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: 36, 37-38 (2), (3) (456 SE2d 631) (1995). 17 Howsam, supra at 83-84. 18 Id. at 84; but compare North Augusta Assoc. v. 1815 Exchange, 220 Ga. App. 790, 792 (2) (469 SE2d 759) (1996) (court in effect finds that whether party has complied with a provision of arbitration agreement setting forth a condition precedent to arbitration is a gateway question for court). 19 Supra. 20 See id. (in accordance with a severability clause in the parties’ agreement, trial court did not err in striking a section of the arbitration clause concerning eligibility of arbitrators as violative of the FAA; but trial court did err in striking another part of arbitration clause governing judicial review, as latter provision was not violative of the FAA); Gannon v. Circuit City Stores, 262 F3d 677 (8th Cir. 2001) (<HOLDING>); SI V v. FMC Corp., 223 FSupp.2d 1059 (N.D. Options: A. holding that an arbitration clause was unenforceable because it prohibited an award of punitive damages which was available to the plaintiff under title vii B. holding that under a severability clause arbitration provision was not rendered unenforceable because it contained an invalid limitation on punitive damages C. holding that when an arbitration clause has provisions that defeat the remedial purpose of the statute the arbitration clause is not enforceable and that the language insulating an employer from damages and equitable relief renders the clause unenforceable D. holding that arbitration agreement was not unconscionable where agree ment did not limit punitive damages and limitation of liability provision was severable if unenforceable E. holding that a oneyear limitation provision was unreasonable and thus unenforceable because it conflicted with the motor vehicle reparations acts twoyear limitation period

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that under a severability clause arbitration provision was not rendered unenforceable because it contained an invalid limitation on punitive damages
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 counsel, and any other relevant information from the entire record. Id. The language objected to by Ochoa is from the Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), reasonable doubt definition. The Court of Criminal Appeals has overruled Geesa to the extent that it requires trial courts to define reasonable doubt for the jury. Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). The court has stated that “the better practice is to give no definition of reasonable doubt at all to the jury.” Id. The court further indicated that it would not be reversible error to include the definition if both parties agreed to provide it. Id. Ochoa contends that because the trial court included language from the Geesa definition of reasonable doubt over his obje App.-Waco 2002, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). We have considered the analysis provided in Options: A. holding that it is error to conduct most of the jury selection process in the absence of the defendant B. holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error C. holding it was error to include language from geesa in absence of agreement between state and defense but such error caused no harm D. holding it was error to include language from geesa but such error was harmless E. holding that error in method by which interest from damages award was calculated was an error in substantive law not a clerical or mathematical error

assistant: The best answer is C. holding it was error to include language from geesa in absence of agreement between state and defense but such error caused no harm
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 execution, delivery and performance of this Second Amendment are within Borrower's limited partnership powers, have been duly authorized by all necessary organizational or corporate action, require no action by or in respect of, or filing with, any governmental body, agency or official and do not violate or constitute a default under any provision of applicable law or any material agreement binding upon Borrower or result in the creation or imposition of any Lien upon any of the assets of Borrower.

assistant: No Conflicts
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 shall use the proceeds from the sale of the Securities hereunder as reflected on Schedule 4.7 and shall not use such proceeds: (a) for the satisfaction of any portion of the Company’s debt other than the Notes, trade accounts payable and other expenses incurred in the ordinary course of business, (b) for the redemption of any Common Stock or Common Stock Equivalents, (c) for the settlement of any outstanding litigation or (d) in violation of FCPA or OFAC regulations.

assistant: Use Of Proceeds
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: Joining Party represents and warrants to Agent that, as of the Effective Date (as defined below), except as disclosed in writing by Joining Party to Agent on or prior to the date hereof and approved by the Agent in writing (which disclosures shall be deemed to amend the Schedules and other disclosures delivered as contemplated in the Loan Agreement), the representations and warranties contained in the Loan Agreement and the other Loan Documents are true and correct in all material respects as applied to Joining Party as a Subsidiary Guarantor on and as of the Effective Date as though made on that date. As of the Effective Date, all covenants and agreements in the Loan Documents of the Subsidiary Guarantors are true and correct with respect to Joining Party and no Default or Event of Default shall exist or might exist upon the Effective Date in the event that Joining Party becomes a Subsidiary Guarantor.

