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: the timely filing of a cross-appeal should henceforth be treated as mandatory and jurisdictional. Although Torres dealt only with whether the failure to name a party present ed a jurisdictional bar to appeal, the Young Radiator court believed that the Supreme Court's broad language iii that case, about the mandatory nature of the timing rules in Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3 and 4, indicated that the time limit for cross-appeals in Rule 4(a)(3) was also jurisdictional. The two circuits employing the "rule of practice" approach to have reconsidered this issue after Torres have either expressly held that Torres rendered the cross-appeal time limit jurisdictional or have stated as much in dicta. See EF Operating Corp. v. American Bldgs., 993 F.2d 1046, 1049 n. 1 (3d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Stockstill v. Petty Ray Geophysical, 888 F.2d Options: A. holding that a time limit for filing a complaint as a creditor in bankruptcy proceedings is not jurisdictional B. holding that the failure to file a petition for crossappeal within the statutory time limit is a jurisdictional defect that bars the court from hearing the crossappeal C. holding that time limit for filing petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional D. holding that the crossappeal time limit is jurisdictional E. holding that the thirty day time limit was mandatory but not jurisdictional

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the crossappeal time limit is jurisdictional
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: commingled in its corporate bank accounts, all Enterprise funds, up to the value of property subject to forfeiture, qualify as commingled substitute property pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p)(E). And because there is probable cause to believe that Enterprise generated visa fraud proceeds significantly in excess of $125,000, the approximate total amount held in the two Bowman accounts, these funds are subject to restraint in their entirety. Nor does it matter that the funds were subsequently transferred from Enterprise to third parties, ie., movants, as § 853(c) makes clear that title vests in the United States upon the commission of the crime and that funds cannot then be immunized from forfeiture by transfer to a third party. See 21 U.S.C. § 853(c); McHan, 345 F.3d at 271-72 (<HOLDING>). The funds were transferred to the Bowman Options: A. holding that scope of property subject to forfeiture is defined by the instrument creating an interest in the property B. recognizing that the government may seek a personal judgment specific property or substitute property C. holding that governments title to substitute property like subsection a property relates back to date of acts giving rise to forfeiture D. holding that the governments precluding plaintiff from building a mitigation bank on his property was not a taking because the governments authority predated plaintiffs property right E. holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that governments title to substitute property like subsection a property relates back to date of acts giving rise to forfeiture
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the Principals, intending to be legally bound hereby, does hereby acknowledge and agree as follows: (i) Principals acknowledge having reviewed the terms of the Third Amendment, and agree to the terms thereof; (ii) that the Validity Certificates, and other Loan Documents to which the Principals are a party, and all representations, warranties, covenants, agreements and guaranties made by Principals thereunder, and under any other Loan Documents by which the Principals may be bound, shall and do hereby remain, are effective and continue to apply to the Loan Documents, and with respect to all Obligations of the Borrower under the Loan Documents, as amended by the Third Amendment; (iii) that the Third Amendment shall not in any way adversely affect or impair the obligations of the Principals to Lender under any of the Loan Documents by which Principals may be bound; and (iv) all of the Loan Documents are each hereby ratified, confirmed and continued, all as of the date of this Acknowledgment.

assistant: 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: 351, 95 S.Ct. 449, 42 L.Ed.2d 477 (1974). That nexus exists either (1) where the state “has exercised coercive p self is not a government functionary. See, e.g., Desiderio, 191 F.3d at 206 (“The NASD is a private actor, not a state actor. It is a private corporation that receives no federal or state funding. Its creation was not mandated by statute, nor does the government appoint its members or serve on any NASD board or committee.”); United States v. Shvarts, 90 F.Supp.2d 219, 222 (E.D.N.Y.2000) (“It is beyond cavil that the NASD is not a government agency; it is a private, not-for-profit corporation. It was not created by statute. None of its directors ... are government officials or appointees. It receives no government funding ..., [and] its actions cannot be i -71 (2d Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). To prevail, Cromwell must establish Options: A. holding that the fifth amendment did not apply to tribal government B. holding no violation of the fifth amendment where the government relied on testimony compelled in an earlier proceeding before the heavilyregulated new york stock exchange C. holding that the statement ill take the fifth was an assertion of the fifth amendment privilege D. holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership E. holding that a witness who testifies in one proceeding may not be compelled to give further testimony in a different proceeding

