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: specifically intended to promote the mail fraud scheme. Finally, Bohn contends that his money laundering convictions are subject to dismissal because there was no evidence that he intended to aid IDM in concealing the source of the funds. The money laundering counts charge Bohn with violating two subsections of the money laundering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A) and § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i). Subsection (a)(2)(A) requires proof of intent to promote the carrying on of unlawful activity, while subsection (a)(2)(B)® requires proof of knowledge that the transportation was designed to conceal the proceeds of the unlawful activity. Although the government indicted on both subsections, it was only required to prove one or the other. See United States v. Hixon, 987 F.2d 1261, 1265 (6th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Westine, No. 92-3664, 1994 Options: A. holding that the government did not have to prove that the defendant knew that his acts violated the clean water act but merely that he was aware of the conduct that resulted in the permits violation B. holding that under rico plaintiff must prove an injury because of violation of statute C. holding that government may prove facts outside the overt acts alleged in the indictment D. holding that when an indictment charges several acts conjunctively under a statute which subjects several alternative acts to the same punishment the government need only prove violation of one of the alleged acts to prove violation of the statute E. holding that when an indictment charges several acts in the conjunctive the verdict stands if the evidence is sufficient with respect to any one of the acts charged

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that when an indictment charges several acts conjunctively under a statute which subjects several alternative acts to the same punishment the government need only prove violation of one of the alleged acts to prove violation of the 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: Each Grantor agrees that from time to time, it will promptly execute and deliver all further instruments and documents, and take all further action, that the Collateral Agent may reasonably request, in order to perfect, protect, evidence, renew and/or continue the security interest granted or purported to be granted hereby or to enable the Collateral Agent to exercise and enforce its rights and remedies hereunder with respect to any Collateral of such Grantor or otherwise effectuate the purposes and intents of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: district court on remand from this court; (2) Wayt is was not entitled to relief under Rule 35(b) because, inter alia, the government has not moved for a sentence reduction; and (3) Wayt is not entitled to relief under Rule 35(c) both because the motion was not filed within seven days of the imposition of sentence and because the motion failed to identify any arithmetical or technical error in the sentence. In fact, it is clear that the proper vehicle for seeking the type of relief sought by Wayt is a motion to correct or vacate illegal sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Accordingly, this court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and AFFIRMS the district court’s denial of Wayt’s Rule 35 motion. See United States v. McMillan, 106 F.3d 322, 324 n. 4 (10th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). * This order and judgment is not binding Options: A. holding that pursuant to the collateral order doctrine and 28 usc 1291 a state may appeal from a district court order denying it eleventh amendment immunity B. holding that jurisdiction to hear appeal from resolution of a rule 35 motion arises under 18 usc 3742 rather than 28 usc 1291 C. holding that a nonparty may appeal an order of criminal contempt arising out of a pending action under 28 usc 1291 D. holding that order denying motion to dismiss a bankruptcy petition is final under 28 usc 1291 E. holding that the rule 21 severance rendered the district court verdict a final and appealable judgment under 28 usc 1291

