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: thus appealable, see Jenkins v. United States, 548 A.2d 102, 107 (D.C.1988), we are satisfied that the motions to dismiss in the trial court cannot reasonably be interpreted as petitions for such a writ. At no point did appellants request their release, the relief for which the writ is intended. See Bennett v. Ridley, 633 A.2d 824, 826 (D.C.1993) (noting the “grand purpose” of a writ of habeas corpus is “protection of individuals against erosion of their right to be free from wrongful restraints upon their liberty”). Further, appellants did not raise the theory that their motions should be treated as petitions for habeas corpus before the trial court for its considered review, so we are unable to consider this claim on appeal. See Dorm v. United States, 559 A.2d 1317, 1318 (D.C.1989) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, because appellants have not Options: A. holding that a defendant must present to the trial court all the issues to be raised or else forego their consideration later by this court B. holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal C. holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court D. holding that issues must be raised and ruled upon in the trial court to be preserved for appellate review E. holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a defendant must present to the trial court all the issues to be raised or else forego their consideration later by this court
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: is equal to or greater than the amount of his debt, his right of possession ceases, and the grantor or his legal representatives, and, if none, his heirs, may bring an action to recover the land.”). “The right of the grantor to redeem by the payment of the debt is never barred, so long as the grantee recognizes a right to redeem, and equity would by analogy decree that the right to redeem would in no event be lost until after the expiration of 10 years from the date of the last recognition by the grantee of the right to redeem.” Gunter, 38 S.E. at 374. While the transaction in the case sub judice is a Security Deed and not a mortgage, the debtor still has a right of redemption. See Wynndam Court Apartment Co. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Atlanta, 204 Ga. 501, 50 S.E.2d 611 (1948) (<HOLDING>). In the case sub judice the letter sent Options: A. holding that the assignment of rents clause contained in the mortgage was enforceable during the period of redemption for the purpose of securing the 300000 deficiency existing after foreclosure of the mortgage B. recognizing that the right to seek reformation of a deed is limited to the original parties to the deed and their successors in title C. holding that a mortgage or modification of a mortgage is not a good or a service under the dtpa D. holding that the right of redemption is treated the same whether in a mortgage or security deed E. holding that upon execution of the mortgage the mortgagor retains only an equity of redemption accompanied by a right to possession

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the right of redemption is treated the same whether in a mortgage or security deed
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: the viber group makes no warranties that your use of the materials , information , software , facilities , services , or other content of the service will not infringe the rights of others and the viber group assumes no liability or responsibility for errors or omissions in such materials , information , software , facilities , services , or other content of the service or any other website .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: manner. They also attempted to abduct her two-year-old son by trying to wrest him from her arms on a street near their home. The immigration judge (IJ) denied asylum, holding in part that ValienteHerrera did not show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirmed. We grant the petition for review and reverse. The long history of anti-government guerrillas terrorizing innocent eitizens in Guatemala on account of actual or imputed political opinion is well-established. See, e.g., Garcia-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 1066, 1074-75 (9th Cir.2004) (“The human rights abuses that took place during Guatemala’s decades-long civil war have been well-documented.”); Rios v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 895, 898-901 (9th Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>); Ruano v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1155, 1158 (9th Options: A. holding that fathers military service alone was neither political opinion nor sufficient to establish imputed political opinion B. holding there was sufficient evidence of persecution on account of imputed political opinion where guerillas abducted petitioner because her husband and broth er were members of the guatemalan army C. holding that attempted conscription by a guatemalan guerrilla group did not constitute persecution on account of a political opinion where petitioner failed to show that the group was motivated by his political opinion D. holding that imputed political opinion is a protected ground E. holding that guatemalan guerrillas abducted petitioner on account of imputed political opinion because of her relatives military service