assistant: The best answer is B. holding no violation of the fifth amendment where the government relied on testimony compelled in an earlier proceeding before the heavilyregulated new york stock exchange
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: for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA was not required to close Meza-Regalado’s removal proceedings to allow him to pursue a Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (“LIFE Act”) application with the Department of Homeland Security because he did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief under the LIFE Act. See 8 C.F.R. § 245a.l2(b). We lack jurisdiction to review Meza-Regalado’s other contentions because he did not raise them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED Options: A. holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised before the bia B. holding that review of questions not raised to the bia is barred C. holding that arguments not raised before the trial court are waived D. holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review legal arguments not raised before the bia E. holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review claims that have not been raised before the bia

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review legal arguments not raised before the bia
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: Pay and discharge promptly when due all material taxes, assessments and governmental charges or levies imposed upon it or upon its income or profits or in respect of its Property before the same shall become delinquent or in default, as well as all lawful material claims for labor, materials and supplies or otherwise, which, if unpaid, might give rise to Liens upon such Property or any part thereof, unless being diligently contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and as to which adequate reserves in an amount not less than the aggregate amount secured by such Liens have been established in accordance with GAAP; provided , however , that such contested amounts giving rise to such Liens shall be promptly paid upon commencement of any procedure or proceeding to foreclose any of such Liens unless the same shall be validly stayed by a court of competent jurisdiction or a surety bond, which is satisfactory in all respects to the Technical Agent and is delivered to the Administrative Agent in an amount no less than such contested amounts.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: support in our cases for the proposition that public employees, and especially police officers, may be required to answer questions reasonably related to the performance of their official duties, under threat of discharge for noncooperation. See Patch v. Mayor of Revere, 397 Mass. 454, 455 (1986). See also Baker v. Lawrence, 379 Mass. at 331. The allegations about Furtado’s behavior, even though off duty, reasonably related to his ability and fitness to perform his official responsibilities as a police officer — a position requiring a high standard of conduct, especially considering the need to promote public confidence in the police. See O’Connor v. Police Commr. of Boston, 408 Mass. 324, 328 (1990), quoting from National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 679 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Police Commr. of Boston v. Civil Serv. Options: A. recognizing serious harm results when members of the legal profession engage in criminal acts which give rise to a lack of confidence by members of the public in those who are officers of the court B. holding that a police officer speaking to a public official about his concerns over public safety issues is speaking in his capacity as a police officer and not as a citizen C. recognizing high standard of conduct to which police officers are held in light of special and obvious physical and ethical demands of job as well as need to promote public confidence in police D. holding that policies regulating the uniforms and conduct of police officers are entitled to great deference and should not be set aside unless individual officers can demonstrate that there is no rational connection between the regulation based as it is on the countys method of organizing its police force and the promotion of safety of persons and property E. holding police officer is a public official

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing high standard of conduct to which police officers are held in light of special and obvious physical and ethical demands of job as well as need to promote public confidence in police
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: “repeatedly told courts ... not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 2084, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011). We are aware of no case that would preclude a reasonable officer from believing there was probable cause to detain a person who alluded to committing suicide. Cf. Stoot v. City of Everett, 582 F.3d 910, 922 (9th Cir.2009) (granting qualified immunity where plaintiffs did not cite “a single case squarely holding that an officer cannot rely” on a particular victim’s statements in making an arrest); F.E. Trotter v. Watkins, 869 F.2d 1312, 1316 (9th Cir.1989) (finding that a violation could not be clearly established where no case had held so previously); see also Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1220 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). While the dissent discounts Hall’s statement Options: A. 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 B. holding officer did not violate fourth amendment by taking defendant into custody under 5150 where it was reasonable to infer from facts known to detaining officer that plaintiff was at least temporarily disordered and as a result of mental disorder was a danger to herself C. holding that although jury found officer not to have had probable cause for arrest officer was entitled to immunity because law was not clearly established as to circumstances in which officer found himself D. holding that a reasonable officer could have believed there was probable cause to detain a person under section 5150 after she alluded to committing suicide despite her protest that the officer should have known the allusion was merely hyperbole E. holding arrest was valid because there was probable cause of cdw even though officer incorrectly believed at the time that he had probable cause of ppw

