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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All communications hereunder shall be in writing and, if sent to any of the Initial Purchasers, shall be delivered or sent by mail, telex or facsimile transmission and confirmed in writing to Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch, Winchester House, 1 Great Winchester Street, London EC2N 2DB, United Kingdom, Attention: High Yield Capital Markets (fax: +44 (0)20 7547 2704) with a copy to Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, 80 Pine Street, New York, New York 10005, Attention: Luis Penalver and if sent to the Company or any Guarantor, shall be delivered or sent by mail, telex or facsimile transmission and confirmed in writing to the Company at Belden Inc., 1 North Brentwood Boulevard, 15 th Floor, St. Louis, Missouri 63105, Attention: Brian E. Anderson, with a copy to Vinson & Elkins L.L.P., 1001 Fannin, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas, 77002, Attention: David Stone. In accordance with the requirements of the USA Patriot Act (Title III of Pub. L. 107-56 (signed into law October 26, 2001)), the Initial Purchasers are required to obtain, verify and record information that identifies their respective clients, including the Company, which information may include the name and address of their respective clients, as well as other information that will allow the Initial Purchasers to properly identify their respective clients.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: F.3d at 844 (affirming on an alternative ground when only two of the three relevant factors were met). 13 . By focusing solely on the other-acts evidence's permitted uses to establish Mr. Watson’s knowledge and intent, we do not mean to suggest that the evidence would not be admissible for other reasons consistent with Rule 404(b). We choose to focus on knowledge and intent, however, because all of the crimes with which Mr. Watson was charged require a showing of at least one of these two categories of criminal intent, and because such other-acts evidence is frequently offered to prove both knowledge and intent in drug cases such as this, given that the two concepts are related. See, e.g., United States v. Russell, 109 F.3d 1503, 1507 (10th Cir.1997) (White, J., sitting by designation) (<HOLDING>); see also 2 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Options: A. holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade B. holding evidence of prior drug sales admissible under 404b to show knowledge and intent where defendant claimed he did not know that the gym bag he took possession of contained two kilograms of cocaine C. holding a fiveyear old drug conviction is probative of a defendants state of mind in a drug conspiracy case D. holding that structural evidence showing the inception of the conspiracy prior to the charged activities was admissible under rule 404b E. holding that evidence of prior drug transactions was admissible under rule 404b to show inter alia intent to enter into the drug conspiracy and knowledge of the conspiracy

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that evidence of prior drug transactions was admissible under rule 404b to show inter alia intent to enter into the drug conspiracy and knowledge of the conspiracy
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 Court will not permit plaintiff to use OSHA violations to establish negligence per se under FELA. With respect to plaintiffs second assertion, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held the violation of an OSHA regulation is admissible as evidence of a railroad’s negligence under FELA. Id. at 1165. In Ries, the majority observed that “[e]vidence of an OSHA violation, in and of itself,' does not ‘affect’ liability; it is the inferences that the trier of fact draws from the evidence that ‘affect’ liability.” Id. at 1162 n. 5. In its briefs, however, Amtra 329, 332 (4th Cir.1987) (no reversible error where district court instructed jury that OSHA violations constituted evi dence of negligence under FELA). Cf. Pratico v. Portland Terminal Co., 783 F.2d 255, 264-67 (1st Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, plaintiff may introduce Options: A. holding a violation of 49 cfr 21835 constitutes a fela negligence per se claim B. holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se C. holding violation of the rules of professional conduct does not create a legal duty on the part of the lawyer nor constitute negligence per se although it may be used as some evidence of negligence D. holding osha violations may be used as evidence of negligence per se under fela E. holding osha regulations admissible as evidence of negligence under fela

assistant: The best answer is D. holding osha violations may be used as evidence of negligence per se under fela
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 (and, when executed, each Related Agreement), together with all schedules and exhibits attached hereto, constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement and supersedes all previous agreements, whether written or oral. In the event of a conflict between the Merger Agreement or any schedules or attachments to this Agreement, on the one hand, and this Agreement, on the other hand, the terms of this Agreement shall govern. Each Party confirms that it is not relying on any representations or warranties of the other Party except as specifically set forth in this Agreement.

