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: 455, 535 S.E.2d 438, 442 (2000). Because these issues have not been properly considered by the Commission, the Commission having included admittedly excluded evidence on one and having failed to make any findings whatsoever on the other, the circuit court was correct in remanding the matters to the Commission. See Baldwin v. James River Corp., 304 S.C. 485, 487, 405 S.E.2d 421, 422-23 (Ct.App.1991) (wherein the court of appeals remanded the case to the workers’ compensation commission because the commission made insufficient findings of fact so as to permit appellate review of the commission’s decision denying an award); Drake v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 241 S.C. 116, 124, 127 S.E.2d 288, 292-93 (1962), overruled on other grounds, Hunt v. Whitt, 279 S.C. 343, 306 S.E.2d 621 (1983) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, the appeal in this Options: A. holding remand proper on circuit courts own motion in a workers compensation case where the commission failed to make essential findings of fact because to hold otherwise would in such cases make the determination of the rights of the parties turn upon the neglect of the commission to make essential findings of fact or require the appellate court to make the omitted findings of fact which our statute forbids B. holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case C. holding that it is not an appellate courts function to make findings of fact D. holding that an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it E. recognizing appellate courts must not make fact findings

assistant: The best answer is A. holding remand proper on circuit courts own motion in a workers compensation case where the commission failed to make essential findings of fact because to hold otherwise would in such cases make the determination of the rights of the parties turn upon the neglect of the commission to make essential findings of fact or require the appellate court to make the omitted findings of fact which our statute forbids
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: malfeasance or violated the oath of office. RCW 29A.56.110. Courts “perform a limited gatekeeping function in the recall process,” determining only whether the charges are both legally and factually sufficient. In re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 141 Wn.2d 756, 764, 10 P.3d 1034 (2000) (Pearsall-Stipek III). ¶10 In order to be legally sufficient, the court must conclude that the actions alleged make out a prima facie case of malfeasance, misfeasance, or violation of the oath of office. In re Recall of Reed, 156 Wn.2d 53, 59, 124 P.3d 279 (2005). Malfeasance in office is defined as either (1) “wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts, or interferes with the performance of official duty” or (2) “the commission of an unlawful act.” RCW 29A.56.110(l)(b); Pearsall-Stipek III, 141 Wn.2d at 768 (<HOLDING>). ¶11 “To be factually sufficient, a petition Options: A. recognizing women as a distinct group B. holding that nonmonetary claims are not subject to these requirements C. holding these two statutes are not criminal offenses and only affect sentencing D. holding that a ripe case must meet both prongs of abbott labs E. holding that these prongs are distinct statutory definitions

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that these prongs are distinct statutory definitions
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: whether the jury found appellants guilty of violating only one statute or both,” the defendants “were not prejudiced; they were sentenced as if they had violated only one of the statutes, each of which ... carries the same penalties.” Murray, 618 F.2d at 898. Our analysis in Murray is directly applicable to the present case. As in Murray, there is no danger here of prejudice in connection with a lack of notice or double jeopardy rights. Nor is there a threat of a completely non-unanimous verdict that would undermine the validity of defendant’s conviction, to the extent such conviction is premised on defendant’s participation in only one of the two transactions, because we may assume that the jury followed the court’s unanimity instruction. See Abney, 431 U.S. at 655, 97 S.Ct. 2034 (<HOLDING>). Rather, the verdict simply suffers from a Options: A. holding with respect to unanimity instruction that we cannot assume that the jury disregarded these clear and unambiguous instructions B. holding that this court is required to assume that the jury followed the limiting instructions given by the district court C. holding that if jury instructions viewed as a whole fairly state the applicable law to the jury the failure to give particular instructions will not be error D. holding that when the evidence shows that the defendant is guilty of premeditated and felony murder a jury instruction on unanimity is irrelevant E. holding that the trial court plainly erred in failing to provide a specific unanimity instruction to the jury