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that jurisdiction to hear appeal from resolution of a rule 35 motion arises under 18 usc 3742 rather than 28 usc 1291
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As a condition to the (a) vesting of the RSUs or (b) distribution of shares of Common Stock to the Participant, in both instances, as applicable, the Participant shall be required to pay in cash, or to make other arrangements satisfactory to the Company, the minimum amount sufficient to satisfy any federal, provincial, state, local and foreign tax withholdings or other obligation of any kind (including, but not limited to, the Participant’s FICA and SDI obligations) that the Company, in its sole discretion, deems necessary to comply with the Code and/or any other applicable law, rule or regulation with respect to the RSUs (the “Withholdings”). Unless payment of the Withholdings are made by the Participant pursuant to the previous sentence, the RSUs shall either not vest or the Company shall have no obligation to deliver or issue a certificate or book-entry transfer for such shares of Common Stock. At the Company’s sole discretion, the Company can mandate that the Participant satisfy all or part of its obligations to pay the Withholdings by the sale of shares of Common Stock through a broker designated by the Company, and require that the proceeds of the sale be conveyed by the broker directly to the Company. If the Company makes this election, the Company in its sole discretion can further require the Participant to enter into a trading plan designed to be compliant with Rule 10b5-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 so as to permit the sale of such shares of Common Stock during periods where trading by the Participant would otherwise be restricted.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Inc., 57 F.3d 350, 354 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1009, 116 S.Ct. 564, 133 L.Ed.2d 489 (1995). If both conditions are not met, however, the federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction and the matter should be remanded. Only if the complaint asserts a state law claim that can be reasonably characterized as a claim under any of ERISA’s civil enforcement provisions can the action be properly removed. Metropolitan Life, 481 U.S. at 66, 107 S.Ct. at 1547-48; see also Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 21, 103 S.Ct. at 2852 (“The express grant of federal jurisdiction in ERISA is limited to suits brought by certain parties [under § 1132(a)], as to whom Congress presumably determined that a right to enter federal court was necessary to further the statute’s purposes.”); Buster, (<HOLDING>); Rice, 65 F.3d at 639 (holding that under Options: A. holding that because plaintiffs claim was not displaced by 1132a defendants complete preemption argument fails and district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction B. holding district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the document before the district court in this instance is not a vehicle for any recognized legal remedy under the rules C. holding that rule 11 sanctions imposed by district court remained in effect after case was remanded to state court upon a finding that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case D. holding that a district court could constitutionally impose rule 11 sanctions in a case in which was later determined that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction E. holding that the district court was not divested of subject matter jurisdiction upon the dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that because plaintiffs claim was not displaced by 1132a defendants complete preemption argument fails and district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to recognize a mere breach of contract that has an incidental effect on the plaintiffs business relations with third parties as a wrongful act under a claim of tortious interference. See Volcjak, 124 Md.App. at 512-13, 723 A.2d at 479; K & K Management, Inc., 316 Md. at 162-63, 557 A.2d at 978. Here, Mates bases her claim on the grounds that her removal from the board and subsequent termination was in violation of NAVI’s corporate by-laws. See First Am.Compl. ¶ 29. Assuming arguendo that the corporate bylaws acted as a contract between the board and the corporation, Mates’ claim of tor-tious interference would be based on nothing more than a breach of contract, which Maryland courts have refused to recognize as a basis for this tort. See Volcjak, 124 Md.App. at 513, 723 A.2d at 479 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Mates has failed to a state a Options: A. holding that the lmra preempted plaintiffemployees claim under michigan law for tortious interference with contractual relations breach of contract is an essential element of a tortious interference claim and resolution of such claim would require the court to interpret collective bargaining agreement to determine if that agreement had been breached B. holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for tortious interference C. holding that where no wrongful conduct by the defendant was alleged ie a breach accompanied by violence intimidation defamation fraud or other tortious conduct other than the breach of its contractual obligation under its bylaws no claim for tortious interference can lie D. holding no specific jurisdiction where alleged tortious conduct was not related to defendants contacts with texas E. holding that where both defamation and tortious interference claims are pled and are based on same facts minnesota law requires the application of the actual malice standard to tortious interference claims

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that where no wrongful conduct by the defendant was alleged ie a breach accompanied by violence intimidation defamation fraud or other tortious conduct other than the breach of its contractual obligation under its bylaws no claim for tortious interference can lie
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: shoulder should be considered part of the arm. Keenan asks us to reach this question here.. Keenan’s second assertion, that the shoulder is a part of the arm under the meaning of the Act, effectively requires this Court to reject a line of cases holding that a shoulder injury is unscheduled. No Ninth Circuit decision has explicitly held that the shoulder is, or is not, part of the arm for the purposes of § 908(c)(1). Other circuits that have considered how to classify shoulder injuries under the Act have held that they are per se unscheduled, without deciding that the shoulder is not a part of the arm. See Pool, 206 F.3d at 545 (affirming the ALJ’s determination that a shoulder injury “does not come within the Section 8 Schedule”) (internal quotations omitted); Barker, 138 F.3d at 437 (<HOLDING>). This also seems to be the general practice of Options: A. holding that the govemment is not liable under the federal tort claims act for injuries to service members where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to military service B. holding that injuries covered by the act are not limited to external traumatic injuries C. holding that the united states is immune from monetary damages for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service D. holding that injuries to the neck and shoulder are unscheduled E. holding that a municipal corporation may be liable for injuries resulting from its failure to keep the shoulder of a highway in repair