assistant: Integration
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 transaction is important, “the words of an integrated agreement remain the most important evidence of intention”). In such a case, Taylor would be in the unenviable position of arguing that “X” in fact does not mean “X.” This, however, is not the case. It is true that bad faith has its genesis in contract. See Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 153-54, 726 P.2d 565, 569-70 (1986). Our cases show, however, that the precise legal character of a bad faith claim may depend on the context of the discussion. See, e.g., Deese v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 172 Ariz. 504, 509, 838 P.2d 1265, 1270 (1992) (noting that a breach of an express covenant is not “a necessary prerequisite” for a bad faith claim); Sparks v. Republic Nat. Life Ins. Co., 132 Ariz. 529, 544, 647 P.2d 1127, 1142 (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1070, 103 S.Ct. 490, Options: A. holding that a bad faith claim arises out of contract for attorney fee statute B. holding that a party cannot claim damages for breach of contract unless he has shown his full compliance with the contract and is not acting in bad faith C. holding title company liable for bad faith D. holding that a bad faith claim is a tort E. holding that without a demonstration of bad faith on the part of the attorney in question sanctions pursuant to this statute are inappropriate

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a bad faith claim arises out of contract for attorney fee statute
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Executive agrees that the Company’s reputation and goodwill in the marketplace is of utmost importance and value to the Company. The Executive further agrees that during and after the term of the Executive’s employment with the Company, the Executive, other than in the performance of his duties for the Company, will not make, publish or cause to be published any statement or comments that disparage or defame the reputation, character, image, products, or services of the Company, its subsidiaries or affiliates, or any of their respective stockholders, partners, members, boards of directors, managers, officers and employees. During and after the term of the Executive’s employment with the Company, the executive officers and Board members of the Company, its subsidiaries and its affiliates, other than in the performance of their duties for the Company, will not make, publish or cause to be published any statement or comments that disparage or defame the reputation, character, image, products, or services of the Executive. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that the foregoing prohibitions extend to statements to the news media, the Company’s competitors, vendors, and the Company’s then-current employees. The parties hereto further acknowledge and agree that the foregoing prohibitions shall not be violated by (i) truthful statements by the Executive, the executive officers of the Company or the members of the Board in response to legal process, governmental testimony or filings, or administrative or arbitral proceedings (including, without limitation, depositions in connection with such proceedings) or (ii) the Executive, the executive officers of the Company or the members of the Board rebutting false or misleading statements made by others. The parties hereto further understand and agree that this Section 11(a) is a material provision of this Agreement and that any breach of this Section 11(a) shall be a material breach of this Agreement, and that the Company and the Executive, as applicable, would be irreparably harmed by violation of this provision.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: no authority for the proposition that this distinction is relevant to Section 51.014(a)(8), and we are aware of none. Thus, the court of appeals erred in concluding it was without jurisdiction to hear McLellan’s appeal. IV. Conclusion With respect to the trial court’s denial of Texas A & M’s plea to the jurisdiction, we affirm the portion of the court of appeals’ judgment holding that Koseo-glu’s breach of contract claims against Texas A & M were barred by sovereign immunity. But because Koseoglu’s pleadings are incurably defective, remanding the cause to the trial court will serve no legitimate purpose. Therefore, we reverse the court of appeals’ remand order and dismiss Koseoglu’s claims against Texas A & M with prejudice. See Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 636 (Tex.2004) (<HOLDING>). With respect to McLellan’s appeal, having Options: A. holding that dismissal pursuant to a plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity is with prejudice B. holding that congress could not abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to the patent clause of article i C. holding that a district courts order of dismissal with prejudice was a nullity because the court lacked jurisdiction D. recognizing that the state enjoys sovereign immunity in regard to tort actions unless the legislature waived immunity pursuant to a specific statute E. recognizing that a defense based on sovereign immunity is not coextensive with the limitations on judicial power in article iii