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a reasonable officer could have believed there was probable cause to detain a person under section 5150 after she alluded to committing suicide despite her protest that the officer should have known the allusion was merely hyperbole
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 appeal of the recommended decision and the report of the informal conference); Id. § 900.167(b) (stating that a tribe “may” file objections to the ALJ’s recommended decision). The wording of these statutes is inconsistent with the argument that the APIA failed to exhaust its administrative remedies by failing to pursue all permissive avenues for administrative review. See Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137, 147, 113 S.Ct. 2539, 125 L.Ed.2d 113 (1993) (“[APA section 704] explicitly requires exhaustion of all intra-agency appeals mandated either by statute or by agency rule; it would be inconsistent with the plain language of [section 704] for courts to require litigants to exhaust optional appeals as well”); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 757, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the Court notes that Defendants’ Options: A. holding that exhaustion of issues is jurisdictional B. recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different C. holding that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional D. holding exhaustion requirement inapplicable when requiring exhaustion would be futile E. holding that a statute mandates exhaustion only when it contains sweeping and direct statutory language indicating that there is no federal jurisdiction prior to exhaustion

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a statute mandates exhaustion only when it contains sweeping and direct statutory language indicating that there is no federal jurisdiction prior to exhaustion
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: at 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(3)); United States v. Boccagna, 450 F.3d 107, 115 (2d Cir. 2006) (“Boccagna”); United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65, 137 (2d Cir.2006) (“Reifler”); United States v. Nucci, 364 F.3d 419, 423-24 (2d Cir.2004) (“Nucci”). In determining the appropriate measure of value for property relevant to restitution, a district court must consider that the purpose of restitution is essentially compensatory: to restore a victim, to the extent money can do so, to the position he occupied before sustaining injury. See Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411, 416, 110 S.Ct. 1979, 109 L.Ed.2d 408 (1990) (observing that the “meaning of ‘restitution’ is restoring someone to a position he occupied before a particular event”); United States v. Coriaty, 300 F.3d 244, 253 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Because the MVRA mandates that restitution be Options: A. holding that the impact upon the victims is relevant to circumstances of the crime B. holding that statutory focus of the mvra is upon making victims whole C. holding that the relevant question in imposing restitution under the mvra is whether the loss is caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction D. holding that the ex post facto clause prohibited retroactive application of the mvra because before the mvra became effective the victim and witness protection act authorized but did not compel district courts to order restitution E. holding that court cannot order restitution under the mvra to persons who are not victims of the offenses for which the defendant was convicted

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that statutory focus of the mvra is upon making victims whole
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: defend its interest in the litigation. On appeal, the County also seeks a determination of its right to so appear in the lawsuit. However, we do not address that issue because: (1) the record is unclear as to whether, or on what grounds, the trial court ruled on it; (2) it is inadequately briefed on appeal; and (3) it is unnecessary to our disposition of the appeal. 7 . Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991). 8 . However, judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in a judicial capacity or to attorney’s fees for obtaining such relief. Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 542-44, 104 S.Ct. 1970, 80 L.Ed.2d 565 (1984). 9 . Mireles, 502 U.S. at 12, 112 S.Ct. 286. 10 . Mireles, 502 U.S. at 13, 112 S.Ct. 286 (<HOLDING>); Forrester, 484 U.S. at 227, 108 S.Ct. 538 Options: A. holding that deputies use of a police dog is subject to excessive force analysis B. holding that a judge merely acted in excess of his authority in ordering police officers to use excessive force in bringing an attorney to his courtroom for a calendar call C. holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim D. holding that ordering police officers to use excessive force in bringing a lawyer into court was a judicial act E. recognizing that the fourth amendment protects against the use of excessive force by police officers in carrying out an arrest

