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: (1984). As Justice Workman stated in Women’s Health Center of West Virginia, Inc. v. Panepinto, 191 W.Va. 436, 442, 446 S.E.2d 658, 664 (1993): In Bonham, this Court noted that, "the United States Supreme Court has ... recognized that a state supreme court may set its own constitutional protections at a higher level than that accorded by the federal constitution.” ... Based on the principle that " ‘[t]he provisions of the Constitution of the State of West Virginia may, in certain instances, require higher standards of protection than afforded by the Federal Constitution])]’ Syllabus Point 2, Pauley v. Kelly, 162 W.Va. 672, 255 S.E.2d 859 (1979) ...” we ruled in Bonham, that this state's due process clause affords a criminal defendant greater protections than the federal counterpart... (<HOLDING>); see also West Virginia Citizens Action Group Options: A. holding that doctrine does not violate due process B. holding following whitney that defendant was deemed to have waived right to a de novo jury trial where failure to appear at de novo trial was due to his own neglect in not informing the clerks office of his change of address C. holding that imposition of more severe sentence following trial de novo does violate defendants due process rights D. holding possibility of more severe sentence on retrial after appeal or collateral attack does not violate double jeopardy or due process protections E. recognizing de novo standard of review

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that imposition of more severe sentence following trial de novo does violate defendants due process rights
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: robbery scene, and the responding officer discovered evidence of the crime left by a suspect fleeing the scene, all of which is true but does nothing to incriminate Adamson. The State’s case against Adamson rested on his own confession, which he claimed was fabricated, and on the accomplice statements, which di rectly implicated him in the robbery. Without looking to the accomplice statements for their truth, we cannot say that the evidence against Adamson, i.e., his confession alone, was so overwhelming as to make the unrestricted admission of the accomplice statements of little moment. There were no eyewitness statements identifying Adamson as taking part in the robbery, nor was there any physical evidence tying him to the robbery. Cf. Bond v. Beard, 539 F.3d 256, 276 (3d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). We do not suggest that, had there been no Options: A. holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt B. holding the erroneous admission of an involuntary confession is subject to a harmless error analysis when the defendants guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt C. holding harmless the admission of a nontestifying codefendants confession in violation of the confrontation clause when there was extensive evidence of the defendants guilt including the defendants allegedly coerced confession and an eyewitness who testified that he was absolutely certain that the defendant committed the crime D. holding that question of whether a confession was coerced was not to be resolved by considering the truth or falsity of the confession E. holding that even the admission of a coerced confession may be harmless error and noting that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendants guilt or innocence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding harmless the admission of a nontestifying codefendants confession in violation of the confrontation clause when there was extensive evidence of the defendants guilt including the defendants allegedly coerced confession and an eyewitness who testified that he was absolutely certain that the defendant committed the crime
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: outcome of the plea process.” Id. At the evidentiary hearing on his motion, Movant made no assertions that his trial counsel failed to adequately explain the charges against him or failed to object to the factual basis underlying his plea. In fact, in his testimony at the evi-dentiary hearing, Movant asserted his trial counsel wrongly advised him to plead guilty because she had failed to investigate three potential witnesses and she failed to explore certain issues relating to one of the victim’s in his case. Accordingly, the issue raised in Movant’s point relied on was not presented to the motion court in his Rule 24.035 motion and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Day v. State, 208 S.W.3d 294, 295 (Mo.App.2006); see Amrine v. State, 785 S.W.2d 531, 535 (Mo. banc 1990) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, plain error review is not available Options: A. holding ineffectiveness cannot be raised for first time on appeal B. holding that issues not properly presented to the bankruptcy court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal C. holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal D. holding that claims which were not presented to the motion court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal E. holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be asserted for the first time on appeal