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that dismissal pursuant to a plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity is with prejudice
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: this as a maximum sentence, but the sentencing judge retains discretion. 12 To reiterate, the following sections — Parts 7.D and 7.E — do not represent the majority view of the court. 13 See, e.g., State v. Magers, 164 Wn.2d 174, 193, 189 P.3d 126 (2008) (approving this court’s holding in State v. Ball, 127 Wn. App. 956, 959-60, 113 P.3d 520 (2005), review denied, 156 Wn.2d 1018 (2006), concluding that Blakely has no application in sentencing under the POAA); State v. Thiefault, 160 Wn.2d 409, 418, 158 P.3d 580 (2007) (the State is not required to submit prior convictions to a jury and prove them beyond a reasonable doubt under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000), and its progeny); State v. Smith, 150 Wn.2d 135, 143, 75 P.3d 934 (2003) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 909 (2004). 14 See Options: A. holding that we are bound to follow almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 even though it has been called into question unless it is explicitly overruled by the supreme court B. holding that almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 s ct 1219 140 l ed 2d 350 1998 expressly held that a prior conviction need not be proved to a jury and the united states supreme court has not held otherwise since C. holding that the supreme courts holding in almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 that the government need not allege in its indictment and need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant had prior convictions for a district court to use those convictions for purposes of enhancing a sentence remains binding precedent D. holding that almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 remains good law and rejecting the contention that prior convictions must be admitted by the defendant or found by the jury E. holding that almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 in which supreme court held it unnecessary to prove prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt is narrow exception to apprendi

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 s ct 1219 140 l ed 2d 350 1998 expressly held that a prior conviction need not be proved to a jury and the united states supreme court has not held otherwise since
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: During the Employment Period, Executive shall report to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, and Executive shall devote all of Executive’s business time and attention (except for permitted vacation periods and periods of illness or incapacity) and Executive’s best efforts to the business and affairs of the Company Group. During the Employment Period, Executive will (i) perform Executive’s duties faithfully and to the best of Executive’s abilities, and (ii) comply with all of the policies of the Company Group, including such policies with respect to legal compliance, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, code of conduct and business ethics as are from time to time in effect (as the same may be amended or modified from time to time by the Board in its sole discretion). Executive hereby agrees that, during the Employment Period, Executive’s services will be rendered exclusively to the Company Group, and Executive may not directly or indirectly render services to, or otherwise act in a business or professional capacity on behalf of or for the benefit of, any other Person, whether or not compensated, except as may otherwise be explicitly permitted by the Board (or its authorized designee) in writing.

assistant: Duties
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 extended by the court. United States v. Gonzalez-Perez, 629 F.2d 1081, 1083 (5th Cir.1980). The purpose of the time constraint is that “[s]ome limitation on jurisdiction to seek a reduction of sentence is necessary to protect the district judges from repeated entreaties by a defendant to change a penalty.” Id. [Cites omitted.] “Rule 35 is intended to establish ‘clear lines of demarcation so that all concerned would know exactly when the time for filing would expire.’” Id. [Cite omitted.] “A defendant through his own volition cannot confer jurisdiction to reduce sentence on the district court by purporting to activate a new 120-day period through the filing of a pleading years after the case is essentially over.” Id. See United States v. Kirk, 761 F.2d 463 (8th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>) Jensen was convicted, and that conviction Options: A. holding that aedpas oneyear limitations period is not tolled during the pendency of a petition for certiorari to the united states supreme court that seeks review of a state courts denial of postconviction relief B. holding that the longer appeal period from a judgment controlled over the shorter appeal period in a certiorari proceeding when the two proceedings were consolidated in the district court and the certiorari proceeding was not an independent proceeding C. holding that the limitations period is likewise not tolled during the pendency of a certiorari petition to the supreme court D. holding that supreme court need not consider issue not raised in petition for certiorari E. holding that the 120day period ran from the original sentence in 1975 or the supreme courts denial of certiorari in 1977 and not from any subsequent event

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the 120day period ran from the original sentence in 1975 or the supreme courts denial of certiorari in 1977 and not from any subsequent event
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 opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever. Laws that in terms impose sanctions on speech or writing beyond the needs of remedying such injuries, whether statutory or common law, are restraints and restrictions forbidden by section 8. See Deras v. Myers, 272 Or 47, 535 P2d 541 (1975). Given the interrelation of our two explicit sections on freedom of speech and press and the right to a remedy for injury to reputation, a statute that matches financial compensation for unintentional defamation to demonstrable injuries measurable in money arguably exhausts the scope of that remedy under article I, section 8. In any event, it satisfies article I, section 10.” 281 Or at 224-25. See also Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., supra, 418 US at 348-50 (<HOLDING>). Wheeler and Davidson relate specifically to Options: A. holding that under 1983 violations of constitutional rights are actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury B. holding that a 32 to 1 ratio of compensation to actual damages is not punitive C. holding that under the first amendment where there is no proof of actual malice damages are limited to actual injury which excludes punitive damages but is not limited to outofpocket loss D. holding that recovery is limited to actual compensatory damages E. holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that judgment for embezzlement which included actual and punitive damages was nondischargeable