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that injuries to the neck and shoulder are unscheduled
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 the rights of the parties hereunder shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, and all rights and remedies shall be governed by such laws without regard to principles of conflicts of laws.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: the use , duplication , reproduction , release , modification , disclosure or transfer of the software , application or widget is restricted in accordance with the federal acquisition regulations as applied to civilian agencies and the defense federal acquisition regulation supplement as applied to military agencies .

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: an effort to collect on the mortgage loans notwithstanding plaintiffs’ representation by counsel. Countrywide seeks summary judgment as to plaintiff William Croye’s claims in Count IV. Inasmuch as Mr. Croye did not execute the loans at issue, Countrywide contends that he does not meet the definition of a “consumer” under § 46A-2-122(a) of the WVCCPA wherein the term is defined as “any natural person obligated or allegedly obligated to pay any debt,” and, thus, has no standing to bring a claim of illegal debt collection under § 46A-2-128. While it is unlikely that Mr. Croye was ever legally obligated to pay the mortgage loans, plaintiffs have established a question of fact as to whether Mr. Croye was allegedly obligated to pay. See Arnold, v. Palmer, 224 W.Va. 495, 686 S.E.2d 725 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Croye claims that Countrywide telephoned Options: A. holding that fraudulent collection on promissory note was reasonably related to breach of contract claim B. holding that a promissory note is not enforceable against a party who signed the deed of trust but did not sign the promissory note inasmuch as promissory notes and deeds of trust are separate legal documents with unique purposes C. holding that when note and deed of trust were null and void and of no legal effect because of forgery assignee of note and deed of trust nevertheless had equitable lien upon property for value of construction work for which note and deed of trust were given D. holding that mers is capable of being a valid beneficiary of a deed of trust and that while entitlement to enforce both the deed of trust and the promissory note is required to foreclose nothing requires those documents to be unified from the point of inception of the loan E. holding that when the basis of the earlier suit was that the plaintiff had had defaulted on a promissory note and the claim in the instant action is whether that promissory note was valid the transaction test is met

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a promissory note is not enforceable against a party who signed the deed of trust but did not sign the promissory note inasmuch as promissory notes and deeds of trust are separate legal documents with unique purposes
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: did not err in allowing Dr. Newton to testify as an expert witness and in rejecting the Millers’ proposed instruction presuming Phillips’s notes to be complete and accurate. Furthermore, the court did not err, or it committed harmless error, in admitting evidence of Phillips’s knowledge and experience and lack of prior panic. We AFFIRM. EASTAUGH and FABE, JJ., not participating. 1 . Alaska Regional Hospital was known as Huma-na Hospital at the time. 2 . Decisions involving the admissibility of expert testimony are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and are reviewed only for abuse of discretion. See Sweet v. Sisters of Providence in Washington, 895 P.2d 484, 494 n. 10 (Alaska 1995). 3 . See, e.g., Stigliano v. Connaught Lab., Inc., 140 NJ. 305, 658 A.2d 715, 719 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Thompson v. KFB Ins. Co., 252 Kan. 1010, 850 Options: A. holding that as fact witnesses treating doctors in medical malpractice cases may testify in opinion form about their diagnoses and treatment of patients disorders including their determinations of disorders causes B. holding that a patients settlement of a prior action brought against him by doctors for payment of a bill did not bar medical malpractice action against doctors C. holding that doctors do not have to accept patients D. holding that doctor who was contacted by patients treating physician to discuss treatment alternatives does not owe duty of care to patient whose case is discussed such as would support medical malpractice claim E. holding that trial court abused its discretion by excluding expert opinion on causation where the expert relied upon scientific and clinical studies of the connection between collagen and autoimmune disorders as well as an examination of the plaintiff and her medical history