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that ordering police officers to use excessive force in bringing a lawyer into court was a judicial act
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: 63). Section 63 permits not less than twenty-four taxable inhabitants to file a petition in equity to prevent a “department, commission, board, officer, employee or agent of the Commonwealth” from expending money or incurring obligations for an unlawful purpose. The transaction at issue here, however, involves neither the expenditure of money nor the imposition of an obligation of the sort contemplated by Section 63. Rather, it concerns a sale of land whereby the MBTA will receive $6 million. Accordingly, Section 63 is not applicable. Of some guidance to this Court are those decisions that have construed a similar taxpayer statute, G.L.c. 40, §53 (Section 53), which contains almost identical language as Section 63. See Richards v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen., 319 Mass. 672, 674 (1946) (<HOLDING>). Section 53 permits taxpayers to bring a Options: A. holding the same B. holding that because adjudication of cases on their merits is favored rule 60b should be given a liberal construction C. recognizing that the constitutional right to appeal must be given a practical construction D. holding that if there is only one construction that will permit all parts of the deed to be given effect it should be followed E. holding that section 63 should be given the same construction of section 53 in light of their substantial similarities

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that section 63 should be given the same construction of section 53 in light of their substantial similarities
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 Buyer is a corporation duly incorporated, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Florida, with full right, power and authority to enter into and perform and do all things contemplated under this Agreement and the Other Transaction Documents to which it is a party necessary to give effect to the provisions of this Agreement and such Other Transaction Documents.

assistant: Organizations
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: ORDER OF THE COURT. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is d r citing Graham, which the trial court granted. The court resentenced Roman to forty years in prison for count one and a consecutive fifteen-year prison term for count two followed by twenty-five years of sexual offender probation. The court imposed a concurrent fifteen-year term in prison for count three. We affirm Roman’s fifty-five-year aggregate prison sentence on the basis of Williams v. State, 197 So.3d 569, 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (<HOLDING>). We certify conflict with Peterson v. State, Options: A. holding that williams fiftyyear sentence is not a de facto life sentence in violation of graham B. holding that graham which prohibited the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide does not apply to a lengthy termofyears sentence that might constitute a de facto life sentence C. recognizing that njeither graham nor miller explicitly apply to the functional equivalent of life without parole ie de facto life sentences D. holding that probation is not a sentence E. holding that an effective life sentence of fortyfive years for seconddegree forgery was excessive and that a life sentence was cruel and unusual in violation of the eighth amendment

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that williams fiftyyear sentence is not a de facto life sentence in violation of graham
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: Indenture Trustee represents and warrants that pursuant to the terms of the Indenture: (a) Indenture Trustee is authorized to enter into this Agreement and bind each holder of the Issuer’s Obligations, including each original Noteholder and each transferee Noteholder; and (b) each holder of the Issuer’s Obligations, including each original Noteholder and each transferee Noteholder, shall assume such Issuer’s Obligations subject to the rights and obligations of this Agreement.

assistant: Representations
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: Tenant shall pay to Manager an amount equal to any sales, use, commercial activity tax, gross receipts, value added, excise or similar taxes assessed against Manager by any Governmental Authority that are calculated on Reimbursable Expenses required to be paid by Tenant under this Agreement, other than income, gross receipts, franchise or similar taxes assessed against Manager on Manager’s income. Tenant and Manager agree to cooperate in good faith to minimize the taxes assessed against Manager, Tenant and the Managed Facilities, including taxes assessed against Tenant in connection with paying Reimbursable Expenses directly to the applicable third-party vendor, so long as such actions are commercially reasonable and could not reasonably be expected to, and do not, result in an adverse impact in any material respect on Manager, Tenant or the Managed Facilities. In the event of any dispute regarding appropriate actions to be taken to minimize taxes assessed against Manager, Tenant and the Managed Facilities, such dispute may be submitted by either Tenant or Manager for Expert Resolution in accordance with Article XVIII .

assistant: Sales
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: all of the rights you grant in this eula are provided on a through-to-the-audience basis , meaning the owners or operators of external sites will not have any separate liability to you or any other third party for user content posted or used on such external sites via the service .