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that guatemalan guerrillas abducted petitioner on account of imputed political opinion because of her relatives military service
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: avoid the attendant risks. In such an instance, there is a duty to remedy the condition. The swimming pool, as plaintiff alleges, is an obvious danger. Because Consolidated could reasonably expéct that plaintiff appreciated the risk associated with the pool, no duty arose as a result of its existence. Ordinarily, neither a utility pedestal nor a fence poses any particular danger, and no injury is alleged to have occurred as a result of plaintiff’s contact with either. There are no facts to suggest that placement of the pedestal next to the fence rendered the danger of the pool less obvious. Further, there were no facts alleged to suggest that the condition of the pool itself was, for any reason, made less obviously dangerous. (See Ward v. K mart Corp. (1990), 136 Ill. 2d 132, 149-50 (<HOLDING>); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339, Options: A. holding that where an invitees attention is distracted obviousness of danger is not conclusive in determining duty of possessor B. holding that plain meaning of legislation should be conclusive C. holding that common knowledge and common sense of one skilled in the art must be considered in determining obviousness D. holding that compliance with fda requirements though admissible to demonstrate lack of negligence is not conclusive on this issue just as violation of fda requirements is evidence but not conclusive evidence of negligence E. holding expert testimony was not required where jury is capable of determining existence of duty

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that where an invitees attention is distracted obviousness of danger is not conclusive in determining duty of possessor
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: unless it could sue the Group.” Id.; Salido v. Allstate Ins. Co. (N.D.Cal.1999), No. C98-04616CRB, 1999 WL 977944. {¶ 56} Regardless, other states have also recognized this management theory as a basis for liability when there is no privity of contract and as an alternative to using the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. See Dellaira v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2004), 136 N.M. 552, 102 P.3d 111 (“[w]e conclude that Plaintiffs stated a claim for breach of duty to act in good faith, and that, under some state of facts, relief might possibly be granted. Because the matter before us is one of first impression, we do not fault the district court in following the usual doctrine of lack of contractual privity”); Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Ins. (1991), 170 Ariz. 34, 821 P.2d 725 (<HOLDING>); Williams v. Farmers Ins. Group, Inc. Options: A. recognizing strict product liability actions B. recognizing a direct liabilitymanagement theory and explaining that under these circumstances strict adherence to the general rule that liability for bad faith breach may be imposed only against a party to an insurance contract would permit farmers to shield itself from liability through the device of a management company C. holding title company liable for bad faith D. holding that an insurance contract between the parties and a breach thereof by the defendant is an element of a bad faith refusal claim E. holding that party may not recover damages for breach of contract where its own bad faith caused the other partys breach

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing a direct liabilitymanagement theory and explaining that under these circumstances strict adherence to the general rule that liability for bad faith breach may be imposed only against a party to an insurance contract would permit farmers to shield itself from liability through the device of a management company
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 consequences of a particular construction. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.023 (Vernon 2005). Two of the stated objectives the legislature sought to obtain through the enactment of the TCHRA were to “provide for the execution of the policies of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its subsequent amendments” and to “make available to the state the full productive capacities of persons in this state.” See Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 21.001(1), (5) (Vernon 1996). These stated objectives of the TCHRA express a legislative intent to eliminate workforce discrimination in Texas, not to whittle away and to narrow the group of employers prohibited from engaging in workforce discrimination. See Purdin v. Copperas Cove Econ. Dev. Corp., 148 S.W.3d 290, 301 (Tex.App.-Waco 2004, pet. dism’d) (<HOLDING>). The circumstances under which the legislature Options: A. holding hospital district to be state instrumentality subject to claims made under tchra B. holding school district in claim made pri or to amendment defining state agency to be state instrumentality subject to claims made under tchra C. holding economic development corporation to be state instrumentality subject to claims made under the tchra and explaining that the employment discrimination prohibitions in chapter 21 are to be generally applied D. holding special utility district to be state instrumentality subject to claims made under tchra E. holding that claims arising under the age discrimination in employment act may be subject to arbitration