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that as fact witnesses treating doctors in medical malpractice cases may testify in opinion form about their diagnoses and treatment of patients disorders including their determinations of disorders causes
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: (Ohio Ct.App. 3rd 2005) (not designated for publication) (finding fact issue as to whether former plant owner was negligent in its design, fabrication, and installation of support platform). B. The distinction between negligent activity and premises defect liability governs an owner or controller’s liability In its second issue on rehearing, Occidental argues that Jenkins’s injury was caused by an unreasonably dangerous premises condition and therefore will only support a premises liability claim. Occidental invokes the distinction between premises defect liability and negligent activity liability — two distinct categories of negligence liability a premises owner or controller may have, which are governed by different liability standar (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>); Thomson v. Espey Huston & Assocs., Inc., 899 Options: A. holding that contractor owed general negligence duty to thirdparty by dangerous condition contractor created on road B. recognizing the general rule that a property owner is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor C. holding that an international relief organization owed no duty to protect aid contractor from murder by thirdparty somalis D. holding that a contractor had no duty of care to a third party under a premises liability theory because the contractor was not a landowner or occupier but expressing no opinion as to whether the contractor owed a duty to the third party under general negligence principles because the third partys legal theory was restricted to premises liability E. holding in part that the liability insurance company of the subcontractor which had named the general contractor as an additional insured on the subcontractors policy was liable to reimburse the general contractor for a settlement payment the general contractor had made to the subcontractors employee

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that contractor owed general negligence duty to thirdparty by dangerous condition contractor created on road
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: him that he would be notified as soon as a decision was made. After over a year had passed, Knight, on his own initiative, contacted the clerk seeking information about the status of his case. Until the clerk responded, Knight had no way of knowing that his state remedies had been exhausted. The law is clear that he could not file a federal motion until his pending state application was denied. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(e). Therefore, he had every reason to delay such filing until he knew that state relief had been denied. Such circumstances meet the requirements of Sandvik so that Knight was entitled to have the time limitations of AEDPA equitably tolled until the date that he received notice that the state court had denied relief. See Woodward v. Williams, 263 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Phillips v. Donnelly, 216 F.3d 508, 511 (5th Options: A. holding that lack of knowledge of state court decision may provide basis for equitable tolling when prisoner acts diligently B. holding that equitable tolling is only available when an inmate diligently pursues his claims and demonstrates that the failure to timely file was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control C. holding that aedpas statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling only when an inmate diligently pursues his claims and demonstrates that the failure to timely file was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control D. holding title vii subject to equitable tolling E. holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that lack of knowledge of state court decision may provide basis for equitable tolling when prisoner acts diligently
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive acknowledges and agrees that the Company’s remedies at law for a breach or threatened breach of any of Sections 7, 8, or 9(a) (each a “Covenant” and together the “Covenants”) would be inadequate and the Company would suffer irreparable damages as a result of such breach or threatened breach. In recognition of this fact, Executive agrees that, in the event of a breach of any of the Covenants, in addition to any remedies at law, the Company, without posting any bond, shall be entitled to cease making any payments or providing any benefit otherwise required by this Agreement and, in the case of either a breach or a threatened breach of any of the Covenants, and without waiving its right to arbitration as provided in Section 15(f), seek equitable relief before a court of competent jurisdiction, in the form of specific performance, temporary restraining order, temporary or permanent injunction or any other equitable remedy that may then be available. Company acknowledges and agrees that the Executive’s remedies at law for a breach or threatened breach of Section 9(b) would be inadequate and Executive would suffer irreparable damages as a result of such breach or threatened breach. Accordingly, Company agrees that Executive shall be entitled to, without waiving her right to arbitration as provided in Section 15(f) and in addition to any legal remedies available, seek equitable relief before a court of competent jurisdiction, in the form of specific performance, temporary restraining order, temporary or permanent injunction or any other equitable remedy that may then be available without posting bond or proving actual damages.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment, the Existing Credit Agreement as amended by this Amendment and the other Credit Documents embody the entire agreement between the parties and supersede all prior agreements and understandings, if any, relating to the subject matter hereof. These Credit Documents represent the final agreement between the parties and may not be contradicted by evidence of prior, contemporaneous or subsequent oral agreements of the parties. Except as expressly modified and amended in this Amendment, all the terms, provisions and conditions of the Credit Documents shall remain unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect.