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: S.Ct. 471, 107 L.Ed.2d 462 (1989)). The Navy concedes that it is an agency with a mixed function. Therefore, it must demonstrate that it “had a law enforcement purpose based upon properly delegated enforcement authority” for compiling the ESQD arc maps. Church of Scientology, 611 F.2d at 748. The Navy does not meet this standard. Agencies with law enforcement powers have the ability to conduct investigations or adjudications to enforce laws or regulations. See, e.g., Church of Scientology Int’l v. I.R.S., 995 F.2d 916, 919 (9th Cir.1993) (finding that the Exempt Organization Division of the IRS performs a law enforcement function “by enforcing the provisions of the federal tax code that relate to qualification for tax exempt status”); Lewis v. I.R.S., 823 F.2d 375, 379 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Binion v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 695 F.2d Options: A. holding that the irs has a law enforcement purpose in the context of a criminal tax investigation B. holding that a decedents tax settlement with the irs did not establish the value of his estates claim against the irs as a matter of law C. holding that the irss full participation in the bankruptcy proceeding in relation to an income tax debt did not bar it from collecting a gift tax debt that had also been listed in the debtors schedules where the irs did not file a proof of claim and the debtor did not force the irs into the proceeding on the gift tax debt D. holding that the debtors belated filing was not a reasonable effort to satisfy the requirements of the tax law relying significantly on the debtors delinquency in failing to file his tax returns until after the irs assessment thus defeating the main purpose of the selfreporting requirement of our tax system E. holding that the essential purpose of use tax is the recoupment of lost sales tax revenue

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the irs has a law enforcement purpose in the context of a criminal tax investigation
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 district court denied Wade’s subsequent 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as corpus petition and we affirm. 1. We assume, as does the respondent warden, that the introduction at trial of Wade’s co-defendant’s statements violated the Confrontation Clause. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 52, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) (“Statements taken by police officers in the course of interrogations are ... testimonial under even a narrow standard.”). But, “[hjabeas relief on a trial error claim is appropriate only if the error results in ‘actual prejudice.’ ” Hall v. Haws, 861 F.3d 977, 991 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Davis v. Ayala, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2187, 2197, 192 L.Ed.2d 323 (2015)); see also Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Wade has not demonstrated that the trial Options: A. holding that confrontation clause violations are subject to harmless error review B. holding that a 455b violation is subject to harmless error review C. holding trial errors are subject to a harmless error analysis D. holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error E. holding that confrontation clause issues are subject to harmless error analysis

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that confrontation clause violations are subject to harmless error review
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 Security Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by the different parties hereto on separate counterparts and each such counterpart shall be deemed to be an original, but all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same Security Agreement. Receipt of an executed signature page to this Security Agreement by facsimile or other electronic transmission shall constitute effective delivery thereof. Electronic records of executed Loan Documents maintained by Bank shall be deemed to be originals thereof.

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: a substitute transaction and can be adequately compensated by damages based on that amount,” the increased amount paid by the injured party may be adequate to restore the injured party to the position he would have been in had the breach not occurred. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 347 cmt. a. In the instant case, ARV proved that it had to secure replacement vessels on the open market in order to complete its project after Con-Dive’s breach and that it actually paid the costs for those vessels. ARV proved through its expert that the increased expenses were reasonable and necessary. The district court, which was in the best position to assess the matter, found ARV’s expert to be credible and reliable. See, e.g., French v. Allstate Indem. Co., 637 F.3d 571, 581 & n. 9 (5th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). We perceive no error in the district court’s Options: A. holding that it is improper to ask a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness B. holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony C. holding that the district court must make findings on the record as to the basis for its conclusion about the amount of actual loss D. holding that the district court was best positioned to assess witness credibility when determining the plaintiffs actual loss E. holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the district court was best positioned to assess witness credibility when determining the plaintiffs actual loss
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company has one Subsidiary as of the date hereof, Q2Power Corp., as set forth in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “ SEC Documents ”). The Company owns 100% of the Subsidiary and such ownership interest is, other than set out in Schedule 2(a) , free and clear of any liens, and all of the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of the Subsidiary are validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable and free of preemptive and similar rights to purchase securities. Neither the Company nor the Subsidiary are subject to any obligation (contingent or otherwise) to repurchase or otherwise acquire or retire any shares of the capital stock of the Subsidiary or any convertible securities, rights, warrants or options of the type described in the preceding sentence, except as set forth in Schedule 2(a) . Neither the Company nor any Subsidiary is party to, nor has any knowledge of, any agreement restricting the voting or transfer of any shares of the capital stock of any Subsidiary.