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that claims which were not presented to the motion court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
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: eve of trial after such a delay.”). The court repeated its finding of waiver in addressing Plaintiff-Appellant’s post-verdict motion to amend the jury’s verdict, stating that “[a]s in Williams v. Rodriguez, 509 F.3d 392, 403 (7th Cir.2007), plaintiff waived any right to a Fourth Amendment claim premised on an objectively reasonable standard by failing to pursue such a claim on a timely basis.” Slip Op. at 5 (W.D.Wis. May 30, 2013), ECF No. 705. What the court meant by waiver is difficult to define sharply, in part because “waiver is a flexible concept with no definite and rigid meaning” that is “generally define 8 (7th Cir.1992) (“In general, we will not consider an argument which is presented for the first time on appeal.”); Geva v. Leo Burnett Co., 931 F.2d 1220, 1225 (7th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Oates v. Discovery Zone, 116 F.3d 1161, 1168 Options: A. holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it B. holding that an issue not properly preserved below in the district court is generally waived C. holding that a claim is not properly before the appellate court because it is axiomatic that arguments not raised below are waived on appeal D. holding that argument offered in defense of decision below had been waived when not raised below E. holding an issue not raised to the family court is not preserved for appellate review

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an issue not properly preserved below in the district court is generally waived
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: has not filed any motion for rehearing. 3 . 47 U.S.C.A. §§ 521-559 (West Supp.1985). 4 . The County’s brief contended that Americable was a public utility and thus entitled to use a public utility easement. Americable’s brief was confined to its res judicata/collateral estoppel theory, which we rejected out of hand. See p. 61 n. 4. To the extent that Americable’s motion for rehearing attempts to reargue this position, the motion must be denied on that ground. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.330(a). 5 .Had this case come to us from a lower court decision in homeowners’ favor, we would have affirmed that decision, and Americable's untimeliness in raising this issue may have resulted in the issue, unless jurisdictional, being permanently waived. Cf. Dober v. Worrell, 401 So.2d 1322 (Fla.1981) Options: A. holding that defendant could not claim error for the first time on appeal by reason of an instruction given at his request B. holding that claims raised for the first time in an opposition to a motion for summary judgment are not properly before a court C. holding district court of appeal in error for reversing summary judgment entered for defendant so that plaintiff could plead fraudulent concealment on remand for the first time D. holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal are reviewed for plain error E. holding that the plaintiffs mere failure to execute on a judgment the only allegedly fraudulent act is not fraudulent concealment