assistant: The best answer is C. holding economic development corporation to be state instrumentality subject to claims made under the tchra and explaining that the employment discrimination prohibitions in chapter 21 are to be generally applied
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if a gift you have purchased is corrupted or otherwise damaged , then please send an email explaining the problem and the circumstances under which such problem arose to legal@musical.ly .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127, 135-38, 81 S.Ct. 523, 528-30, 5 L.Ed.2d 464, 470-71 (1961). Utilizing that conceptual basis, the first group of SLAPP statutes shares several essential features. They generally include a legislative declaration that a public participant who has exercised his or her free speech right, sometimes in a statutorily defined manner, enjoys immunity. See, e.g., Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 425.16(b)(1) (2009); Ga.Code Ann. § 9-11-11.1 (2009); R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-33-2(a) (2009); Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-21-1001, -1003(a) (2009). They often also declare that the protections will be limited to matters in which the speaker has not spoken in reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the assertions, see, e.g., 27 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 8302(b) (2008) (<HOLDING>), or has not “caused actual injury,” Mass. Ann. Options: A. holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred a claim for money damages against the librarian of congress in his official capacity because immunity had not been waived and the exceptions to immunity did not apply B. recognizing three exceptions to atwill doctrine C. recognizing two exceptions to eleventh amendment bar D. recognizing first two exceptions E. recognizing exceptions to immunity

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing exceptions to immunity
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: standing, a plaintiff has the burden of proving: (1) that he or she suffered an injury-in-fact, (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, and (3) that the injury likely will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Pucket v. Hot Springs Sch. Dist. No. 28-2, 526 F.3d 1151, 1157 (8th Cir.2008) (quoting Steger v. Franco, Inc., 228 F.3d 889, 892 (8th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). The State’s claim satisfies the minimum constitutional requirements for standing. States generally lack authority to regulate Indian tribes and tribe members on trust property. See, e.g., Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 606 F.3d 994, 1006, 1010-11 (8th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). As an immediate consequence of placing the Options: A. holding that lands held in trust by the united states for the tribes are indian country within the meaning of 1151a B. recognizing lands taken into trust by the bia under 5 of the ira are indian country and as a general rule indian country falls under the primary civil criminal and regulatory jurisdiction of the federal government and the resident tribe rather than the states C. holding that state of south dakota does not have criminal jurisdiction over indians in indian country D. holding that pursuant to amended public law 280 a tribe must consent to state court civil jurisdiction over actions arising against member indians in indian country E. holding that oklahoma police officer was without jurisdiction to arrest indian inside indian reservation when the state has neither received by express grant nor acted pursuant to congressional authorization to assume criminal jurisdiction over indian country

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing lands taken into trust by the bia under 5 of the ira are indian country and as a general rule indian country falls under the primary civil criminal and regulatory jurisdiction of the federal government and the resident tribe rather than the states
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: their testimony. In re M.W., 2004 MT 301, ¶ 35, 323 Mont. 433, 102 P.3d 6. In this case, the record reveals the District Court’s conclusion that Mother’s abuse and neglect of her children has worsened over the past ten years and that reunification efforts and another treatment plan are not in the children’s best interests is supported by the testimony presented. ¶31 In her reply brief, Mother argues that the District Court also erred by failing to make a finding regarding whether Mother’s condition or conduct that caused the Department’s involvement was likely to change within a reasonable time. However, this argument was not raised in Mother’s opening brief, and we therefore will not address it. See M. R. App. P. 23(c); Pengra v. State, 2000 MT 291, ¶ 13, 302 Mont. 276, 14 P.3d 499 (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION ¶32 For the reasons stated above, Options: A. holding that this court will not address the merits of an issue presented for the first time in a reply brief B. holding that we do not address an argument raised for the first time in a litigants reply brief C. holding issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are not properly before this court D. holding that issue raised for the first time in reply brief was waived E. holding an appellant who raised an issue for the first time in his reply brief waived the claim