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: All covenants, agreements, representations and warranties made by the Borrower herein and in the certificates or other instruments delivered in connection with or pursuant to this Agreement shall be considered to have been relied upon by the other parties hereto and shall survive the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the making of any Loans and issuance of any Letters of Credit, regardless of any investigation made by any such other party or on its behalf and notwithstanding that the Administrative Agent, any Issuing Bank or any Lender may have had notice or knowledge of any Default or incorrect representation or warranty at the time any credit is extended hereunder, and shall continue in full force and effect as long as the principal of or any accrued interest on any Loan or any fee or any other amount payable under this Agreement is outstanding and unpaid or any Letter of Credit is outstanding and so long as the Commitments have not expired or terminated. The provisions of Sections 2.14 , 2.15 , 2.16 and 9.03 and Article VIII shall survive and remain in full force and effect regardless of the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, the repayment of the Loans, the expiration or termination of the Letters of Credit and the Commitments or the termination of this Agreement or any provision hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: it with pertinent authority. We therefore deem this argument waived pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(3) & (a)(6). See Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138 F.3d 277, 301 (7th Cir.), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 119 S.Ct. 336,-L.Ed.2d -(1998) (No. 98-179); see also United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir.1991) (stating that ”[w]e repeatedly have made clear that perfunctory and undeveloped arguments, and arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority, are waived”), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 845, , Main & Co., 996 F.2d 1534, 1539 (3d Cir.1993) (stating that "[s]imply because one provides goods or services that ultimately benefit the enterprise does not mean that one becomes liable under RICO”); Nolte v. Pearson, 994 F.2d 1311, 1317 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Redtail Leasing, Inc. v. Bellezza, No. 95 Options: A. holding even though experts are permitted to give an opinion they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of others B. holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative C. holding that to prevail under civil rico plaintiff must prove that defendants participated in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity D. holding that attorneys who prepared allegedly false opinion letters and informational memoranda regarding a music recording leasing program had not participated in operation or management of enterprise E. holding that the chief financial officer of a hospital had sufficient access to the allegedly false cost reports resulting from the false invoices to require him to plead at least one example of a false claim with particularity

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that attorneys who prepared allegedly false opinion letters and informational memoranda regarding a music recording leasing program had not participated in operation or management of enterprise
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 party may assign either this Agreement or any of its rights, interests or obligations hereunder without the prior written approval of the other party and any such assignment by a party without prior written approval of the other parties will be deemed void ab initio and not binding on such other parties. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the parties hereto and their respective successors (including any direct or indirect successor by purchase, merger, consolidation or otherwise to all or substantially all of the business and/or assets of the Company), permitted assigns, spouses, heirs, executors and personal and legal representatives. The Company shall require and cause any successor (whether direct or indirect by purchase, merger, consolidation or otherwise) to all, substantially all or a substantial part of the business and/or assets of the Company, by written agreement in form and substances satisfactory to Indemnitee, expressly to assume and agree to perform this Agreement in the same manner and to the same extent that the Company would be required to perform if no such succession had taken place.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company and each of its Subsidiaries has filed all federal, state, local and foreign tax returns which have been required to be filed and paid all taxes shown thereon through the date hereof, to the extent that such taxes have become due and are not being contested in good faith. Except as otherwise disclosed in or contemplated by the Registration Statement or the Prospectus, no tax deficiency has been determined adversely to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries which has had, or would reasonably be expected to have, individually or in the aggregate, a Material Adverse Effect. The Company has no knowledge of any federal, state or other governmental tax deficiency, penalty or assessment which has been or might be asserted or threatened against it which reasonably would be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. The representations set forth in this Section 6(x), to the extent they relate to the Specified Subsidiary, are to the Company’s knowledge, after due and careful inquiry.