assistant: The best answer is C. holding district court of appeal in error for reversing summary judgment entered for defendant so that plaintiff could plead fraudulent concealment on remand for the first time
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Loan Party and each of its Subsidiaries has filed all income and other material Tax Returns with the appropriate Governmental Authorities in all jurisdictions in which such Tax Returns are or were required to be filed. All such Tax Returns are true, correct and complete in all material respects. All Taxes reflected therein and all material Taxes otherwise due and payable have been paid prior to the date on which any liability may be added thereto for non-payment thereof, except for those contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings diligently conducted and for which adequate reserves are maintained on the books of the appropriate Loan Party, as applicable, in accordance with GAAP, so long as any related Lien shall have no effect on the priority of the Liens in favor of the Agent. No Tax Return is under audit or examination by any Governmental Authority and no written notice of such an audit or examination or any written assertion of any claim for Taxes has been given or made by any Governmental Authority. Proper and accurate amounts have been withheld by each Loan Party and each of its Subsidiaries, as applicable, from their respective employees for all periods in compliance in all material respects with the tax, social security and unemployment withholding provisions of Applicable Law and such withholdings have been timely paid to the respective Governmental Authorities in accordance with Applicable Law. No Loan Party has been a member of an affiliated, combined or unitary group other than the group of which a Loan Party is the common parent or has liability for Taxes of any other person by contract, as a successor or transferor or otherwise by operation of law.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All questions concerning the construction, validity, enforcement and interpretation of this Agreement shall be governed by the internal laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to any choice of law or conflict of law provision or rule (whether of the State of Delaware or any other jurisdictions) that would cause the application of the laws of any jurisdictions other than the State of Delaware. The Company hereby irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts sitting in the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, for the adjudication of any dispute hereunder or in connection herewith or under any of the other Transaction Documents or with any transaction contemplated hereby or thereby, and hereby irrevocably waives, and agrees not to assert in any suit, action or proceeding, any claim that it is not personally subject to the jurisdiction of any such court, that such suit, action or proceeding is brought in an inconvenient forum or that the venue of such suit, action or proceeding is improper. The parties consent to the jurisdiction and venue of the foregoing courts and consent that any process or notice of motion or other application to any of said courts or a judge thereof may be served inside or outside the State of New York or the Southern District of New York by registered mail, return receipt requested, directed to the party being served at its address set forth on the signature ages to this Agreement (and service so made shall be deemed complete three (3) days after the same has been posted as aforesaid) or by personal service or in such other manner as may be permissible under the rules of said courts. Each of the Company and the Stockholder irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any objection which it may now or hereafter have to the laying of the venue of any such suit, action, or proceeding brought in such a court and any claim that suit, action, or proceeding has been brought in an inconvenient forum. EACH PARTY HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE, AND AGREES NOT TO REQUEST, A JURY TRIAL FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF ANY DISPUTE HEREUNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH OR ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY TRANSACTION CONTEMPLATED HEREBY.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the date hereof, the authorized capital stock of the Company consists of (a) 500,000,000 shares of Common Stock, par value of $0.001 per share, of which approximately 50,220,000 shares of Common Stock are issued and outstanding (excluding Common Stock issuable pursuant to the transaction referenced in the Company's Form 8-K filed on November 28, 2016) and (b) 25,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value of SO.OOI per share, of which 0 shares of preferred stock are issued and outstanding. Except as set forth on Schedule 4.3 the Company has not issued any capital stock since its most recently filed periodic report under the Exchange Act, other than pursuant to the exercise of employee stock options under the Company's stock option plans, the issuance of shares of Common Stock to employees pursuant to the Company's employee stock purchase plans and pursuant to the conversion and/or exercise of Common Stock Equivalents outstanding as of the date of the most recently filed periodic report under the Exchange Act. No Person has any right of first refusal, preemptive right, right of participation, or any similar right to participate in the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents. Except as set forth on Schedule 4.3 and except as a result of the purchase and sale of the Securities, there are no outstanding options, warrants, scrip rights to subscribe to, calls or commitments of any character whatsoever relating to, or securities, rights or obligations convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for, or giving any Person any right to subscribe for or acquire any shares of Common Stock, or contracts, commitments, understandings or arrangements by which the Company or any Subsidiary is or may become bound to issue additional shares of Common Stock or Common Stock Equivalents. The issuance and sale of the Securities will not obligate the Company to issue shares of Common Stock or other securities to any Person (other than the Investor) and will not result in a right of any holder of Company securities to adjust the exercise, conversion, exchange or reset price under any of such securities. There are no stockholders agreements, voting agreements or other similar agreements with respect to the Company's capital stock to which the Company is a party or, to the knowledge of the Company, between or among any of the Company's stockholders.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive represents and warrants to the Company that (a) Executive does not have any agreements with Executive’s prior employer that will prohibit Executive from working for the Company or fulfilling Executive’s duties and obligations to the Company pursuant to this Agreement, and (b) Executive has complied with all duties imposed on Executive with respect to Executive’s former employer, e.g., Executive does not possess any tangible property belonging to Executive’s former employer.