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that this court will not address the merits of an issue presented for the first time in a reply brief
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 that death or great bodily harm was the probable result, (3) while committing, attempting to commit, or assisting in the commission of any of the felonies specifically enumerated in MCL 750.316(1)(b). People v Smith, 478 Mich 292, 318-319; 733 NW2d 351 (2007); People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 758-759; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). The charge of felony murder in this case was based alternatively on the alleged predicate felonies of larceny and kidnapping, both of which are specifically enumerated in MCL 750.316(1)(b). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the jury was properly instructed on the elements of both kidnapping and larceny. It is axiomatic that jurors are presumed to have followed their instructions. People v Graves, 458 Mich 476, 486; 581 NW2d 229 (1998); Unger 980) (<HOLDING>); McKinney v State, 553 NE2d 860, 863 (Ind App, Options: A. holding that the state must establish that a legal situs of the offense was in delaware and that the reviewing court is required to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the existence of territorial jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt B. holding that in the very rare case in which jurisdiction is legitimately in issue because of contradicting jurisdictional facts arizonas territorial jurisdiction must be established beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury C. holding that the basis of in rem jurisdiction is the presence of the subject property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum state D. holding that territorial jurisdiction must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt E. holding that the territorial jurisdictional issue is a factual determination which is within the province of the jury to resolve under appropriate instructions and that we agree with the weight of authority that the territorial jurisdictional issue must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the territorial jurisdictional issue is a factual determination which is within the province of the jury to resolve under appropriate instructions and that we agree with the weight of authority that the territorial jurisdictional issue must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Plan was originally established effective January 1, 2000. It was amended and restated effective January 1, 2005 to comply with Code Section 409A with respect to amounts that became accrued or vested after 2004 and earnings thereon and was not intended to materially modify the terms of the Plan applicable to amounts that were accrued and vested under the Plan as of December 31, 2004 and earnings thereon. This document is a complete amendment and restatement of the Univar USA Inc. Supplemental Valued Investment Plan effective June 1, 2014 with changes to the deferral election process applying June 1, 2014 and all other changes applying for Plan Years beginning on or after January 1, 2015, except as otherwise provided herein.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All covenants, agreements, representations and warranties made by the Loan Parties in the Loan Documents and in the certificates or other instruments delivered in connection with or pursuant to this Agreement or any other Loan Document shall be considered to have been relied upon by the other parties hereto and shall survive the execution and delivery of the Loan Documents and the making of any Loans, regardless of any investigation made by any such other party or on its behalf and notwithstanding that the Administrative Agent or any Lender may have had notice or knowledge of any Default or incorrect representation or warranty at the time any credit is extended hereunder, and shall continue in full force and effect as long as the principal of or any accrued interest on any Loan or any fee or any other amount payable under this Agreement is outstanding and unpaid and so long as the Commitments have not expired or terminated. The provisions of Sections 2.15, 2.16, 2.17 and 11.03 and Article VIII shall survive and remain in full force and effect regardless of the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, the repayment of the Loans, the expiration or termination of the Commitments or the termination of this Agreement or any provision hereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement is for the benefit of and is binding upon me and my heirs, administrators, representatives, executors, successors, beneficiaries and assigns, and is also for the benefit of the Released Parties and their successors and assigns.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: York 2 Broadway Co. v. Produce Exch. Realty Trust, 93 A.D.2d 465, 462 N.Y.S.2d 456, 458 (N.Y.App.Div.1983) (“By ... specifically providing that the value of the land was to be considered as vacant and unimproved, the parties manifested a clear intention that existing structures, encumbrances and leases not be taken into account in fixing value.”); Bullock’s, Inc. v. Security-First Nat’l Bank of Los Angeles, 160 Cal.App.2d 277, 325 P.2d 185, 191 (1958) (“While rental income is normally a proper factor to be considered in determining the value of property, it obviously cannot be considered when property is being appraised for the very purpose of determining the rent which should be paid.”); Schipper & Block, Inc., v. Carson Pirie Scott & Co., 122 Ill.App.2d 34, 256 N.E.2d 854, 860 (1970) (<HOLDING>). Further, reliance upon Missouri Baptist is Options: A. holding a company which is responsible for tendering into the market a drug which it knows or should know is so dangerous that it should not be taken by anyone can be said to have violated its duty of care either in design or marketing B. holding that an appraiser should not have taken into consideration as a depreciating factor the influence of the lease itself which required reappraisals every ten years as to do so is improper and unfair to the lessor C. holding that under the circumstances the deception was so unfair as to be coercive D. holding the alj does not have to specifically refer to every piece of evidence so long as the decision is not a broad rejection that is insufficient to permit a court to conclude that the alj considered the claimants medical condition as a whole E. holding that a statement that the jurors were not required to reach a verdict but should try to do so was not coercive