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: for non-specific symptoms of multiple sclerosis prior to the effective date' of his disability policy, but the condition was not diagnosed until after the policy took effect. The First Circuit found both the insurance company’s and the claimant’s interpretations of the policy to be reasonable, and it therefore concluded that the pre-existing condition exclusion was ambiguous. Id. at 269-70. In particular, the ambiguity was due to the lack of clarity regarding what constitutes treatment “for” a condition. Id. at 269. Hughes notwithstanding, some courts have interpreted language similar to the pre-existing condition provision at issue in this case not to require a diagnosis of the condition. See, e.g., Bullwinkel v. New England Mutual Life Insurance Co., 18 F.3d 429 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Marshall v. UNUM Life Insurance Co., 13 F.3d Options: A. holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage B. holding that limitations on an insureds claims of negligent procurement negligent misrepresentation and violations of the insurance code and deceptive trade practices act began to run when insured purchased life insurance coverage and the discovery rule did not apply because the nature of the injury was not inherently undiscoverable C. holding that discovery of a breast lump before the defendants insurance coverage began triggered the preexisting condition exclusion although the lump was not definitively diagnosed as cancer until after coverage began D. holding that where the claimants cancer was not evident as a condition before the coverage period began and where the symptoms before diagnosis were nonspecific coverage should not be excluded under the preexisting condition clause E. holding that excess coverage in four policies was not triggered until primary insurer satisfied the requirements necessary to trigger the excess insurers coverage and paid the full amount of its limits

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that discovery of a breast lump before the defendants insurance coverage began triggered the preexisting condition exclusion although the lump was not definitively diagnosed as cancer until after coverage began
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 or any Subsidiary is authorized to withhold from any Award, from any payment due or transfer made under any Award (including from a distribution of Stock) or from any compensation or other amount owing to a Participant the amount (in cash, Shares, or other property) of any applicable taxes required to be withheld by the Company or Subsidiary in respect of the Award, its exercise, the lapse of restrictions thereon, or any payment or transfer under the Award and to take such other action as may be necessary in the opinion of the Company or Subsidiary to satisfy all of its obligations for the payment of such taxes. In addition, the Committee may provide, in an Award Agreement, that the Participant may direct the Company to satisfy such Participant’s tax withholding obligations through the withholding of Shares otherwise to be acquired upon the exercise or payment of such Award; provided, that, in such case, the number of Shares that shall be so withheld shall be limited to the number of Shares having an aggregate Fair Market Value on the date of withholding equal to the aggregate amount of such tax withholding obligations determined based on the applicable minimum statutory tax withholding requirements (or, in the discretion of the Committee, the Fair Market Value of such Shares may exceed the minimum statutory withholding requirement but may not be greater than the maximum statutory withholding requirement; provided that the exercise of such discretion by the Committee would not cause an Award otherwise classified as an equity award under ASC Topic 718 to be classified as a liability award under ASC Topic 718).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the Plan together constitute the entire agreement and supersede all prior understandings and agreements, written or oral, of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof. The Plan and this Agreement may be amended pursuant to Section 8.6 of the Plan. Such amendment must be in writing and signed by the Company. The Company may, however, unilaterally waive any provision hereof in writing to the extent such waiver does not adversely affect the interests of the Participant hereunder, but no such waiver shall operate as or be construed to be a subsequent waiver of the same provision or a waiver of any other provision hereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any written notices provided for in these Restricted Stock Award Terms or the Plan shall be in writing and shall be deemed sufficiently given if either hand delivered or if sent by fax or overnight courier, or by postage paid first class mail. Notices sent by mail shall be deemed received three business days after mailing but in no event later than the date of actual receipt. Notices shall be directed, if to the Participant, at the Participant's address indicated by the Company's records, or if to the Company, at the Company's principal executive office.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a “final order” for appealability purposes has long been a feature of the Administrative Agencies Practice Act. See Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Dorgan, 225 N.W.2d 278, 280 (N.D.1974); Danger v. Gray, 73 N.D. 437, 442, 15 N.W.2d 732, 734 (1944). This Court explained in Colgate-Palmolive Co., 225 N.W.2d at 280: There are many decisions and actions taken in the course of an administrative proceeding which are not subject to review by the courts. A proceeding might be delayed interminably if every ruling on evidence or procedure was the subject of an appeal to the district court. The hearing must proceed to some conclusion in order that the whole of the actions taken on the record accumulated may be reviewed in the course of an appeal. Matters must be ripe for review to avoid 580 (N.D.1994) (<HOLDING>); Industrial Comm’n of North Dakota v. Kuntz, Options: A. holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable B. holding that an order denying intervention is final and subject to immediate review if it prevents the applicant from becoming a party to the action and taking jurisdiction under 1291 C. holding an order denying a nonpartys motion to intervene is appealable because it effectively concludes the proceedings for intervention and prevents the movant from becoming a party to the original action D. holding that order denying representation to class of future claimants in bankruptcy proceeding is equivalent to denial of request to intervene and order denying right to intervene is appealable final order E. holding that pursuant to rule 2a2 a party may appeal an order denying a motion for permissive intervention