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that under the first amendment where there is no proof of actual malice damages are limited to actual injury which excludes punitive damages but is not limited to outofpocket loss
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 Undersigned recognizes that harm may result to the Company and its business if Undersigned breaches any provision of this Agreement, and that CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION and INVENTIONS are among CGNT’s most valuable assets and their value may be unwittingly destroyed by casual dissemination. Therefore, in the event of a breach or threatened breach of any provision of this Agreement, the Company shall have the right, in addition to any other remedies available to it, to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining the Undersigned from violating the terms of this Agreement, it being acknowledged that other remedies at law are inadequate. The Company shall also be entitled to an equitable accounting of all profits or benefits arising out of such violation, and to the repayment of all profits, compensation, commissions, fees, royalties, or other financial rewards which the Undersigned or any other entity or person may realize as a result of the Undersigned’s violations of this Agreement. These rights and remedies shall be cumulative and in addition to any other rights or remedies to which CGNT may be entitled. CGNT may also recover from Undersigned its attorneys’ fees and costs in any action for breach of this Agreement in which the Company substantially prevails.

assistant: Remedies
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: 1603(b)(2). If either of these arguments holds true, the district court would have removal jurisdiction. Otherwise it would not. EOTT, in its supplemental brief, also argued to the Court that an alternative basis for jurisdiction is diversity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. It was brought to our attention by Appellants that plaintiff EOTT and defendant Lexington Insurance Corporation are both incorporated in Delaware. If that is indeed the case — the record is silent on Lexington’s state of incorporation — there would be no diversity jurisdiction. On remand, the district court should determine whether there was complete diversity at the time removal was sought, or, if not, at the time it entered its final judgment. Harris v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); see also O’Halloran v. University of Options: A. holding that where a litigant objects to removal but fails to apply for an interlocutory appeal to preserve an attack on removal jurisdiction the district courts judgment can be upheld if the court would have had original jurisdiction of the case at final judgment B. holding that district court had subjectmatter jurisdiction and yet that judgment void for lack of jurisdiction to render the particular judgment C. holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct D. holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal on a restraining order and the district court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the trial E. holding that a motion brought under rule 60b6 two years after the district courts judgment was untimely where the reason for the attack upon that judgment was available for attack upon the original judgment

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that where a litigant objects to removal but fails to apply for an interlocutory appeal to preserve an attack on removal jurisdiction the district courts judgment can be upheld if the court would have had original jurisdiction of the case at final 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company and its controlled affiliates may withhold from any amounts payable to Executive hereunder all federal, state, city, foreign or other taxes that the Company may reasonably determine are required to be withheld pursuant to any applicable law or regulation (it being understood that Executive shall be responsible for payment of all taxes in respect of the payments and benefits provided herein).

assistant: Withholdings
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: You agree that Amkor will suffer irrevocable harm if you breach your obligations listed in this agreement, and that monetary damage may not be adequate to compensate Amkor for such breach. If you breach or attempt to breach any of the provisions in this agreement, you agree that without limiting any other remedies under law or equity, Amkor is entitled to an immediate temporary restraining order without notice to you, a preliminary injunction and permanent injunction to prevent or restrain any breach or attempted breach of any provision herein, and reimbursement of all costs (including reasonable attorney’s fees) incurred in connection with such injunctive relief.

assistant: Remedies
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 Amendment may be executed by the respective parties on two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. This Amendment may be executed by the parties and transmitted by electronic or facsimile transmission with the same effect as if the parties had delivered an executed original Consent and Amendment.

assistant: Counterparts
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: Subject to this Section 2, the Restricted Stock Units shall vest and become unrestricted in accordance with Exhibit A , attached hereto. Vested Restricted Stock Units shall settle into Shares as provided in Section 3.

assistant: Vesting
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 date, amount, interest rate, Class, Type and duration of Interest Periods (if applicable) of each Loan made by each Lender to the Borrower, and each payment made on account of the principal thereof, shall be recorded by such Lender on its books and such entries shall be binding on the Borrower absent manifest error; provided, however, that (i) the failure of a Lender to make any such record shall not affect the obligations of the Borrower under any of the Loan Documents and (ii) if there is a discrepancy between such records of a Lender and the statements of accounts maintained by the Administrative Agent pursuant to Section 3.8., in the absence of manifest error, the statements of account maintained by the Administrative Agent pursuant to Section 3.8. shall be controlling.