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an appraiser should not have taken into consideration as a depreciating factor the influence of the lease itself which required reappraisals every ten years as to do so is improper and unfair to the lessor
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: noted that “Plaintiff [Liddy] and similarly situated voters would be prejudiced if an ineligible candidate were to remain on the ballot because of a delay in finding out about the lack of eligibility.” Although the appellant prevailed on the dispositive motions, the Circuit Court ultimately ruled in favor of Gansler and his continued candidacy for the office of the Attorney General. The appellant, pursuant to § 12-203(a) of the Election Law Article, in response, noted an appeal to this Court and to the Court of Special Appeals , 468, 150 A.2d 433, 435 (1959) (noting that, although it is essential to raise the defense of laches in the pleadings, “equity may decline relief for a stale claim after the facts are fully developed”); Warburton v. Davis, 123 Md. 225, 231, 91 A. 163, 165 (1914) (<HOLDING>), citing Syester v. Brewer, 27 Md. 288, 319 Options: A. recognizing that a court in a proper case and on its own motion may refuse to grant relief to a complainant who on the final hearing appears to have been guilty of laches although the defense was not interposed by the defendant B. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply laches where the only prejudice shown by the government was attributable to its own delay rather than to that of the movant C. holding that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion D. holding that a motion to continue a hearing on a postjudgment motion was ineffective to extend the period for the trial court to rule on the motion absent the express consent of the parties E. holding the master shall consider the following factors in deciding whether to grant relief from an entry of default 1 the timing of the motion for relief 2 whether the defendant has a meritorious defense and 3 the degree of prejudice to the plaintiff if relief is granted

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that a court in a proper case and on its own motion may refuse to grant relief to a complainant who on the final hearing appears to have been guilty of laches although the defense was not interposed by the defendant
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: ruled that “[t]he ADA’s savings clause, which preserves other remedies provided by law, had the effect of preserving the clearly established federal common law cause of action against air carriers for lost shipments.” Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). 8 In their appellate briefs, both parties acknowledge that, as a bailee of Mr. Lindsey’s carry-on bag, Cape Air had a duty to exercise reasonable care in protecting the bag. (See Appellant’s Br. 10-11; Appellees’ Br. 18-19.) 9 We note that, had the evidence established that Cape Air retrieved the bag from the belt and stored it overnight for Mr. Lindsey ’ s benefit, a gratuitous bailment may have been created under which Cape Air would have been liable for loss or damage caused by its gross negligence. See Lord, supra at 53:8 Options: A. holding landlord may recover from tenant for fire damage caused by tenants negligence regardless of existence of insurance B. recognizing that a bailee who undertakes the care of goods without reward is liable for damage caused only by his or her gross negligence C. holding that a landowner who lost a strip of property to a highway widening project could not recover losses caused by concurrent placement of a median strip because when less than the entire property is taken compensation for damage to the remainder can be awarded only if such damage is caused by the taking and cjonstruction of the median not the taking caused the alleged damage D. holding that negligence does not violate the due process clause but reserving the question whether gross negligence does E. holding that ordinary negligence and gross negligence are not separate causes of action