assistant: Binding Effects
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 Agreement was no longer operative. Having failed to establish an affirmative defense that would justify subordinating the Roses’ prior assignment, Am-South holds its assignment subject to the general New York rule, under which, “[a]s between successive assignees of the same chose in action[,] priority in point of time establishes priority of right ... without regard to the date of notification to the debtor.” Rochester Ropes, Inc. v. Scherl, 121 F.2d 852, 852 (2d Cir.1941); see also Cent. Trust Co. of N.Y. v. W. India Improvement Co., 169 N.Y. 314, 323-24, 62 N.E. 387 (1901); Niles v. Mathusa, 162 N.Y. 546, 552, 57 N.E. 184 (1900); Superior Brassiere, 212 N.Y.S. at 475; Carnegie Trust Co. v. Battery Place Realty Co., 67 Misc. 452, 122 N.Y.S. 697, 698 (App. Term., N.Y. County 1910) (<HOLDING>); Art-Camera Pix, Inc. v. Cinecom Corp., 64 Options: A. holding that a cause of action accrues when the claimant knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong B. holding that the delivery of an eeoc decision to the former attorney of a claimant did not constitute notice to the claimant C. holding that a federal cause of action accrues when the plaintiff is aware or should be aware of the existence of and source of the injury not when the potential claimant knows or should know that the injury constitutes a legal wrong D. holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant E. recognizing that where two parties claim to be the owners of the same debt or chose in action the party having the superior title by virtue of his earlier assignment may maintain an action for money had and received against the wrong claimant if the wrong claimant receives the money

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that where two parties claim to be the owners of the same debt or chose in action the party having the superior title by virtue of his earlier assignment may maintain an action for money had and received against the wrong claimant if the wrong claimant receives the money
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the Closing Date, the Company and its Subsidiaries, on a consolidated basis, are, and after giving effect to the incurrence of all Loans and Obligations being incurred in connection herewith will be, Solvent.

assistant: Solvency
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: 410, 117 S.Ct. at 884. The Court explained that passengers pose as great a danger to police officers as do drivers during traffic stops. Id., 519 U.S. at 414, 117 S.Ct. at 886. The Court’s approval, in Maryland, of “officer control of passengers in a traffic stop stems from the ‘legitimate and weighty’ need for officer safety.” United States v. Clark, 337 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir.2003) (quoting Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 110, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331, 333 (1977)). Further, the Court has stated that it is “reasonable for passengers to expect that a police officer at the scene of a crime, arrest, or investigation will not let people move around in ways that could jeopardy his safety.” Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 258, 127 S.Ct. 2400, 2407, 168 L.Ed.2d 132 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Recently, in Arizona v. Johnson, a passenger, Options: A. holding that a passenger has standing to challenge a stops constitutionality because the passenger is seized from the moment a car is stopped B. holding an officer may order a passenger to get out of a car during a traffic stop and may frisk a passenger for weapons if the officer reasonably suspects the passenger is armed and dangerous C. holding a nonowner passenger claiming no interest in crack seized from the car had no standing to challenge the search D. holding that a passenger who lacked a property or possessory interest in the automobile or property seized lacked standing to challenge a search of the car E. holding that a vehicles passenger had been seized and was entitled to challenge the traffic stop