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: of the Statements and had no way to verify the numbers. Joint Ex. A, at 1939-43. And the Board has rejected that uncertified financial statements are sufficient to meet an employer’s burden to produce financial information. See, e.g., R.E.C. Corp., 307 NLRB 330, 333 (1992) (“Indeed even absent such evidence of financial ‘looseness’ of employers, uncertified financial statements have not been deemed sufficient to meet the employers’ obligations under Truitt.”); Am. Model & Pattern, 277 NLRB 176, 184 (1985) (“Respondent, in order to satisfy its duty to bargain in good faith, was under a clear obligation to produce, for inspection and analysis, any and all books and records available to it which would tend to support its bargaining position.”); Tony’s Meats, Inc., 211 NLRB 625, 626 (1974) (<HOLDING>). Although Respondents argued before ALJ Options: A. holding that while the investigatory hearing is not a full evidentiary hearing it nevertheless must be expanded to permit the accused attorney to cross examine witnesses B. holding that records relating to a student court were not education records C. recognizing it is common and reasonable for doctors to examine medical records and arrive at professional opinions D. holding counsel must examine public information like prior conviction records prosecutor is likely to use E. holding that an employer must permit cpa to examine employers records

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an employer must permit cpa to examine employers 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH OF THE COMPANY, THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT AND THE BANKS HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ANY AND ALL RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, THE NOTES OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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: If the prospective candidate lost a party’s nomination in the primary, Judge Hodges’s construction of section 162.015(a) would affirmatively authorize the prospective candidate to seek the same office as a candidate for another political party. That interpretation is antithetical to the statute’s most obvious and laudable purpose, which is to prevent candidates from having more than one bite at the apple in a single election year by precluding a primary candidate from running in the general election for the same office as an independent, a write-in candidate, or a candidate for any other political party that nominates its candidates by primary election. See Tex. Eleo.Code § 162.015(a), (b); see also Nat’l Comm, of the U.S. Taxpayers Party v. Garza, 924 F.Supp. 71, 74—75 (W.D.Tex.1996) (<HOLDING>). Although the statute’s “sore loser” aspect is Options: A. holding that public policy must be evidenced by constitutional or statutory provisions B. holding that the soreloser provisions of section 162015 are reasonable nondiscriminatory and constitutional C. holding that such provisions are valid D. holding that contract provisions controlled over provisions of plan for augmentation statute section 37923053 E. holding that the hearing provisions of the ina supersede the provisions of the apa

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the soreloser provisions of section 162015 are reasonable nondiscriminatory and constitutional
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: thirty-percent stockholder who was not implicated in setting the fire. Pursuant to an order entered on BLT’s motion, an appraisal of BLT’s fire loss was conducted in accordance with the terms of its insurance policy. BLT’s personal property destroyed by the fire was assessed at $102,784.00 and its property “improvements and betterments” destroyed by the fire, at $77,105.00. The assessment of BLT’s entire fire loss totaled $179,889.00. At the civil trial, a jury was waived. The trial judge recognized that the pendency of Wasyluk’s appeal from his criminal conviction precluded use of that conviction as proof that he was responsible for setting the fire. See Sorbello v. Mangino, 108 N.J.Eq. 292, 295, 155 A. 6 (Ch. 1931); cfi State v. Eddy, 189 N.J.Super. 22, 458 A.2d 522 (Law Div.1982) (<HOLDING>). However, the judge accepted the guilty Options: A. holding that a witnesss testimony or an exhibit may not explicitly and directly contain an opinion as to a trial witnesss credibility B. holding that prior convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana are admissible to impeach defendant C. holding that a witnesss prior inconsistent statement to an officer could be used to impeach her D. holding that a conviction for an offense involving dishonesty or false statement may be used to impeach the credibility of a defendant who chooses to testify E. holding that conviction on appeal is not admissible to impeach witnesss credibility

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that conviction on appeal is not admissible to impeach witnesss credibility
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if you send any unsolicited feedback to microsoft through the services or otherwise , you acknowledge and agree that microsoft shall not be under any obligation of confidentiality with respect to the unsolicited feedback .