assistant: The best answer is A. holding with respect to unanimity instruction that we cannot assume that the jury disregarded these clear and unambiguous instructions
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Defendant asserts that the 1991 Amendments to Title VII do not apply to § 1981 claims, and therefore that a successful mixed-motive defense is still a complete bar to liability under § 1981. The Second Circuit has not directly addressed this question. However, that court has concluded that § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) does not apply to retaliation claims under Title VII, see Matima v. Celli, 228 F.3d 68, 81 (2d Cir.2000), nor to claims arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), see DeMarco v. Holy Cross High Sch., 4 F.3d 166 (2d Cir.1993). Other circuits that have directly addressed this question have concluded that the 1991 Amendments do not apply to § 1981. See Mabra v. United Food & Commercial Workers Local Union No. 1996, 176 F.3d 1357, 1357 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Aquino v. Honda of Am., Inc., 158 Fed.Appx. Options: A. holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively B. holding that the 1981 amendments contained in 101 of the civil rights act of 1991 do not apply retroactively C. holding that 1991 amendments to other aspects of 3910114lai clarified intent of 1988 amendments to statute D. holding that a plaintiff could not assert a 1981 claim based on gender discrimination E. holding that the 1991 mixedmotive amendments do not apply to 1981 based on an independent analysis of the amendments and 1981

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the 1991 mixedmotive amendments do not apply to 1981 based on an independent analysis of the amendments and 1981
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: for each piece of content that you submit , you represent and warrant that : ( i ) you have the right to submit the content to vimeo and grant the licenses set forth above ; ( ii ) vimeo will not need to obtain licenses from any third party or pay royalties to any third party ; ( iii ) the content does not infringe any third party 's rights , including intellectual property rights and privacy rights ; and ( iv ) the content complies with this agreement and all applicable laws .

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: Court’s recognition in New York State Club Ass'n, 487 U.S. at 8 n.2,. 108 S.Ct. 2225, that state courts may "issue advisory opinions or ... determine matters that would not satisfy the more stringent requirement in the federal courts that an actual 'case' or ‘controversy’ be presented for resolution”). 34 . Willden, 768 P.2d at 455, 458-59. 35 . 276 Va. 443, 454, 666 S.E.2d 303, 308 (2008). 36 . Id. at 455, 666 S.E.2d at 309. 37 . Id. 38 . Id. at 456-57, 666 S.E.2d at 310 (quoting Oral Arg. Tr., Virginia v. Hicks, No. 02-371, at 5 (Apr. 30, 2003)) (bracketed material and emphasis inlaynes). 39 . Id. at 458, 666 S.E.2d at 310-11. 40 . Id. at 457, 666 S.E.2d at 310 (emphasis in Jaynes ). 41 , Id. 42 See Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 438, 120 S.Ct. 2326, 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (<HOLDING>); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 432-33, 83 Options: A. holding that the state court could not procedurally bar a claim through retroactive application of a rule that did not exist at the time the rule would have applied to the petitioners case B. holding that if a state case explicitly states that the state standard is more favorable to the defendant than the federal standard the federal claim is considered adjudicated below when the state standard is applied C. holding that first and foremost of the factors supporting the conclusion that miranda is a constitutional decision is that the case applied the rule to prosecutions arising in state courts D. holding that courts should consider a number of factors including the type and complexity of the case and whether the indigent is capable of adequately presenting the case E. holding that exclusionary rule to be applied as a matter of state law is no broader than the federal rule

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that first and foremost of the factors supporting the conclusion that miranda is a constitutional decision is that the case applied the rule to prosecutions arising in state courts
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 consolidated balance sheets of the Servicer as of January 2, 2010, and the related statements of income and retained earnings of the Servicer for the fiscal year then ended, copies of which have been furnished to the Administrative Agent and each Purchaser Agent, fairly present the financial condition of the Servicer and its Subsidiaries as at such date and the results of the operations of the Servicer and its Subsidiaries for the period ended on such date, all in accordance with GAAP consistently applied (except as otherwise noted therein).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall terminate and shall have no further force or effect as of the Expiration Date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing set forth in this Section 12 or elsewhere in this Agreement shall relieve either party hereto from any liability, or otherwise limit the liability of either party from any liability for any intentional breach of any obligation or other provision contained in this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Borrower shall have paid to the Lender all reasonable fees and disbursements of Lender’s counsel and all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Lender, recording fees, search fees, charges and taxes in connection with this Amendment and all transactions contemplated hereby or made other arrangements with respect to such payment as are satisfactory to Lender.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: (“U”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Because the transitional rules apply, see Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s adverse credibility finding, see Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny the petition for review. The agency properly based its adverse credibility determination on observations of Singh’s demeanor and on Singh’s failure to provide convincing documentary evidence despite his own testimony that such evidence was available and despite a continuance of almost one year designed to allow Singh to collect pertinent evidence. See Mendoza Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655, 661-62 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Options: A. recognizing trial courts ability to ascertain the demeanor and credibility of expert witness B. holding that an agencys determination on a workers compensation claim was entitled to deference C. holding that deference is owed to state agencys interpretation of state law D. holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference E. recognizing that courts give special deference to the agencys eyewitness observations of demeanor