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that a bailee who undertakes the care of goods without reward is liable for damage caused only by his or her gross negligence
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 obligations of the Company under the Plan and with respect to Awards shall be binding on any successor to the Company, whether the existence of such successor is the result of a direct or indirect purchase, merger, consolidation, or other event, or a sale or disposition of all or substantially all of the business and/or assets of the Company and references to the "Company" herein and in any Award agreements shall be deemed to refer to such successors.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: be "outrightly dismissed as so innocent or susceptible to varying interpretations as to be innocuous,” United States v. Wood, 106 F.3d 942, 946 (10th Cir.1997), including cellular telephones. United States v. Williams, 271 F.3d 1262, 1269 (10th Cir. 2001). Likewise, wrappers from fast food establishments strewn about a car may indicate slovenliness or the need to travel while eating, but do not by themselves indicate a driver smuggling contraband. See United States v. Beck, 140 F.3d 1129, 1138 (8th Cir.1998) (“We also conclude that the mere presence of fast-food wrappers in the Buick is entirely consistent with innocent travel such that, in the absence of contradictory information, it cannot reasonably be said to give rise to suspicion of criminal activity."); Wood, 106 F.3d at 947 (<HOLDING>); Karnes v. Skrut-ski, 62 F.3d 485, 496 (3d Options: A. holding suspicion associated with possession of fastfood trash is virtually nonexistent B. holding that a past arrest for possession without more is simply not enough to provide reasonable articulable suspicion that the person is currently in possession C. holding that possession of a pistol in public requires knowing possession D. holding that use of deadly weapon extends as well to any employment of a deadly weapon even its simple possession if such possession facilitates the associated felony E. recognizing the inherent anxiety associated with pending criminal charges

assistant: The best answer is A. holding suspicion associated with possession of fastfood trash is virtually nonexistent
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 Borrowers shall pay on each Payment Date all accrued and unpaid interest on the Loan as shown in the Payment Notice most recently delivered as of such Payment Date. If not sooner paid, any balance of the principal amount and interest accrued thereon and all other amounts due hereunder shall be due and payable on the Maturity Date.

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: The parties hereto agree that irreparable damage would occur in the event any provision of this letter agreement was not performed in accordance with the terms hereof or was otherwise breached. It is accordingly agreed that the parties shall be entitled to specific relief hereunder, including, without limitation, an injunction or injunctions to prevent and enjoin breaches of the provisions of this letter agreement and to enforce specifically the terms and provisions hereof, in the Delaware Court of Chancery and any state appellate court therefrom within the State of Delaware (unless the Delaware Court of Chancery shall decline to accept jurisdiction over a particular matter, in which case, in any federal court within the State of Delaware), in addition to any other remedy to which they may be entitled at Law or in equity. Any requirements for the securing or posting of any bond with respect to any such remedy are hereby waived.