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: on the defense of voluntary intoxication. An examination of McGehearty reveals that its holding is inapposite to the instant case. The defendant in McGehearty had introduced evidence that he had consumed fifteen bottles of beer and a substantial amount of whisky during the nine hours preceding the robbery. This was decidedly a crucial factor, for this court found that it was “because of the evidence defendant presented on the issue of intoxication [that] * * * the trial justice should have instructed the jury that the state was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant was not so intoxicated as to be unable to harbor a specific intention to steal.” (Emphasis added.) State v. McGehearty, 394 A.2d at 1351. See State v. Vanasse, 42 R.I. 278, 281, 107 A. 85, 86 (1919) (<HOLDING>). The importance of a defendant’s initial Options: A. holding such intoxication to be voluntary B. holding intoxication to a degree that made specific intent impossible was a valid defense to a charge of willful premeditated firstdegree murder C. holding intoxication is only a defense to specific intent crimes and not general intent crimes D. holding that in order to negate specific intent intoxication must be of such a degree as to completely paralyze the will of the respondent take from him the power to withstand evil impulses and render his mind incapable of forming any sane design E. holding that the respondent failed to carry his burden of establishing the applicability of the capableofrepetition exception where the respondent disputed only whether the specific facts that were established during the hearing in this specific adjudication were sufficient

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that in order to negate specific intent intoxication must be of such a degree as to completely paralyze the will of the respondent take from him the power to withstand evil impulses and render his mind incapable of forming any sane design
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: infirmary, Dr. Tan's violation of that policy would not amount to a constitutional violation for the reasons set forth infra. In fact, whether a particular prison policy exists at all or was violated is not dispositive of plaintiffs claims. See, e.g., Alnutt v. Cleary, 913 F.Supp. 160, 168 (W.D.N.Y.1996) (citing Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995)); West v. Keane, No. 93 Civ. 6680, 1997 WL 266977 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 1997). Rather, the conduct itself needs to be analyzed in the context of the constitutional rights at issue — in this case the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 6 . This Court independently considered whether the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights were implicated. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (<HOLDING>). At first blush, this case seemed to be akin Options: A. holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed B. recognizing that we construe pro se complaints liberally C. holding that pro se pleadings will be liberally construed D. holding that courts must construe pro se filings liberally E. recognizing courts special duty to construe liberally a pro se plaintiffs pleadings

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing courts special duty to construe liberally a pro se plaintiffs pleadings
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: IDEA context). Here, the plaintiffs failure to award to account for such deficiencies. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933 (“[w]here the documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may reduce the award accordingly”); Role Models Am., Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962, 973 (D.C.Cir.2004) (reducing overall fee award by fifty percent where documentation of time records was deficient); In re Olson, 884 F.2d 1415, 1428 (D.C.Cir.1989) (applying an overall reduction where time entries were inadequate). The court accordingly reduces the overal tion that IDEA administrative litigation is categorically less complex than other forms of litigation, and reaffirms that IDEA cases are sufficiently complex to allow application of the Laffey Matrix. See Jackson, 696 F.Supp.2d at 102 (<HOLDING>); Nesbit, Civ. No. 01-2429, at 1 (refusing to Options: A. holding that a billing rate in accordance with the laffey matrix was reasonable B. holding that idea administrative proceedings which require expert testimony regarding whether a student has been denied a fape are sufficiently complex to warrant application of the laffey matrix C. holding that by its terms the idea does not require exhaustion where the relief sought is unavailable in an administrative proceeding under the idea monetary damages are not available so exhaustion is not required D. holding that plaintiffs may provide evidence to supplement the laffey matrix including fees awarded to attorneys with similar qualifications in comparable cases E. holding that the laffey matrix is the proper formula to determine the prevailing market rate for legal services rendered in connection with idea administrative proceedings