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that courts give special deference to the agencys eyewitness observations of demeanor
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: territorial waters. See Howard, 41 F.3d at 530 (noting that “the law in question was expressly designed to cover wrongful deaths occurring outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.”). Finally, we consider the effect of the Director’s support for Tracy’s interpretation. We deem reasonable interpretations of the Director to have “at least some” persuasive force if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue and the Director’s interpretation is based on a permissible construction of the statute. Metro. Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, 521 U.S. 121, 136, 117 S.Ct. 1953, 138 L.Ed.2d 327 (1997); see also Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944); Price v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am., 697 F.3d 820, 832 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). According to the Director, “[i]n the absence Options: A. holding regulations entitled to chevron deference B. holding in the chevron context that deference to what appears to be nothing more than an agencys convenient litigating position would be entirely inappropriate C. holding that a longstanding agency interpretation was no longer entitled to chevron deference given that the agency had changed its position on the issue D. holding that the directors litigating position was not entitled to chevron deference but did warrant skidmore respect on certain issues where the arguments were persuasive and the agencys manual and practice had for some time consistently advanced a reasonable position E. holding that courts will not defer to an agencys litigating position where it contradicts the agencys prior regulations rulings or administrative practice

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the directors litigating position was not entitled to chevron deference but did warrant skidmore respect on certain issues where the arguments were persuasive and the agencys manual and practice had for some time consistently advanced a reasonable position
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 revise data in the ebay product catalog to supplement , remove , or correct information ; if your listing uses catalog data that has been revised , those revisions may modify your listing accordingly .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No report, financial statement, certificate or other written information furnished by or on behalf of any Loan Party to the Administrative Agent or any Lender in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby and the negotiation of this Agreement or delivered hereunder or any other Loan Document (as modified or supplemented by other information so furnished), in each case on or prior to the Closing Date, when taken as a whole, contains any material misstatement of fact or omits to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not materially misleading; provided that, ( A ) with respect to projected financial information, the Borrower represents only that such information was prepared in good faith based upon assumptions believed by it to be reasonable at the time of preparation, it being understood that projections are as to future events and are not to be viewed as facts, that such projections are subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies, many of which are beyond the control of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries, that no assurance can be given that any particular projection will be realized and that actual results during the period or periods covered by any such projections may differ significantly from the projected results and such differences may be material and that such projections are not a guarantee of future financial performance and ( B ) that no representation is made with respect to information of a general economic or general industry nature.

assistant: Disclosures
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, together with the Existing Confidentiality Provisions, constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties regarding the subject matter herein and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements between the Parties, whether written or oral, with respect to such subject matter.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower has disclosed or made available to Administrative Agent and the Lenders all Material Agreements, and all other instruments, and corporate or other restrictions to which a Loan Party or any of its Subsidiaries is subject, that have had or would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. None of the reports, financial statements, certificates or other information furnished by or on behalf of the Borrower or any Loan Party to the Administrative Agent or any Lender in connection with the negotiation or syndication of this Agreement or any other Loan Document or delivered hereunder or thereunder (as modified or supplemented by any other information so furnished) contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, taken as a whole in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not materially misleading as of the date made; provided that, with respect to projected financial information, the Borrower represents only that such information was prepared in good faith based upon assumptions believed to be reasonable at the time furnished (it being understood that such projections are subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies and that no assurance can be given that any particular projection will be realized and that actual results may differ and such differences may be material).