assistant: Warranties
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: waiving the requirement of an injunction bond or limiting the amount of such bond.” The new statute is not applicable to this case, however, because subsection (3) provides that “[tjhis act shall apply prospectively, and it shall not apply in actions determining the enforceability of restrictive covenants entered into before July 1,1996.” Second, today we decide only that the circuit court correctly enforced a pre-July 1, 1996 contract provision waiving the requirement that a movant post a bond in order to obtain a temporary injunction. We have not determined whether, in light of Parker, such would affect an enjoined party’s right to recover damages if the injunction is found to have been wrongful. See Provident Management Corp. v. City of Treasure Island, 718 So.2d 738 (Fla.1998) (<HOLDING>). Affirmed. CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., Options: A. holding that rule 6e is inapplicable where the time for filing begins to run on the date of mailing B. holding that relief under rule 60b6 is not available unless the other clauses 1 through 5 are inapplicable C. holding that parker analysis is inapplicable where no bond whatsoever is posted by a municipality as permitted under rule 1610b D. holding that equitable defense of laches is inapplicable to claims of fraud E. holding that where no factual dispute is raised no hearing is required

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that parker analysis is inapplicable where no bond whatsoever is posted by a municipality as permitted under rule 1610b
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: issued the citation in 1998. The jury found that substantial interference did not occur until June 12, 1998, a date that corresponds with the postal worker’s testimony, the TCEQ citation, and the plaintiffs’ accounts. Some evidence supports this finding. The Company argues that there would be no statute of limitations for permanent nuisance if a claim could be “revived” by evidence that conditions worsened. But we are dealing here with gradations. On one end of the scale, a nuisance can be established by a physical fact that is beyond dispute. If the nuisance consists of hazardous chemicals in the ground, the nuisance begins when the landowner knows or should have known that the chemicals were there. See Tenn. Gas Transmission Co. v. Fromme, 153 Tex. 352, 269 S.W.2d 336, 338 (1954) (<HOLDING>). The result does not necessarily vary with the Options: A. holding that when the representations and warranties were made on the date of closing the statute of limitations began to run on that date even though the contract imposed cure and repurchase obligations on the defendant B. holding that the date on which the plaintiff learned of the defendants denial of tenure not the date on which the plaintiff became unemployed was when the statute of limitations began to run C. holding that 2401a statute of limitations on procedural challenge began to run at the latest on the date the challenged regulation was amended D. recognizing that the statute of limitations for a survival action began to run on the date of the decedents injury as though he was bringing his own lawsuit E. holding that limitations began to run when the defendant began wrongfully discharging water containing harmful chemicals on the plaintiffs land and not on the date when the extent of the damages to the land were fully ascertainable

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that limitations began to run when the defendant began wrongfully discharging water containing harmful chemicals on the plaintiffs land and not on the date when the extent of the damages to the land were fully ascertainable
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: In reliance on the representations, warranties, covenants and agreements contained in this First Amendment, and subject to the satisfaction of the conditions precedent set forth in Section 4 hereof, the Credit Agreement shall be amended, effective as of the First Amendment Effective Date, in the manner provided in this Section 2 .

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: of perspective between administrative intervention and judicial adjudication, the court ruled that employment discrimination claims filed in court are “governed by the three-year period of limitations ... applicable to ‘an action to recover upon a liability, penalty or forfeiture created or imposed by statute!.]’ ” Id., 461 N.Y.S.2d 232, 448 N.E.2d at 93 (quoting N.Y.C.P.L.R. 214 (McKinney 2003)). Ac cordingly, as in Murphy, I find that the administrative limitations period found in the CADA does not apply to employment discrimination claims that are not brought before the CCRC. Additionally, the Tenth Circuit has indicated that claims for wrongful discharge are the most appropriate analogue to ERISA 510 actions. See Myers v. Colgate Palmolive Co., 26 Fed.Appx. 855, 864 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Woods v. Halliburton Co., 49 Fed.Appx. 827, Options: A. holding that under kansas law a wrongful discharge claim is the most appropriate analogue to erisa 510 claims and applying a twoyear limitations period B. holding that the statute of limitations for 1983 claims is the most closely analogous state limitations period for general personal injury claims C. holding that the oneyear statute of limitations for a tort action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy applied to the plaintiffs erisa 510 claim D. holding kansas law provides twoyear statute of limitations for 1983 actions measured from date cause of action arose E. holding that a twoyear statute of limitations applies to negligence claims under texas law