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that idea administrative proceedings which require expert testimony regarding whether a student has been denied a fape are sufficiently complex to warrant application of the laffey matrix
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: who are undeniably state actors, colluded with her in her actions. When all intendments are taken in the Plaintiffs’ favor, therefore, their allegations indicate both that Malac infringed their substantive due process rights and that she can be considered a state actor. Accordingly, Malac’s motion to dismiss is denied. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Barbara Malac’s motion to dismiss [Docket No. 47] is DENIED. The motion of Defendant Agent Cynthia Preston and Defendant Agent Nancy Gingras [Docket No. 50] to dismiss is DENIED with respect to Agent Preston, but GRANTED with respect to Agent Gingras. SO ORDERED. 1 . For the propriety of citing this unpublished Second Circuit opinion, see Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898, 899-905 (8th Cir.2000) (Arnold, J.) (<HOLDING>), vacated as moot, 235 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir.2000) Options: A. holding that unpublished opinions are of persuasive value at best and not precedential B. holding that opinions accompanying the denial of certiorari cannot have the same effect as decisions on the merits C. holding that even district court cases decided by panels of three have no precedential value D. holding that unpublished opinions have precedential effect E. recognizing that we ordinarily do not accord precedential value to our unpublished decisions and that such decisions are entitled only to the weight they generate by the persuasiveness of their reasoning citation omitted

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that unpublished opinions have precedential effect
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 notice relating to this Agreement shall be deemed to have been given on the date it is received. Each notice to the Company shall be addressed to its principal office in Omaha, Nebraska, Attention: Compensation. Each notice to the Director or any other person or persons entitled to receive shares issuable upon settlement of the RSUs shall be addressed to the Director’s address and may be in written or electronic form. Anyone to whom a notice may be given under this Agreement may designate a new address by giving notice to that effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Purchaser has the requisite power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement and to purchase the Common Stock being sold to it hereunder. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by such Purchaser and the consummation by it of the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate, partnership or limited liability company action, and no further consent or authorization of such Purchaser or its Board of Directors, stockholders, partners, members, or managers, as the case may be, is required. This Agreement has been duly authorized, executed and delivered by such Purchaser and constitutes, or shall constitute when executed and delivered, a valid and binding obligation of such Purchaser enforceable against such Purchaser in accordance with the terms hereof.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: we may terminate your account if we determine in our discretion that such action is necessary or advisable to comply with legal requirements or protect the rights or interests of linden lab , the service community or any third party .

assistant: Unilateral termination
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’s obligations under Sections 5.9 and 5.10 shall survive the resignation or replacement of Administrative Agent or any assignment of rights by or replacement of a Lender, the termination of the Term Loan Commitments, and the repayment, satisfaction, discharge or Full Payment of any Obligations.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 637 (Iowa 2006). The moving party has the burden of showing the nonexistence of a material fact. Pillsbury Co. v. Wells Dairy, Inc., 752 N.W.2d 430, 434 (Iowa 2008). The non-moving party should be afforded every legitimate inference that can be reasonably deduced from the evidence, and if reasonable minds can differ on how the issue should be resolved, a fact question is generated. Id. Our review “is limited to whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the district court correctly applied the law.” Id. IV. Analysi cifically directed one of the parties to prepare a final decree entering a judgment on its ruling. Had Cynthia appealed from the February 1 ruling, we would not have had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. See McCreary, 276 N.W.2d at 400 (<HOLDING>). Cynthia filed her notice of appeal within Options: A. holding that a ruling of the trial court to which no error has been assigned becomes the law of the case and is not subject to review by the court of appeals B. holding the supreme court was without jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the courts finding of facts conclusions of law and ruling until the court entered the decree that was contemplated by the finding of facts conclusions of law and ruling C. holding that even under an abuse of discretion standard the trial court must make sufficient find ings of fact and conclusions of law to allow the reviewing court to determine whether a judgment and the legal conclusions that underlie it represent a correct application of the law D. holding that an unappealed ruling is the law of the case E. holding that a court is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged

assistant: The best answer is B. holding the supreme court was without jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the courts finding of facts conclusions of law and ruling until the court entered the decree that was contemplated by the finding of facts conclusions of law and ruling