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a passenger has standing to challenge a stops constitutionality because the passenger is seized from the moment a car is stopped
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: Employer may assign its interest and rights under this Agreement at its sole discretion and without approval of Executive to a successor in interest by the Employer’s merger, consolidation or other form of business combination with or into a third party where the Employer’s stockholders before such event do not control a majority of the resulting business entity after such event. All rights and entitlements arising from this Agreement, including but not limited to those protective covenants and prohibitions set forth in the Confidentiality, Non-Solicitation and Non-Compete Agreement attached as Addendum A and incorporated into this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of any purchaser, assignor or transferee of this Agreement and shall continue to be enforceable to the extent allowable under applicable law. Neither this Agreement, nor the employment status conferred with its execution is assignable or subject to transfer in any manner by Executive.

assistant: Assignments
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: statute was satisfied and he was not denied his right to allocution. Accordingly, any objection by Pepe-Frazier’s trial counsel would have lacked merit and, thus, counsel was not ineffective. Decided March 18, 2015 The Pate Law Firm, Page A. Pate, Jess B. Johnson, for appellant. Paul L. Howard, Jr., District Attorney, Arthur C. Walton, Sheila E. Gallow, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee. Pepe-Frazier also seems to argue that his defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a presentence investigation or present mitigating evidence, pointing to counsel’s testimony at the motion-for-new-trial hearing in which he conceded that he “probably” should have done those things. However, Pepe-Frazier fails to identify exactly what an inve (712 SE2d 633) (2011) (<HOLDING>). 15 See, e.g., Morris v. State, 294 Ga. 45, 49 Options: A. holding that the average number of days to payment nearly doubled between the historical period and the preference period which based on the facts of that particular case made the payments outside the ordinary course of dealings between the plaintiff and defendant B. holding that payments made 25 days after the average were within the ordinary course of dealings but payments made 50 days after the average were not C. holding that a conference discussing the dismissal of a juror outside of the presence of the defendant violated rule 43a but was not a constitutional violation D. holding that an improved public street is a structure within the meaning of illinois workers compensation law E. holding that the meaning of certain street slang or drug terminology was outside the ken of the average juror

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the meaning of certain street slang or drug terminology was outside the ken of the average juror
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: discussed. Brush thus had another opportunity to address in full the issue of her immunity and Holloway’s arguments to the contrary. The issue is, therefore, properly before this court. III Judges and other court officers are absolutely immune from suit on claims arising out of their performance of judicial or quasi-judicial functions, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Bush v. Rauch, 38 F.3d 842, 847 (6th Cir.1994), but not from suits that arise out of other conduct, Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 r.1989) (recognizing the functional orientation of the absolute immunity doctrine and holding that social workers are entitled to absolute immunity when filing child abuse petitions); but see Achterhof v. Selvaggio, 886 F.2d 826, 830 (6th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). In all three of these cases, this court has Options: A. holding that conclusory statements without factual support are of no value to the court when deciding a summary judgment motion B. holding that social workers are not entitled to absolute immunity when deciding whether to open or continue an investigation or when deciding to enter a parents name in a central register of abusers all of which are administrative or investigative by nature rather than prosecutorial C. holding that social workers are entitled to absolute immunity when prosecuting child delinquency petitions D. holding that a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity from a civil suit for damages under 1988 in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the states case including deciding which evidence to present E. holding that in deciding whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity it is not only the evidence of clearly established law that is for the court but also whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful in light of the information the officer had