assistant: Disclosures
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: Robert Doyle Murphy appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants in Murphy’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging his due process rights were violated when he was disciplined for possessing a weapon found in his cell. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, Blanford, v. Sacramento County, 406 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Murphy’s due process claim because discovery of the weapon in Murphy’s cell was “some evidence” to support the disciplinary actions. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (<HOLDING>). We are not persuaded by Murphy’s contention Options: A. holding that where the conviction was final the disciplinary commission was not authorized to assume the roles of both an accusatory tribunal and the ultimate determiner of guilt and that the separation of responsibility between the disciplinary board and the disciplinary commission provides constitutional due process B. holding that due process requires that the findings and actions of a disciplinary prison board be supported by some evidence in the record C. holding that depriving inmates of statecreated right to goodtime credits in prison disciplinary proceedings requires due process D. holding because defendant does not argue in his brief that these findings of fact are not supported by evidence in the record this court is bound by the trial courts findings of fact E. holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that due process requires that the findings and actions of a disciplinary prison board be supported by some evidence in the record
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: the failure of onavo to enforce any right or provision in this agreement shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision unless acknowledged and agreed to by onavo in writing .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Manager agrees and recognizes that in the event of a breach or threatened breach of the provisions of the restrictive covenants contained in this Section 10, the Company may suffer irreparable harm, and monetary damages may not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, if any breach occurs or is threatened, the Company shall be entitled to seek equitable remedies, including injunctive relief in any court of applicable jurisdiction notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12. In the event of any breach of the restrictive covenant contained in this Section 10, the term of the restrictive covenant specified herein shall be extended by a period of time equal to that period beginning on the date such violation commenced and ending when the activities constituting such violation cease. Furthermore, if a court or arbitration panel determines that the Manager has breached any of the provisions of this Section 10, the Company’s obligations to pay amounts and continue the benefits under this Agreement to the Manager (and his dependents) shall immediately terminate.

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: 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970). The plea is void if it is “induced by promises or threats which deprive it of the nature of a voluntary act.” Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 493, 82 S.Ct. 510, 513, 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1962). Coercive acts by third parties unrelated to the government, such as co-defendants, may invalidate guilty pleas. See, e.g., Iaea, 800 F.2d at 867; LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 753 (11th Cir.1988). The requirements for ascertaining whether a guilty plea is truly knowing, intelligent, and voluntary are fairly stringent both in federal and state courts. See, e.g., Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c), (d) (delineating the steps a federal court must take to ensure that a guilty plea is knowing and truly voluntary); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) (<HOLDING>). The Ninth Circuit has refused, however, to Options: A. holding that due process requires state courts to make an affirmative showing that a guilty plea is intelligent and voluntary B. holding that a guilty plea must be both knowing and voluntary and must be a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action available to a defendant C. holding that for a trial judge to accept a defendants guilty plea without an affirmative showing that it was intelligent and voluntary violates the defendants constitutional rights D. holding that a voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty is an admission of all the elements of a formal criminal charge E. holding that factual basis inquiry is one way of satisfying the constitutional requirement that a guilty plea be voluntary and intelligent but it is not mandated by due process

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that due process requires state courts to make an affirmative showing that a guilty plea is intelligent and voluntary
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices and other communications provided for hereunder to be effective must be in writing and either (i) hand delivered or delivered by overnight courier to, or (ii) sent by electronic mail to (as applicable), the addresses or electronic mail addresses set forth on the signature page hereto, or, at such other address as designated by one party to the others in a written notice to the others. Notices and communications delivered by hand or overnight carrier shall be deemed to have been duly given or made (a) on the date when hand delivered, or (b) on the Business Day following delivery to a national overnight courier service (all delivery charges prepaid).Notices and other communications sent to an electronic mail address shall be deemed received upon the sender’s receipt of an acknowledgement from the intended recipient (such as by the “return receipt requested” function, as available, return electronic mail or other written acknowledgement), provided that if such notice or other communication is not sent during the normal business hours of the recipient, such notice or communication shall be deemed to have been sent at the opening of business on the next business day for the recipient.