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that under kansas law a wrongful discharge claim is the most appropriate analogue to erisa 510 claims and applying a twoyear limitations period
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: amount, ACE requests markups for field (1.8%) and home-office (5.8%) overhead, profit (10%), and bond cost (0.84%). PX 175 App. Tab 18. “A contractor may recover for loss of efficiency if it can establish both that a loss of efficiency has resulted in increased costs and that the loss was caused [by the government].” Cibinic and Nash 745. “That loss of productivity of labor resulting from improper delays caused by defendant is an item of damage for which plaintiff is entitled to recover admits of no doubt.” Luria Bros., 369 F.2d at 712 (citing Abbett Elec. Corp. v. United States, 142 Ct.Cl. 609, 162 F.Supp. 772 (1958)) (emphasis added). Extended work schedules have been recognized as a cause of productivity loss. See Maryland Sanitary Mfg. Corp. v. United States, 119 Ct.Cl. 100 (1951) (<HOLDING>); Appeal of Casson Constr. Co., GSBCA No. 4884, Options: A. holding that the state failed to meet its burden when the record failed to show that the jurors would or would not be available after a weeks continuance B. holding that joint trials promote efficiency and serve the interests of justice by avoiding the scandal and inequity of inconsistent verdicts C. recognizing the standing of an organization whose fundraising efforts would be impaired by an irs taxdeductiblecontribution rule because the organization would be harmed if its contributors ceased giving it money D. recognizing that the doctrines of technical res judicata and collateral estoppel serve as important means of promoting certainty and efficiency E. recognizing that efficiency would be impaired by working 12hour days and sevenday weeks

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that efficiency would be impaired by working 12hour days and sevenday weeks
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party shall do and perform, or cause to be done and performed, all such further acts and things, and shall execute and deliver all such other agreements, certificates, instruments and documents, as the other party may reasonably request in order to carry out the intent and accomplish the purposes of this Agreement and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in Owens’ deed to Sonora and applying the doctrine of merger. Sonora’s cross-claim was based on the district court’s ruling that Owens had nothing to convey to Sonora. Our ruling means that Owens did have something he could convey. Thus, the rationale for the cross-claim has evaporated. We reverse on that basis only. We venture no opinion on the law relied on by the district court for its ruling. CONCLUSION {32} We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. {33} IT IS SO ORDERED. MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge WE CONCUR: LINDA M. VANZI, Judge M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 1 We recognize that issues can arise with regard to the unintended conveyance of unsevered appurtenant water rights. See Turner v. Bassett, 2005-NMSC-009, ¶ 24, 137 N.M. 381, 111 P.3d 701 (<HOLDING>). No one here argues that there were any Options: A. holding that failure to use irrigation water rights on conveyed property for more than ten years did not sever water rights from said property absent compliance with statutory requirements B. recognizing that water rights constitute a real property interest C. recognizing a presumption that the issuance of a permit by the state engineer allowing recognized irrigation water rights to be shifted to other users works as severance of those water rights from the land D. holding that article x 2 of the california constitution dictates the basic principles defining water rights that no one can have a protectible interest in the unreasonable use of water and that holders of water rights must use water reasonably and beneficially E. holding that the state engineer has discretion to refuse to accept for filing amended declarations of water rights pertaining to water rights that are not vested and that the state engineer may rely on information contained in his own records in exercising this discretion