assistant: Specific Performance
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: Clause. ¶50 In addition to Medina’s holding regarding nontestimonial reports, this Court has held that a testifying medical examiner may offer an opinion based on the autopsy performed by a non-testifying expert without violating the Confrontation Clause so long as the examiner testifies as to his or her own conclusions, is subject to cross-examination, and the report is not admitted into evidence. State v. Joseph, 230 Ariz. 296, 298 ¶¶ 8-9, 283 P.3d 27, 29 (2012); see also State v. Smith, 216 Ariz. 221, 228 ¶ 23, 159 P.3d 531, 538 (2007) (“Expert testimony that discusses reports and opinions of another is admissible ... if the expert reasonably relied on these matters in reaching his own conclusion.”); State v. Snelling, 225 Ariz. 182, 187 ¶¶ 19-21, 236 P.3d 409, 414 (2010) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 51 Because the autopsy repoi*t was Options: A. holding that there was no violation of defendants confrontation rights where minor victim testified at trial and was available for recall after admission of her hearsay statements B. holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext which included but was not limited to her supervisors statement that she had enough of the plaintiff going to her supervisor about her was not sufficient to preclude summary judgment C. holding that trial court was not required to conclude that wife was disabled for alimony purposes where she testified about her disability and offered documentation of her social security disability benefits but where she produced no medical testimony and where other evidence indicated that she was otherwise active and did not stay in bed all day as she claimed D. holding that the elevenyearold victims twentyonemonth delay in reporting her grandfathers inappropriate sexual conduct was adequately explained where the child testified that she did not tell anyone about the incident because her grandfather told her not to tell she did not think anybody was going to believe her and she felt scared and threatened by the defendant E. holding no confrontation clause violation occurred because the medical examiner testified that she formed her own opinions after reading the autopsy report was confronted and crossexamined about her opinions and the autopsy report was not admitted into evidence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding no confrontation clause violation occurred because the medical examiner testified that she formed her own opinions after reading the autopsy report was confronted and crossexamined about her opinions and the autopsy report was not admitted into evidence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Throughout the Employment Period, Company shall pay Employee as compensation for her services an annual base salary of not less than Four Hundred Nine Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($409,500), payable in accordance with Company’s usual practices. Employee’s annual base salary rate shall be reviewed by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) at least annually and may be subject to adjustment following each fiscal year so that Employee’s salary will be commensurate with similarly situated executives with firms similarly situated to Company. However, Employee’s annual base salary rate shall not be subject to decrease at any time during the Employment Period.

assistant: Base Salary
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: however, provide an extension of time to otherwise comply with a nonbankruptcy statutory deadline to record a continuation of a security interest or mortgage. See In re Chase, 2000 WL 33712297, at *9 (Bankr.D.Idaho 2000) (“Under Section 362(b)(3), the automatic stay does not prohibit the perfection of an interest in property if such perfection occurs within [thirty] days as provided by Section 547(e)(2)(A)”); In re Planned Protective Svcs., Inc., 130 B.R. 94, 98 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1991) (“[T]he post-petition recordation of a lien interest generally would be a violation of the automatic stay. However, § 362(b)(3) provides an exception for acts of perfection which are authorized under ... 547(e)(2)(A)”) (footnote omitted); cf. In re Millivision, Inc., 331 B.R. 515, 522-23 (Bankr.D.Mass.2005) (<HOLDING>). In other words, if 201 Forest had filed for Options: A. holding that although the automatic stay only applies to proceedings against the debtor counterclaims seeking affirmative relief against a debtor implicate the automatic stay B. holding judgment in violation of automatic stay void C. holding that the automatic stay exception under 362b3 did not override the trustees 544a strong arm powers D. holding that the protections of the automatic stay apply only to actions against the debtor E. holding that the automatic stay did not bar the filing of a proof of claim where the debtor actively litigated a separate action during the pending bankruptcy proceeding because to permit the automatic stay provision to be used as a trump card played after an unfavorable result was reached would be inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the automatic stay

