977). But see Dickerson, Inc. v. United States, 875 F.2d 1577, 1583 (11th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ attempts to hold Options: A. recognizing the general rule that a property owner is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor B. holding that the government is liable under the ftca in the same respect as a private person under the law of the place where the act occurred C. holding that the owner of property who retained an independent contractor did not owe any nondelegable duty of care to the plaintiff who had slipped and fallen on the adjoining sidewalk D. holding that the independent contractor exception in the ftca would not insulate the government from the contractors negligence if the duty was nondelegable under florida law E. holding that the government could not charge contractor excess cost of relet contract where government caused a delay in contract performance in which contractor was to use his own equipment original contractors costs increased and government refused to allow original contractor to perform at cost but allowed new contractor to use government equipment and paid new contractor a different rate

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the independent contractor exception in the ftca would not insulate the government from the contractors negligence if the duty was nondelegable under florida law
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: administrator is a statutorily defined position. See 29 U.S.C. § 1002(16)(A). However, a person, even an outsider, may function as a fiduciary under subsection (iii) even if not a “named” plan administrator. In some circumstances, subsection (i) and subsection (iii) can have overlapping coverage. The Second Circuit has noted that “[s]ubsection one imposes fiduciary status on those who exercise discretionary authority, regardless of whether such authority was ever granted, [while] [s]ubsection threé describes those individuals who have actually been granted discretionary authority, regardless of whether such authority is ever exercised.” Bouboulis v. Transp. Workers Union of Am., 442 F.3d 55, 63 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting Olson v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 957 F.2d 622, 625 (8th Cir.1992)) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has interpreted the term Options: A. holding that plan language giving plan administrator power to determine which employees are eligible to participate in the plan and providing all parties dealing with the plan an interpretation of plan provisions on request indicates deferential standard of review of trustee eligibility decisions B. holding that one who is named in documents as plan administrator signs documents as plan administrator and assumes discretionary authority in the administration of the pension plan is a fiduciary C. holding that because no plan document granted discretion to the plan administrator and because the fiduciaries had not expressly delegated their discretionary authority to the plan administrator the district court properly employed the de novo standard of review D. holding that a labor union was a functional fiduciary to a plan under subsection iii due to its position as plan administrator and its authority to decide whether participants could appeal adverse decisions on their claims E. recognizing that plan participants should be able to access information about the plan administrators fiduciary duties from the plan administrators counsel

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a labor union was a functional fiduciary to a plan under subsection iii due to its position as plan administrator and its authority to decide whether participants could appeal adverse decisions on their claims
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: is going somewhere. The same is not true of a motor home, in which people can actually live. In the ordinary motor home, the glass is tinted or shades can be drawn so that passers-by cannot peer in. Moreover, many, like the one in this case, have beds and fully equipped baths, making them in some senses more akin to a house than a car. 630 F.2d at 1326. In a subsequent ease, a Ninth Circuit panel decided that under Williams, “we cannot sanction the search at issue here merely on the basis of the ‘automobile exception’ ”, but upheld a search of a motor home as a warrantless “protective sweep” search incident to arrest. United States v. Wiga, 662 F.2d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir.1981). The Ninth Circuit has yet to determine whether the mere configuration of Ct. 507, 511, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (<HOLDING>). The decision that the use of a vehicle, not Options: A. holding that the fourth amendment protects property as well as privacy B. holding fourth amendment protects right to be free from arrest without probable cause C. holding that on march 13 2004 it was clearly established that the fourth amendment protects people from medical procedures induced by lawenforcement officers D. holding that the fourth amendment protects people not places E. holding that to decide whether or not a given area viewed in the abstract is constitutionally protected deflects attention from the problem presented because the fourth amendment protects people not places

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that to decide whether or not a given area viewed in the abstract is constitutionally protected deflects attention from the problem presented because the fourth amendment protects people not places
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: As a condition to receiving any Severance Benefits or Change of Control Benefits to which the Employee may otherwise be entitled under Section 6.4(a) or Section 6.4(b) , the Employee will execute a release (the “ Release ”), which will include an affirmation of the restrictive covenants set forth in Section 7 and a non-disparagement provision, in a form and substance satisfactory to the Company, of any claims, whether arising under federal, state or local statute, common law or otherwise, against the Company and its direct or indirect subsidiaries which arise or may have arisen on or before the date of the Release, other than any claims under this Agreement, any claim to vested benefits under an employee benefit plan, any claim arising after the execution of the Release or any rights to indemnification from the Company and its direct or indirect subsidiaries pursuant to any provisions of the Company’s (or any of its subsidiaries’) organizational documents or any directors and officers liability insurance policies maintained by the Company. The Company will provide the Release to the Employee for signature within ten days after the Termination Date. If the Company has provided the Release to the Employee for signature within ten days after the Termination Date and if the Employee fails or otherwise refuses to execute the Release within a reasonable time after the Company has provided the Release to the Employee, and, in all events no later than 60 days after the Termination Date and prior to the date on which such benefits are to be first paid to the Employee, the Employee will not be entitled to any Severance Benefits or Change of Control Benefits, as the case may be, or any other benefits provided under this Agreement and the Company will have no further obligations with respect to the provision of those benefits except as may be required by law. Such Release shall be void ab initio, if Company thereafter fails to fully and timely pay all compensation and benefits due to the Employee under this Agreement and fails to cure such failure within 60 days of receiving written notice from the Employee.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, as such laws are applied to contracts entered into and performed in such State, without giving effect to the choice of law provisions thereof. The Company and the Participant stipulate and consent to personal jurisdiction and proper venue in the state or federal courts of Cook County, Illinois and waive each such party’s right to objection to an Illinois court’s jurisdiction and venue. The Participant and the Company hereby waive their right to jury trial on any legal dispute arising from or relating to this Agreement, and consent to the submission of all issues of fact and law arising from this Agreement to the judge of a court of competent jurisdiction as otherwise provided for above.

assistant: Venues
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: Because § 3377(a) renders legal under the Lacey Act all fishing practices explicitly allowed by the Magnuson Act, the Magnuson Act effectiv rom December 30, 1992, through March 30, 1993, but was subsequently extended. See, e.g., Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, 58 Fed.Reg. 13,-560 (1993). 3 . A decision of a “Unit B" panel of the former Fifth Circuit is binding on the Eleventh Circuit, even if the decision was issued after September 30, 1981. See Matter of Int'l Horizons, Inc., 689 F.2d 996, 1004 n. 17 (11th Cir.1982). 4 . Because the Magnuson Act has no general repeal provision, we need not decide whether such a provision would have indicated Congress’s intent that 16 U.S.C. § 1857(1)(I) preempt 18 . U.S.C. § 1001. Cf. United States v. Richardson, 8 F.3d 15, 17 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). 5 .See also In re Coastal Group, Inc., 13 Options: A. holding that the defendant could be prosecuted for making false claims against the government under either the false claims statute 18 usc 287 or the mail and wire fraud statutes 18 usc 1341 1343 B. holding that where defendant lied to a federal magistrate performing an administrative function there was a violation of 18 usc 1001 C. holding that 18 usc 1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc 1001 D. holding that good faith is a defense to the willful filing of false statements under 18 usc 1001 E. holding that 18 usc 1920 the misdemeanor false statement provision of the federal employees compensation act feca preempted 18 usc 1001 because 41 of feca expressly repealed all inconsistent statutes

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that 18 usc 1920 the misdemeanor false statement provision of the federal employees compensation act feca preempted 18 usc 1001 because 41 of feca expressly repealed all inconsistent statutes