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing a presumption that the issuance of a permit by the state engineer allowing recognized irrigation water rights to be shifted to other users works as severance of those water rights from the land
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: To the extent not previously delivered, Seller shall deliver the Due Diligence Materials to Buyer within five (5) days after the Effective Date. Except as specifically set forth herein, Seller makes no representations or warranties as to the truth, accuracy or completeness of any materials, data or other information supplied to Buyer in connection with Buyer’s inspection of the Property (e.g., that such materials are complete, accurate, or the final version thereof, or that all such materials are in the Seller’s possession). It is the Parties’ express understanding and agreement that such materials are provided only for Buyer’s convenience in making its own examination and determination prior to the Approval Date, as to whether or not it wishes to purchase the Property, and, in doing so, Buyer shall rely exclusively on its own independent investigation and evaluation of every aspect of the Property and, except as expressly set forth herein, not on any materials supplied by Seller. Buyer expressly disclaims any intent to rely on any such materials provided to it by Seller in connection with its own inspections and agrees that it shall rely solely on its own independently developed or verified information. Buyer agrees that delivery may be accomplished by access to the Due Diligence Materials in an electronic data room established by Seller or Seller’s Broker.

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: 9 . The Court's recent decision in another Title II case, United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 126 S.Ct. 877, 163 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006) is also inapplicable here. The Title II claim in that case was asserted by a paraplegic prisoner challenging the conditions of his confinement. Id. at 879. The Court found that the same conduct that allegedly violated Title II also violated the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 880-81. Therefore, the Court reasoned, the plaintiff's claims for money damages against the State under Title II were based, in large part, on conduct that independently violated the provisions of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 881 (citing Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 463, 67 S.Ct. 374, 376, 91 L.Ed. 422 (1947)(<HOLDING>)). No such independent violation of a stated Options: A. holding that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment incorporates the eighth amendments guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment B. holding cruel and unusual punishment complaint not preserved C. holding that 25 years to life sentence under the california three strikes law did not violate the eighth amendments prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment D. holding that petitioners 25yearstolife sentence under the california three strikes law did not violate the eighth amendments prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment E. holding execution of the mentally retarded constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment incorporates the eighth amendments guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment
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: Fund (Act 35 of 1991). These costs are monthly fees charged by the First Judicial District for providing probation services to Mr. Lopez because he is a Philadelphia resident. The Debtor maintains that because the sentence of probation did not mention a fee or cost associated with that punishment, the “supervisory” fees which appear on the docket sheet were not assessed as “part of the sentence” and, accordingly, were discharged. Debtor’s Brief, 4. As additional authority, the Debtor relies on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s holding that probation fees are considered part of a criminal judgment, and not part of a sentence. Id. citing Commonwealth v. Nicely, 536 Pa. 144, 152, 638 A.2d 213, 217 (1994). Additionally, he cites In re Miller, 511 B.R. 621, 632 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Mo.2014) (<HOLDING>) Id. 5. The FJD considers the Debtor’s reliance Options: A. holding that intervention fees assessed as part of program to aid criminal debtor in reentering society after incarceration are dischargeable B. recognizing repayment of damages to society as remedial C. holding that trial court properly assessed mothers attorneys fees as necessaries against father in case in which trial court ordered father to pay mothers attorneys fees as child support but did not state that the fees were necessaries D. holding that costs and fees cannot be assessed when a court imposes punitive sanctions E. holding that fees incurred by debtor were not in the nature of support