assistant: The best answer is C. holding an order denying a nonpartys motion to intervene is appealable because it effectively concludes the proceedings for intervention and prevents the movant from becoming a party to the original action
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: approximately three weeks. She showed no recalcitrance in any of her photo identifications and was absolutely positive in her identification at trial. Neither do we find error in the showing to Manning of the subsequent 8x10 photo. There’s certainly nothing wrong with a witness being allowed to reaffirm the accuracy of her previous identification as long as that previous identification has not been impermissibly suggestive or tainted. People v. Jordan, 2003 WL 21277267 (Cal.Ct.App. Jun. 03, 2003) (finding that showing a witness a single photo of the defendant to confirm the witness’s previous identification was not unduly suggestive); State v. Marsh, 187 N.C.App. 235, 652 S.E.2d 744, 747-48 (2007) (overruled on other grounds by State v. Tanner, 364 N.C. 229, 695 S.E.2d 97 (2010)) (<HOLDING>). We find no error in the pre-trial Options: A. holding that trial court erred when it admitted outofcourt identification of defendant when the witness who made the identification was never asked about defendants identity at trial B. holding that in similar factual situation no due process violation occurred C. holding that no due process violation occurred where single photo identification was based upon identifiers own observations and recollection and was requested only to confirm defendants identity D. holding that because defense counsel failed to alert the trial court that he was requesting relief based on a violation of defendants constitutional rights due process argument was not preserved for appellate review E. holding that there is no due process violation where the ijs finding was not arbitrary and the alien was not denied a full and fair opportunity to present his claims

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that no due process violation occurred where single photo identification was based upon identifiers own observations and recollection and was requested only to confirm defendants identity
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: judge did state, in a general comment about the bags of cocaine found throughout the Glenwood residence, that "the record ... does not indicate whether Sum-mersett dropped the bags on his way to or from the bathroom or when he was ordered to lie down on the stairwell, or whether they were recovered during the officers' search of him." There is nothing in the record currently before us, however, that supports the position that these three possibilities were the only ways in which the cocaine could have found its way to the bottom of the stairs. We do not know whether the magistrate judge's list of possible origins of the found drugs was meant to be exclusive. But if it was, that finding would be clearly erroneous. See, e.g., Krizek v. Cigna Group Ins., 345 F.3d 91, 100 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). It is possible to read the magistrate judge’s Options: A. holding that district courts findings were not clearly erroneous where there was sufficient evidence that the defendants waiver of his rights was knowing and intelligent B. holding that the district court must make findings on the record as to the basis for its conclusion about the amount of actual loss C. holding that this court will only set aside district courts factual findings when they are clearly erroneous D. recognizing that factual findings were clearly erroneous where the record before the court was simply devoid of any basis for the district courts conclusion E. holding that clearly erroneous standard of review governs district courts factual findings based on state record documentary evidence and inferences from other facts