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: Except as herein expressly amended, all terms, covenants and provisions of the Agreement are and shall remain in full force and effect, and all references therein to such Agreement shall henceforth refer to the Agreement, as amended by this Amendment. This Amendment shall be deemed incorporated into, and a part of, the Agreement.

assistant: Entire Agreements
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 in as many counterparts as deemed necessary. When so executed, the aggregate counterparts shall constitute one agreement and shall have the same effect as if all Parties signing counterparts had executed the same instrument.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: United States after deportation. The parties agree that the government’s failure to allege specific intent rendered the indictment defective under Pemillo-Fuentes. The government asserts, however, that Velasco-Medina waived his objection to the indictment’s sufficiency by failing to raise it before the district court. Velasco-Medina responds that the indictment’s defect deprived the district court of jurisdiction over the case ah initio, and thus requires that we overturn his conviction. We find neither argument availing. The government’s position that Ve-lasco-Medina waived any objection to the indictment’s sufficiency by failing to raise it in the district court has been repeatedly rejected in this Circuit. See, e.g., United States v. Godinez-Rabadan, 289 F.3d 630, 632 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Geiger, 263 F.3d 1034, 1039 Options: A. holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal B. holding that standing is a jurisdictional issue that can be raised for the first time on appeal C. holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal D. holding that a cruel and unusual punishment claim is not jurisdictional and therefore may not be raised for the first time on appeal E. holding that indictments sufficiency is jurisdictional in nature and may be raised initially on appeal

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that indictments sufficiency is jurisdictional in nature and may be raised initially 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Addendum embodies the entire agreement and understanding of the Parties with respect to the supplementing and amending of the Agreement with regard to the matters described herein. There are no restrictions, promises, representations, warranties, covenants or undertakings with respect thereto, other than those expressly set forth or referred to herein.

assistant: Entire Agreements
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: 41 M.J. 736, 738-39 (N.M.Ct.Crim. App.1994); United States v. Britton, 26 M.J. 24, 26-27 (C.M.A.1988). The sharp contrast between appellant’s conditional plea to Specification 2 under Charge III due to the military judge’s ruling on his suppression motion, and the unconditional pleas entered on all other Charges and Specifications, highlights the fact that counsel was aware of waiver resulting from not making a plea conditional. We will apply waiver in unconditional guilty plea cases whether the alleged speedy trial violation involves the Sixth Amendment, R.C.M. 707, or Article 10, UCMJ, for we see no reason for differentiating between the three for purposes of applying the waiver rule. See Birge, 52 M.J. at 211; United States v. Sloan, 22 C.M.A. 587, 48 C.M.R. 211, 1974 WL 13798 (1974)(<HOLDING>); United States v. Hounshell, 7 C.M.A. 3, 21 Options: A. holding a defendants failure to raise aclaim of outrageous government conduct in a pretrial motion pursuant to rule 12b2 constituted waiver of the claim B. holding that whether a pretrial motion actually caused or is expected to cause delay of trial is irrelevant to the speedy trial act C. holding that by fading to timely raise the issue before the trial court the defendant had waived the right to raise the issue on appeal that the trial court failed to consider less severe sanctions D. holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue E. holding that failure to raise a speedy trial issue constituted waiver under article 10 ucmj absent a timely challenge on the part of the appellant to any pretrial delay

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that failure to raise a speedy trial issue constituted waiver under article 10 ucmj absent a timely challenge on the part of the appellant to any pretrial delay
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: See Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Covenant Coal Corp., 977 F.2d 895, 897 (4th Cir.1992) (“The majority of courts to address the issue have refused to construe section 301 in such a way as to allow [tortious interference claims against non-signatories.]”); Carpenters Local Union No. 1816 v. Pratt-Farnsworth, Inc., 690 F.2d 489, 501 (5th Cir.1982) (“[CJourts have almost unanimously held that a section 301 suit may be brought for violation of a labor contract only against those who are parties to the contract at issue.”). Although there are some variations in phrasing, the circuits are almost unanimous in rejecting LMRA jurisdiction over a claim such as Granite Rock’s claim against IBT. See Greenblatt v. Delta Plumbing & Heating Corp., 68 F.3d 561, 572 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Covenant Coal, 977 F.2d at 897 (declining to Options: A. holding that the individual defendant does not have to be in privity of contract with the plaintiff to be held liable under 1981 B. holding that in order for a claim to be reasonably ascertainable the debtor must have in his possession at the very least some specific information that reasonably suggests both the claim for which the debtor may be liable and the entity to whom he would be liable C. holding that at a minimum the defendant must have breached some duty created by a labor contract to be liable for a violation under section 301a D. holding that insurer was liable for amount in excess of policy limits because it breached its duty to defend E. holding that question of whether defendant breached duty under applicable safety statutes was not one for experts