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that intervention fees assessed as part of program to aid criminal debtor in reentering society after incarceration are dischargeable
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, the rights and obligations of the parties hereto, and any claims or disputes relating thereto (except with respect to the Severance and the Restrictive Covenants), shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware (but not including any choice of law rule thereof that would cause the laws of another jurisdiction to apply), and any dispute in relation to this Agreement (except with respect to the Severance and the Restrictive Covenants) shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Delaware State courts (which will be required to apply Delaware law); provided that all claims relating to the Severance and the Restrictive Covenants will be subject to the choice of law and dispute resolution provisions contained within Sections 17 through 20 of the Employment Agreement. The Executive and the Company irrevocably waive any objections which the Executive or the Company may have to the laying of the venue of any suit, action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the Executive’s engagement by, or provision of services to, any Company affiliate in any court in the State of Delaware, and shall further irrevocably waive any claim that any such suit, action or proceeding brought in any such court has been brought in any inconvenient forum. The Executive and the Company shall waive any right the Executive or the Company may have to trial by jury in respect of any litigation based on, arising out of, under or in connection with this Agreement or the Executive’s engagement by, or provision of services to, any Company affiliate.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: argued the State’s witness on GPS technology was not qualified under Rule 702. Id. The expert testified that: (1) he worked with GPS on a daily basis to prepare maps and pinpoint the location of residences for various purposes, including 911 operators; (2) that GPS works by bouncing signals from several satellites in order to triangulate the receiver’s location; (3) that GPS technology is accurate; and (4) that GPS is accepted as valid in many civilian, as well as military, applications requiring positioning data. Id. The witness’ expertise in GPS technology was established through his work experience and training and not through a formal background or education in the underlying scientific principles of GPS technology. Id. See also Alvarado v. State, 912 S.W.2d 199 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (<HOLDING>); Emerson v. State, 880 S.W.2d 759, 766-67 Options: A. holding the evidence supported the police officers failure to follow the directives in the montgomery county police departments field operations manual B. holding that the court properly instructed jurors that the police officers were experts in determining a persons state of intoxication C. holding officers 60 hours of training at two different police departments that he had read a book on the subject and that the methods used in interpretation of bloodstains were of the type relied upon by experts in the field was sufficient D. holding that fire departments are analogous to police departments in this respect E. holding that an expert established a national standard of care for police officer training by testifying that police departments throughout the country commonly trained officers to deal with mentally distuibed persons and by naming several departments that offered such training

assistant: The best answer is C. holding officers 60 hours of training at two different police departments that he had read a book on the subject and that the methods used in interpretation of bloodstains were of the type relied upon by experts in the field was sufficient
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: A Non-Employee Director may elect to defer the payment of Restricted Stock Units (“Deferral Election”) in a manner specified by the Committee and in accordance with this Section 11.2. If a Deferral Election is not timely made in accordance with this Section 11.2, such Deferral Election shall be considered void and shall have no effect, and a Non-Employee Director’s Restricted Stock Units shall be paid in the form of shares of Common Stock on the earliest to occur: (i) a Non-Employee Director’s death; (ii) a Non-Employee Director’s Disability; (iii) a Non-Employee Director’s Retirement; (iv) a Non-Employee Director’s “separation from service” within the meaning of Code Section 409A; and (v) a Change in Control.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: should not be permitted to be found by a preponderance of the evidence in the extraordinary case where the factors can be said to be the “tail which wags the dog of the substantive offense.” McMillan, 477 U.S. at 88, 106 S.Ct. 2411. In United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 117 S.Ct. 633, 136 L.Ed.2d 554 (1997), the Supreme Court reiterated McMillan’s holding “that application of the preponderance standard at sentencing generally satisfies due process,” but recognized the “divergence of opinion among the Circuits as to whether, in extreme circumstances, relevant conduct that would dramatically increase a sentence must be based on clear and convincing evidence.” Watts, 519 U.S. at 156, 117 S.Ct. 633. However, the Court held that the guideline application, which resul 87 (1st Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Because the sentences imposed upon the Options: A. holding that consideration by a sentencing court of acquitted conduct was appropriate in establishing the applicable guideline range or in determining the sentence to impose within the guideline range B. holding that sentencing court may depart downward in an extreme case where the application of the 2k21clb crossreference to account for a murder charge of which defendant was acquitted in state court raised the guideline range from 262327 months to a mandatory life sentence but distinguishing cases involving even sizable sentence increases based on an uncharged quantity of drugs or any number of kindred sentence enhancements C. holding that a court may depart downward from the applicable guideline range under section 4a13 D. holding that the defendants sentence did not violate apprendi where the actual sentence imposed did not exceed the maximum penalty corresponding to the quantity of drugs for which the defendant acknowledged responsibility nor was the sentence at the bottom end of a higher statutory range of penalties E. holding life sentence mandatory under 21 usc 841b and district court could not depart from the mandatory life sentence unless government made a motion