assistant: Subsidiaries
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 failure on the part of the Secured Party or any of its agents to exercise, and no course of dealing with respect to, and no delay in exercising, any right, power or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver thereof; nor shall any single or partial exercise by the Secured Party or any of its agents of any right, power or remedy hereunder preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, power or remedy. The remedies herein are cumulative and are not exclusive of any remedies provided by law.

assistant: No 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 following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 342 U.S. 517 72 S.Ct. 432 96 L.Ed. 540 GRAY et al.v.BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE et al. Ex parte GRAY et al. No. 120 and No. 159 Misc. Argued Jan. 9—10, 1952. Decided March 3, 1952. Mr. Robert L. Carter, Washington, D.C., for appellants and petitioners. Mr. John J. Hooker, Nashville, Tenn., for Board of Trustees of University of Tennessee and others. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellants, on behalf of themselves and other Negroes 'similarly situated,' sued in the District Court to enjoin appellees from alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment in refusing to admit Negroes to the University of Tennessee. A three-judge court, convened at appellants' request, held that this case was not within the jurisdiction of a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. (Supp. IV) § 2281, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2281, and ordered that the case proceed before a single district judge. D.C., 100 F.Supp. 113. The single judge held that appellants were entitled to relief but did not enter an order. D.C., 97 F.Supp. 463. 2 Appellants contend that only a court of three judges has jurisdiction over the cause. No. 120 is an appeal from the order dissolving the three-judge court brought directly to this Court under 28 U.S.C. (Supp. IV) § 1253, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1253. We set the appeal down for argument, postponing consideration of jurisdictional questions. In No. 159 Misc., appellants asked, in the alternative, that we issue a writ of mandamus to vacate the order dissolving the three-judge court. We issued a rule to show cause why the petition for mandamus should not be granted, 342 U.S. 846, 72 S.Ct. 84, and, upon the filing of a response to the rule, set the petition down for argument with the appeal. 3 At the argument, counsel for appellees stated that appellants would be admitted to the University of Tennessee as requested. Thereafter, appellants filed a motion stating that appellant Gray has been admitted to the University and that the other appellants were, because of changed circumstances, unable to avail themselves of the opportunity at present. Appellants moved this Court to vacate the order dissolving the three-judge court and to remand the case to that court for further proceedings. Since appellants' requests for admission to the University of Tennessee have been granted and since there is no suggestion that any person 'similarly situated' will not be afforded similar treatment, appellants' motion is denied and the judgments below are vacated and the District Court is directed to dismiss the action upon the ground that the cause is moot. 4 It is so ordered. 5 Judgment vacated with directions.