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that at a minimum the defendant must have breached some duty created by a labor contract to be liable for a violation under section 301a
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: injunction, which is to be conducted “at the earliest possible time” after entry of the TRO. CPLR § 6313; Stubbart v. Monroe County, 58 A.D.2d 25, 29, 395 N.Y.S.2d 307, 309-10 (4th Dep’t 1977), app. denied, 42 N.Y.2d 808, 398 N.Y.S.2d 1031, 368 N.E.2d 47 (1977) (noting that “by its very nature” a TRO expires upon issuance of a preliminary injunction); see also Honeywell, Inc. v. Technical Building Services, Inc., 103 A.D.2d 433, 435 n., 480 N.Y.S.2d 627, 629 n. (3d Dep’t 1984) (observing that “an undertaking is discretionary where a temporary restraining order is granted ... since such order should only last for a brief period of time”) (citing Siegel, New York Practice § 330 at 403); People v. Asiatic Petroleum Corp., 45 A.D.2d 835, 836, 357 N.Y.S.2d 542, 544 (1st Dep’t 1974) (<HOLDING>); . Sommerset Group, Inc. v. Town of Lewiston, Options: A. holding that when the district court applies the wrong preliminary injunction standard this court may review the record to determine whether the injunction is justified B. holding that court can consider inadmissible evidence in the context of a motion for preliminary injunction C. holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction D. holding that a motion for a preliminary injunction and a hearing on that motion were insufficient to prevent the plaintiff from dismissing by notice E. holding that a tro is vacated upon the disposition of the motion for the preliminary injunction

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a tro is vacated upon the disposition of the motion for the preliminary injunction
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: The Recipient agrees that if the Recipient is required by any law, court or governmental order to disclose any Confidential Information, the Recipient will provide CEDC, to the extent practicable and legally permissible, with prompt written notice of such requirement so that CEDC or the applicable member of the CEDC Group may seek an appropriate protective order with respect thereto.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of ______ and shall be automatically extended for additional ______ terms on the same conditions as set forth herein unless earlier terminated by either Party for any reason upon prior written notice to the other, such termination to become effective thirty (30) days from the date of such notice. This Agreement shall terminate immediately upon User’s termination of employment with the Operator.

assistant: Terms
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 superior court is AFFIRMED. 1 . AS 28.35.030(a). 2 . AS 28.15.291(a)(1). 3 . AS 11.41.200(a)(1). 4 . AS 11.41.220(a)(1)(B). 5 . AS 28.35.050(a); AS 28.35.060(a). 6 . U.S. Const. amend. IV; Alaska Const. art. I, § 14. 7 . 90 P.3d 156 (Alaska 2004) (construing AS 28.35.031(g) to include the three requirements outlined in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 710-72, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1835-36, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966): (1) pro The bodily. process that eliminates alcohol also provides exigent circumstances obviating the need to obtain a warrant prior to administering a blood test."); Gregg v. State, 374 So.2d 1301, 1303 (Miss.1979) (finding that an "emergency situation" existed because of potential for loss of "critical evidence"); State v. Lerette, 858 S.W.2d 816, 819 (Mo.App.1993) (<HOLDING>); State v. Ravotto, 169 N.J. 227, 777 A.2d 301, Options: A. holding existence of arrest warrant compelling case for finding dissipation B. holding that exigent circumstances were present because evidence of bloodalcohol content could disappear during the time necessary to obtain a warrant C. holding that once the scene was secure exigent circumstances no longer existed and the police were required to obtain a search warrant D. holding that exigent circumstances were created by dissipation of bloodalcohol content in time needed to obtain a warrant E. recognizing that exigent circumstances do not excuse the failure to secure a warrant when those circumstances are created by government officials who unreasonably and deliberately delay or avoid obtaining the warrant