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that factual findings were clearly erroneous where the record before the court was simply devoid of any basis for the district courts conclusion
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company and its Subsidiaries, taken as a whole, have timely filed, or caused to be filed, all federal, state, provincial, local and foreign Tax returns required to be filed, and paid all Taxes owing by it (including in their capacity as a withholding agent), whether or not shown on any such Tax returns, except Taxes the validity or the amount of which are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and for which the Company or such Subsidiary, as applicable, has set aside on its books adequate reserves with respect thereto in accordance with U.S. GAAP. To the knowledge of the Company, there is no pending investigation, Tax audit or deficiencies of the Company or its Subsidiaries by any taxing authority or proposed Tax assessments against the Company or its Subsidiaries.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: `` nintendo intellectual property '' refers to all intellectual property , including but not limited to registered and unregistered trademarks , service marks , logos , registered and unregistered designs , copyrights , database rights , inventions , patents , trade secrets , know-how , mii characters and other confidential and proprietary information which nintendo developed , owns or is granted a licence to use .

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: 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), the charged murder offense and the lesser-included charged conspiracy offense are not distinct offenses for double jeopardy purposes. Accordingly, a consecutive sentences are for the same or a lesser-included offense is “ ‘whether each [charged offense] requires proof of a fact which the other does not.’ ” Coleman, 261 Va. at 200, 539 S.E.2d at 734 (emphasis added) (alteration in original) (quoting Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304, 52 S.Ct. at 182); see Brown, 432 U.S. at 166, 97 S.Ct. at 2225 (“The established test for determining whether two offenses are sufficiently distinguishable to permit the imposition of cumulative punishment was stated in Blockburger----”); cf. Taylor v. Commonwealth, 11 Va.App. 649, 652-53, 400 S.E.2d 794, 795-96 (1991) (<HOLDING>). “ ‘This test emphasizes the elements of the Options: A. holding that the determination whether a crime is a necessarily included lesser offense of another crime is made by examining the elements of the crimes that must be proved in order to sustain a conviction B. holding it is fundamental error to convict a defendant of crime not charged and which is not a lesser included offense of the charged crime C. holding that an offense is factually lesser included if the charging instrument alleges that the means used to commit the crime charged include all of the elements of the alleged lesser included offense D. holding that a lesser crime cannot be a lesser included offense of a greater crime if the lesser crime contains an essential element not included in the greater crime E. holding that the crime of rape is a lesser included offense of the crime of felony murder in the perpetration of rape and that since the latter crime included all of the elements of the former consecutive sentences were therefore improper

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the determination whether a crime is a necessarily included lesser offense of another crime is made by examining the elements of the crimes that must be proved in order to sustain a conviction
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: case law on lack of knowledge of a will’s contents supplies an alternative basis for upholding this portion of the court’s ruling. 8 . Rodman cites Estate of Delaney, 819 A.2d 968, 981 (D.C.2003) (‘‘[T]he District of Columbia has a strong interest in ... ensuring that a will admitted to probate is not the result of fraud.”). 9 .Partial invalidation, Rodman urges, would also accomplish what the wrongdoer Amani set out to accomplish: to protect one or both of his children while excluding Turpin's sons from taking anything. 10 . See, e.g., Washington Loan & Trust Co. v. Hammond, 278 F. 569, 571-73 (D.C.Cir.1922) (striking the second bequest listed in the fifth paragraph of a will but leaving the first bequest in that paragraph intact); Wolfe v. Snyder, 48 F.Supp. 227, 228-29 (D.D.C.1942) (<HOLDING>). 11 . See Roberts-Douglas, 624 A.2d at 419 n. Options: A. holding that a jurys award of compensatory damages will be set aside on the grounds of excessiveness only if the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice B. holding that the plaintiff has a good faith basis to believe a putative defendant may be a district of columbia resident if a geolocation service places his her ip address within the district of columbia or within a city located within 30 miles of the district of columbia C. recognizing that district of columbia law now codified at dccode 18109 2001 establishing how a will or codicil or a part thereof may be revoked authorizes revocation of a portion of the will leaving the remainder of the will unaffected if such remainder standing alone be an understandable testamentary expression of the testator D. holding that a contract will be read as a whole and the intent of each part will be gathered from a consideration of the whole E. holding that ordinance conferred unbridled discretion where issuance of permit was subject to broad findings that proposed use will not have a harmful effect upon the health or welfare of the general public and will not be detrimental to the welfare of the general public and will not be detrimental to the aesthetic quality of the community or the surrounding land uses