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that social workers are not entitled to absolute immunity when deciding whether to open or continue an investigation or when deciding to enter a parents name in a central register of abusers all of which are administrative or investigative by nature rather than prosecutorial
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: Schedule 4.19 of the Disclosure Schedule sets forth a true, correct and complete list and description of the Insurance Policies as of the date of this Agreement, including the name of the insurer, type of policy, description of coverage, limits of coverage, retention or deductible amounts, amount of annual premium, date of expiration and policy number. The Acquired Entities and their Subsidiaries currently maintain, and have since December 31, 2013 (or, if later, the date such Acquired Entity or its Subsidiaries began conducting its business) maintained, insurance required by Applicable Law or any Contract to which any of them is a party or by which any of them is bound. All insurance policies (the “ Insurance Policies ”) with respect to the properties, assets, or business of the Acquired Entities and their respective Subsidiaries are in full force and effect and all premiums due and payable thereon have been paid in full, and no Acquired Entity nor any Subsidiary thereof is in default in any material respect regarding their obligations under any such policies. No Acquired Entity nor any Subsidiary thereof has received a written notice of cancellation, reduction in coverage or non-renewal of any Insurance Policy.

assistant: Insurances
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, AND ANY CLAIM, CONTROVERSY, DISPUTE OR CAUSE OF ACTION (WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE) BASED UPON, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AMENDMENT, AND THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE PARTIES HERETO, SHALL BE CONSTRUED AND DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND GOVERNED BY THE INTERNAL LAWS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Issuer will maintain complete and accurate books and records with respect to the Collateral, and furnish to the Collateral Agent such reports relating to the Collateral as the Collateral Agent shall from time to time request. Each Issuer will give prompt notice in writing to the Collateral Agent of the occurrence of any Event of Default and of any other development, financial or otherwise, which might materially and adversely affect the Collateral. Each Issuer shall mark its books and records to reflect the security interest of the Collateral Agent under this Security Agreement.

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 Columbia. See Travelers Indem. Co., 321 A.2d at 150-51 (noting that, under Maryland law, loss of consortium is deemed an injury to the marital relationship and not an independent tort); Carey v. Foster, 345 F.2d 772, 776 (4th Cir.1965) (noting that Virginia does not recognize cause of action for loss of consortium). However, no choice of law problem is presented because the law of consortium in Maryland and Virginia is less favorable to Fetisoff’s "arising out of’ argument than District of Columbia law. Thus, the law of the relevant jurisdictions is not "different,” see Eli Lilly & Co., 764 F.2d at 882, because the result reached is the same no matter which jurisdiction’s view of consortium is applied. 8 . See Rollins v. District of Columbia, 265 F.2d 347, 349 (D.C.Cir.1959) (<HOLDING>). 9 . 211 Cal.App.3d 431, 259 Cal.Rptr. 382 Options: A. recognizing that loss of consortium is a right of action separate from that of the spouse B. holding that wifes recovery for loss of consortium should not be reduced by the proportion of negligence attributable to husband because claim for loss of consortium is independent of the damages claim of the injured spouse C. holding that recovery for loss of consortium is a right separate and apart from right of injured spouse to receive compensation for personal injuries D. holding that plaintiffs claim for loss of consortium can proceed even where the injured spouse was contributorily negligent E. holding that a loss of consortium is separate and independent from the primary action

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that recovery for loss of consortium is a right separate and apart from right of injured spouse to receive compensation for personal injuries
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: Employee's employment with Employer has been and will remain an "at will" relationship. This Agreement does not in any way alter the "at will" nature of the relationship, nor does it constitute an agreement by Employer to employ Employee for any particular period of time or in any particular capacity. Nothing in this Agreement is intended or should be interpreted to confer upon Employee the right to continued employment by Employer or to interfere with or restrict in any way the right of Employer to discharge Employee or terminate Employee's employment at any time or for any reason whatsoever, with or without Cause (defined below), and without any obligation or liability to Employee, except as herein provided, it being the intent of the parties to provide for payment of the severance benefits specified herein only in the event of the termination of Employee's employment under the circumstances described in Section 3.