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that sentencing court may depart downward in an extreme case where the application of the 2k21clb crossreference to account for a murder charge of which defendant was acquitted in state court raised the guideline range from 262327 months to a mandatory life sentence but distinguishing cases involving even sizable sentence increases based on an uncharged quantity of drugs or any number of kindred sentence enhancements
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: similar logic, holding that delay between a document’s arrivi . 234, 237 (D.N.J.1961) (“I find that the original complaint in this action was in the Post Office box assigned to the Clerk of this Court in the United States Post Office in the City of Newark on Saturday, April 22, 1961, and that therefore the action was commenced within the time required.”); Johnson v. Esso Standard Oil Co., 181 F.Supp. 431, 433-34 (D.Pa.1960) (“I think that the delivery of this complaint to the Clerk in his post office box on Monday, November 24, 1958, constituted a filing of the complaint and commencement of the plaintiffs’ action on that day, which was prior to the expiration of the two-year period prescribed by the statute of limitations.”); Johansson v. Towson, 177 F.Supp. 729, 731 (M.D.Ga. 1959) (<HOLDING>). Under this rule, we would consider Ross’s Options: A. holding that utility customers mailing of a petition did not constitute the filing of the petition as filing was not effectuated until the petition was received by the clerk B. holding jurys finding that money in bank safe deposit box was contraband was not supported by factually sufficient evidence when safety deposit box was located a distance away from marijuana despite fact that canine alerted to safety deposit box C. holding that the filing of a motion to dismiss the case by the clerk of court did not interrupt the running of the threeyear prescriptive period for abandonment because the action was taken by the clerk of court a nonparty D. holding that the clerk who refused to accept filing of complaint at the direction of the judge was entitled to quasijudicial immunity E. holding that the receipt by the deputy clerk of complaints in his post office box in the early morning hours of saturday august 23 constituted a sufficient filing of these suits prior to midnight of the following day notwithstanding the fact that the clerk did not open the box until 830 am on monday august 25

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the receipt by the deputy clerk of complaints in his post office box in the early morning hours of saturday august 23 constituted a sufficient filing of these suits prior to midnight of the following day notwithstanding the fact that the clerk did not open the box until 830 am on monday august 25
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: questions have been evasive, contradictory and not credible.” Id. at 10-11. The Court also found that the testimony of Star’s FCC counsel, Timothy Brady, strained credibility. Id. at 11. When considering sanctions, a district court may consider all the circumstances surrounding the alleged violations, including a party’s misconduct in related cases. Atkins v. Fischer, 232 F.R.D. 116, 129-31 (D.D.C.2005) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 635, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)); Travelers Ins. Co. v. St. Jude Hosp. of Kenner, La., Inc., 38 F.3d 1414, 1417-18 (5th Cir.1994) (affirming award of sanctions when district court considered collateral bankruptcy proceedings in its sanctions order); see also Johnson v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 289 F.3d 452, 456-57 (7th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). The Bankruptcy Court also found: This Chapter Options: A. holding that remand for explicit findings was not necessary where it was readily apparent that the trial court accepted one partys testimony and rejected the other partys B. holding that the district court should consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the patentee acted in subjective bad faith and should consider whether circumstantial evidence would support an inference of bad faith C. holding that party may not recover damages for breach of contract where its own bad faith caused the other partys breach D. holding that a sentencing court may consider acquitted conduct or uncharged criminal conduct E. holding that the tax court would be remiss not to consider the partys bad conduct in other cases

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the tax court would be remiss not to consider the partys bad conduct in other cases
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 constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior understanding or representation of any kind preceding the date of this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended only in a writing that is executed by each of the parties hereto.

assistant: Entire Agreements