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that exigent circumstances were created by dissipation of bloodalcohol content in time needed to obtain a warrant
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: Grantor warrants and agrees that each of the waivers and consents set forth herein are made after consultation with legal counsel and with full knowledge of their significance and consequences, with the understanding that events giving rise to any defense or right waived may diminish, destroy or otherwise adversely affect rights which Grantor otherwise may have against any other Person, Secured Party or others, or against Collateral, and that, under the circumstances, the waivers and consents herein given are reasonable and not contrary to public policy or Law. If any of the waivers or consents herein are determined to be contrary to any applicable Law or public policy, such waivers and consents shall be effective to the maximum extent permitted by Law.

assistant: Consents
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: our aggregate liability relating to , arising out of , or in any way in connection with our terms , us , or our services will not exceed the greater of one hundred dollars ( $ 100 ) or the amount you have paid us in the past twelve months .

assistant: Limitation of liability
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: scrutiny. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). A traffic stop based on probable cause is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See id. at 819, 116 S.Ct. 1769. It is well settled that “[a]ny traffic violation, however minor, provides probable cause for a traffic stop.” United States v. Johnson, 58 F.3d 356, 357 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Bloomfield, 40 F.3d 910, 915 (8th Cir.1994)). There is no dispute that Martinez committed a traffic violation by failing to stop at the stop sign. As a result, the officers had probable cause to stop Martinez. The fact that the officers may have believed Martinez was carrying illegal drugs does not invalidate an otherwise valid stop. See Whren, 517 U.S. at 810-13, 116 S.Ct. 1769 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the officers’ use of the Options: A. holding that a suspects actions in fleeing from a law enforcement officer who had reasonable suspicion of illegal activity supplied additional grounds supporting probable cause for seizure B. holding that under the fourth amendment the motive of the officer when stopping a vehicle for a minor traffic infraction whether subjective or objective is completely irrelevant C. holding that officer had reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle when confidential informant personally observed the vehicle provided a description of the vehicle and its direction detailed the basis for her suspicion that the vehicle was engaged in illegal activity and had previously given reliable information that led to the successful apprehension of individuals engaged in various criminal activity D. holding that although roving patrols in which officers stop and question motorists about their resident status may be conducted without probable cause such stops must at least show that the stopping officer is aware of specific articulable facts together with rational inferences from those facts that reasonably warrant suspicion that a vehicle contains illegal aliens who may be illegally in the country E. holding that traffic stops based on probable cause are valid even if the officer stopping the vehicle suspects that the occupant is engaged in other illegal activity

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that traffic stops based on probable cause are valid even if the officer stopping the vehicle suspects that the occupant is engaged in other illegal activity
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: n. 5 (Carnes, J., dissenting). Thus, even though trial counsel’s own interactions with Petitioner did not alert them to potential mental health issues, Mr. Celia and Mr. Schuster were aware of Petitioner’s own statement to Dr. Dudley suggesting that he occasionally exhibited odd, uncooperative, and testy behavior. This information, too, should have alerted trial counsel to the presence of a potential mental health issue deserving further evaluation, especially since Petitioner’s behavior in this instance was so uncharacteristic of what they had come to understand as his normal behavior. Trial counsel’s decision to ignore the information instead and limit their investigation was not supported by reasonable professional judgment. See Ford v. Hall, 546 F.3d 1326, 1333-34 (11th Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>). Petitioner’s trial counsel also failed to Options: A. holding that the brady rule encompasses evidence known only to police investigators but not the prosecutor B. holding impeachment evidence was not merely cumulative where the withheld evidence was of a different character than evidence already known to the defense C. holding that in evaluating the reasonableness of an investigationinto mitigating circumstances a court must consider not only the quantum of evidence already known to counsel but also whether the known evidence would lead a reasonable attorney to investigate further D. holding that the prosecution must disclose to the defense all exculpatory evidence known to the state or in its possession E. holding counsel ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that in evaluating the reasonableness of an investigationinto mitigating circumstances a court must consider not only the quantum of evidence already known to counsel but also whether the known evidence would lead a reasonable attorney to investigate further
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 Sections 4(b) and 4(c) , to the extent that the RSUs covered by this Agreement are vested on the vesting date specified under Section 3(a) , the Participant will receive the number of shares of Common Stock that correspond to the number of RSUs that are vested on the vesting date as soon as reasonably practicable following (but no later than thirty (30) days following) such vesting date.

assistant: General