assistant: Employment
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 failure of Landlord or Tenant to insist in any one or more cases upon the strict performance or observance of any of the covenants, agreements or conditions of this Lease or to exercise any option herein contained shall not be construed as a waiver or a relinquishment for the future performance, observance or exercise of such covenant, agreement, condition or option. No waiver of any default hereunder shall be implied from any omission by Landlord or Tenant to take any action on account of such default, and no condition or covenant shall be deemed waived by Landlord or Tenant unless such waiver is in writing signed by the waiving party. One or more waivers of any breach of any covenant, term or condition of this Lease by Landlord or Tenant shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same covenant, term or condition.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: regulations permits a claimant to refuse prescribed medical treatment without losing his entitlement to disability benefits, if he has a justifiable reason for refusing treatment. 20 C.F.R. 404.1530(c). Some examples of justifiable cause are: the treatment is contrary to the claimant’s religious beliefs; similar surgery was previously unsuccessful; the surgery is very risky; or the surgery involves amputation of an extremity. Id. Although some courts have used an objective standard when analyzing whether a claimant’s refusal of prescribed treatment is reasonable or justifiable, the majority of courts use a more lenient, subjective standard. Johnson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 794 F.2d 1106, 1113 (6th Cir.1986); See also Stone v. Harris, 657 F.2d 210, 215 (8th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Courts are even more likely to employ a Options: A. holding that jury could plausibly have found that plaintiff had a physical impairment based on her own testimony and the testimony of an expert who stated that her morbid obesity was the result of a physiological disorder B. holding that a plaintiff who pled in her complaint that her law firm actively misled her in support of her request for application of the discovery rule had sufficiently pled the application of the doctrine C. holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment D. holding that the proper question for the agency is not whether stones obesity is in some clinical sense remediable but whether her obesity is the sole cause of her disabilities and if so whether her obesity is reasonably remediable by her E. holding that a jury may conclude that morbid obesity constitutes a disability in cases in which the plaintiff presents expert testimony that the morbid obesity at issue is a physiological disorder involving a dysfunction of both the metabolic system and the neurological appetitesuppressing signal system capable of caus ing adverse effects within the musculoskeletal respiratory and cardiovascular systems

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the proper question for the agency is not whether stones obesity is in some clinical sense remediable but whether her obesity is the sole cause of her disabilities and if so whether her obesity is reasonably remediable by her
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 answer to that question turns, therefore, on whether the amendment is one affecting a substantive right or affecting only a procedure or remedy. If the former is the case, the 1995 amendment operates prospectively, because it is presumed to do so and there is no clear statement of legislative intent partment of Natural Resources, 92 Md.App. 659, 675, 610 A.2d 314 (1992). In our view, the 1995 amendment to F.L. § 5-1038 is not procedural. It did not specify or delineate the measures that must be taken by a party to a paternity action to seek revision of an enrolled paternity judgment. Indeed, the process for seeking revision of a paternity judgment is no different today than it was before F.L. § 5-1038 was amended. Compare Colgan v. Hammond, 58 Md.App. 120, 472 A.2d 497 (1984)(<HOLDING>). Rather, the amendment to F.L. § 5-1038(a) Options: A. holding that husband who was excluded from paternity of children and could not intervene in a paternity action to obtain custody would be able to bring an independent action per tql B. recognizing dual paternity where biological father has actual relationship with child or has been prevented from forming relationship by mother and acts to establish paternity within a reasonable time of childs birth he may use compulsory blood test in avowal action C. holding that 1982 statutory amendment allowing certain blood test results to be used as affirmative evidence of paternity was procedural in nature did not affect parties substantive rights and therefore applied retrospectively to paternity action filed in 1981 D. holding presumption of paternity that applies to intact family prevented an order by the court for a blood test or the use of privately obtained blood test to rebut the presumption of legitimacy E. holding that although a putative father had standing to bring a paternity action the action could not proceed and the blood tests could not be ordered unless the trial court determined that the paternity action would serve the best interest of the child

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that 1982 statutory amendment allowing certain blood test results to be used as affirmative evidence of paternity was procedural in nature did not affect parties substantive rights and therefore applied retrospectively to paternity action filed in 1981