assistant: 9
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 agreements in this Section 3.01 shall survive the resignation or replacement of the Administrative Agent or any assignment of rights by, or the replacement of, a Lender, the termination of this Agreement and the payment of the Loans and all other amounts payable hereunder.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as disclosed in Schedule 3(f), since March 31, 2016, the Company has filed all reports, schedules, forms, statements and other documents required to be filed by it with the SEC pursuant to the reporting requirements of the 1934 Act (all of the foregoing filed prior to the date hereof and all exhibits included therein and financial statements and schedules thereto and documents incorporated by reference therein being hereinafter referred to as the “ SEC Documents ”). As of their respective dates (except as they have been correctly amended), the SEC Documents complied in all material respects with the requirements of the 1934 Act and the rules and regulations of the SEC promulgated thereunder applicable to the SEC Documents, and none of the SEC Documents, at the time they were filed with the SEC (except as they may have been properly amended), contained any untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. As of their respective dates (except as they have been properly amended), the financial statements of the Company included in the SEC Documents complied as to form in all material respects with applicable accounting requirements and the published rules and regulations of the SEC with respect thereto. Such financial statements have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, consistently applied, during the periods involved (except (i) as may be otherwise indicated in such financial statements or the notes thereto or (ii) in the case of unaudited interim statements, to the extent they may exclude footnotes or may be condensed or summary statements) and fairly present in all material respects the financial position of the Company as of the dates thereof and the results of its operations and cash flows for the periods then ended (subject, in the case of unaudited statements, to normal year-end audit adjustments). Except as disclosed in Schedule 3(f) or routine correspondence, such as comment letters and notices of effectiveness in connection with previously filed registration statements or periodic reports publicly available on EDGAR, to the Company’s knowledge, the Company or any of its Subsidiaries are not presently the subject of any inquiry, investigation or action by the SEC.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: under state law, where it was not adopted in accordance with state procedural requirements and where the county had e discrimination among service providers. NTA contends that the moratorium was imposed in direct response to its application, and that the Town therefore discriminated. Affidavits provided by the Town, however, support its claim that the moratorium was not aimed specifically at NTA. Moreover, the record contains no evidence that the Town has treated other applicants more favorably. As noted above, a valid basis existed for the moratorium. Additionally, the record reflects no “ill will” either towards NTA or towards the telecommunications industry, in general. See AT & T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 155 F.3d 423, 427-28 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Cellco Partnership v. Town Plan and Zoning Options: A. holding that in the absence of an exception a motion filed outside the twoyear period will not invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court B. holding that city did not discriminate in the absence of a showing of ill will C. holding that we will not reverse in the absence of prejudice D. holding in part that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction in the absence of a showing that the plaintiff did not have an adequate remedy at law E. holding a city liable for personal injuries caused by a driver colliding with a girder in the center of a city street where the city did not give a warning

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that city did not discriminate in the absence of a showing of ill will
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: common to a group of investors (horizontal commonality).” Hocking, 885 F.2d at 1455. A plaintiff may show vertical commonality if “the fortunes of the investors are linked with those of the promoters.” S.E.C. v. R.G. Reynolds Enters., Inc., 952 F.2d 1125, 1130 (9th Cir.1991) (quotation omitted); see also S.E.C. v. Eurobond Exch., Ltd., 13 F.3d 1334, 1338-39 (9th Cir.1994) (stating “a common enterprise exists if a direct correlation has been established between success or failure of [the promoter’s] efforts and success or failure of the investment”) (quotation omitted). “One indicator of vertical commonality, though by no means the only indicator, is an arrangement to share profits on a percentage basis between the investor and the seller or promoter.” R.G. Reynolds, 952 F.2d at 1130-31 (<HOLDING>). Viewing the evidence in the light most Options: A. holding that where promoters management fee was based on a percentage of the profits promoters profit was tied to investors profits and thus vertical commonality existed B. holding a personal profit exclusion applicable to an insured corporation where the purpose of the exclusion was to exclude coverage when the insured received profits to which the insured was not legally entitled C. holding that lost profits were covered where the insureds product a motor used in a treadmill was defective and caused lost profits on the sale of the treadmills D. holding exclusion inapplicable because under the facts alleged in the underlying suit the insured could receive personal profits and be legally entitled to retain them and distinguishing cases where there was sufficient evidence in the underlying complaint to show the profits received were illegal or undeserved within the meaning of the exclusion E. holding past profits coupled with other facts and circumstances may establish lost profits

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that where promoters management fee was based on a percentage of the profits promoters profit was tied to investors profits and thus vertical commonality existed
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 not directly or, to the knowledge of Borrower, indirectly use the proceeds of any Borrowing for any purpose which would breach the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, and, to the extent applicable, the UK Bribery Act 2010, and other similar anti-corruption legislation in other jurisdictions.

assistant: Anti-Corruption 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: you can create an account if you have ( a ) a pre-existing google account ; ( b ) a pre-existing pokémon trainer club ( `` ptc '' ) account ; ( c ) a pre-existing account with facebook , or ( d ) such other pre-existing third-party accounts as we may choose to support in the future ( notification of which will be provided by allowing selection of such pre-existing accounts on the relevant account-creation screen ) .

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: This Agreement and all obligations hereunder are personal to Employee and may not be assigned, delegated or otherwise transferred by Employee at any time. Parent may assign this Agreement and all other rights acquired hereunder in their entirety or in part at any time to any of its affiliates.

assistant: Assignments