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the automatic stay exception under 362b3 did not override the trustees 544a strong arm powers
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: User shall reimburse Owner for Owner’s reasonable out-of-pocket costs and expenses actually incurred in conjunction with the processing and documentation of any assignment or transfer of this Agreement by User, including reasonable documented attorneys’, architects’, engineers’ or other consultants’ fees whether or not such assignment or transfer is actually consummated.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: prove inadequate, Warden v. Exempla, Inc., 2012 CO 74, ¶ 16, 291 P.3d 30, 34. ¶ 13 In criminal cases, this Court has found the normal appellate process to be inadequate where the prosecutor would be barred from retrial post-acquittal due to double jeopardy. See, e.g., People v. Smith, 254 P.3d 1158, 1161 (Colo.2011) (electing to exercise original jurisdiction to hear the prosecutor's interlocutory appeal because wrongful suppression of the evidence at issue would force the prosecutor to wait for post-acquittal relief, which would preclude retrial per double jeopardy). This Court has also held that the normal appellate process is inadequate in criminal cases where the jury's decision could render the pretrial issue moot. See, e.g., Wood v. People, 255 P.3d 1136, 1141-42 (Colo.2011) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 14 Exercise of our original jurisdiction is Options: A. holding that by fading to timely raise the issue before the trial court the defendant had waived the right to raise the issue on appeal that the trial court failed to consider less severe sanctions B. holding the state failed to meet its burden of showing the erroneous jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where it did not address the issue on appeal C. holding that the defendant had to appeal the trial courts pretrial determination that he failed to establish immunity under the makemyday statute before trial via car 21 because the issue became moot when the jury found that immunity did not exist beyond a reasonable doubt D. holding that a challenged jury instruction did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof when the trial court elsewhere instructed the jury that the state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt E. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the defendant had to appeal the trial courts pretrial determination that he failed to establish immunity under the makemyday statute before trial via car 21 because the issue became moot when the jury found that immunity did not exist beyond a reasonable doubt
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 appeals, insofar as they pertain to the father’s second postjudgment motion, are properly before this court. On appeal, the father asserts that the probate court erred in not holding a hearing on his second postjudgment motion. We note that “[tjhere is no ... procedural requirement that a hearing be held on a Rule 60(b) motion, even if one is requested by the movant; indeed, no such hearing need be held if the motion is clearly without substance and frivolous.” Summers v. Summers, 89 So.3d 141, 143 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (citing Waldron v. Fikes, 378 So.2d 1138, 1139 (Ala.Civ.App.1979)); see also Snooky Hairrell Volkswagen, Inc. v. Speer, 689 So.2d 51, 53 (Ala.1997), Bradford v. Bradford, 628 So.2d 732, 734 (Ala.Civ.App.1993), and Ex parte Oden, 617 So.2d 1020, 1028 (Ala.1992) (<HOLDING>). Based on the record, the probate court did Options: A. 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 B. holding that a party may not use a rule 60b motion as an occasion to relitigate its case C. holding that a coa is required to appeal the denial of a rule 60b motion from a judgment in a 2254 proceeding D. holding that a party might be entitled to a hearing on a rule 60b motion when the party presents evidence of extraordinary circumstances to support a reversal of the judgment E. holding that a grant of a tr 60b motion requires notice to the opposing party and a hearing

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a party might be entitled to a hearing on a rule 60b motion when the party presents evidence of extraordinary circumstances to support a reversal of the judgment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and the plan itself do not conflict, our cases provide no prohibition against review of the official plan itself for a fuller understanding of the plan’s terms. Indeed, in those circumstances the plan is the controlling document for determining the scope of benefits provided.” Id. We also find that no conflict arises from the Plan’s grant of discretion to Blue Cross to determine whether a procedure is experimental or investigative. Although the SPD contains no such language, we find no conflict between the absence of discretionary language in the SPD and its presence in the Plan. Vesting the plan administrator with discretion in making coverage decisions simply does not conflict with the SPD’s silence on the matter. See Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co., 45 F.3d 1317, 1321 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); see also Jensen v. SIPCO, Inc., 38 F.3d 945, Options: A. 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 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 a plan provision stating that the summary plan description and summaries of material modifications are hereby incorporated by reference and constitute a part of the plan acted to incorporate into the plan a limitations provision found only in the summary plan description D. holding that a denial of benefits will not be reviewed de novo where the language of an erisa plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan E. holding that even though the summary plan description did not include discretionary language the grant of discretionary authority in the plan controlled

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that even though the summary plan description did not include discretionary language the grant of discretionary authority in the plan controlled