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that district of columbia law now codified at dccode 18109 2001 establishing how a will or codicil or a part thereof may be revoked authorizes revocation of a portion of the will leaving the remainder of the will unaffected if such remainder standing alone be an understandable testamentary expression of the testator
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: government, accordingly, has a right to challenge the defendant’s story on cross-examination .... The government may impeach the defendant by developing inconsistencies in his testimony; the government may also successfully impeach him by asking questions which he refuses to answer. If the refusals could not he put before the jury, the defendant would have the unusual and grossly unfair ability to insulate himself from the challenges merely by declining to answer embarrassing questions. He alone could control the presentation of evidence to the jury. Hernandez, 646 F.2d at 978-79 (emphasis added) (citing U.S. v. Hearst, 563 F.2d 1331, 1341-42 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied 435 U.S. 1000, 98 S.Ct. 1656, 56 L.Ed.2d 90 (1978)); see also Neely v. Israel, 715 F.2d 1261, 1265 (7th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>) (quoting United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d Options: A. recognizing that exercise of trial courts decision regarding witness invocation of fifth amendment in jurys presence requires consideration of defendant being entitled to have his defense fully presented to the jury B. holding that defendants exercise of right to testify in own behalf waives his fifth amendment privilege against selfincrimination C. holding that trial court may draw adverse inference from habeas petitioners silence as result of fifth amendment invocation during deposition D. holding that the same waiver standard applies when assessing whether a defendant has waived his sixth amendment right to counsel during a postindictment interrogation as when assessing whether a defendant has waived his fifth amendment right to counsel preindictment E. holding in habeas corpus case that the defendant waived his right to invoke the fifth amendment during his direct testimony and that any prejudice deriving from the invocation of the privilege is attributed to his decision to testify

assistant: The best answer is E. holding in habeas corpus case that the defendant waived his right to invoke the fifth amendment during his direct testimony and that any prejudice deriving from the invocation of the privilege is attributed to his decision to testify
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: intrusions into areas where they have a legitimate expectation of privacy.” United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659, 664 (2d Cir.2004); see U.S. Const, amend IV. As an overnight guest in Bean’s apartment, Snype shared in his host’s legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises. See Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 98, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990); accord United States v. Fields, 113 F.3d 313, 320 (2d Cir.1997). Although warrantless searches of private property are generally presumed to be unreasonable, the law recognizes certain exceptions, for example, when the search is conducted pursuant to the consent of an authorized person. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); United States v. Lewis, 386 F.3d 475, 481 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). “The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require Options: A. holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant B. holding that a visual body cavity search requires probable cause and a search warrant C. recognizing that where authorized party consents to search neither a warrant nor probable cause is necessary D. holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises E. recognizing the longstanding principle that neither a warrant nor probable cause nor indeed any measure of individualized suspicion is an indispensable component of reasonableness in every circumstance

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that where authorized party consents to search neither a warrant nor probable cause is necessary
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: use of low-beam headlights within 500 feet of an oncoming vehicle. While we recognize that drivers may be accustomed to quickly flashing their high-beam headlights at an oncoming vehicle as a signal to dim headlights, there is no evidence in this case that the officer was driving with his high-beam headlights. Furthermore, the statute does not provide any exceptions for the momentary flashing of high-beam headlights. Thus, we must conclude the statute prohibits the use of high-beam headlights within 500 feet of an oncoming vehicle, for any length of time and for any purpose. [¶ 12] We recognize that at least one other appellate court has interpreted similar statutory language and reached the opposite conclusion. See Waukesha County v. Meinhardt, 2001 WI App 146, ¶¶ 9-10, 630 N.W.2d 277 (<HOLDING>). In another case involving a similar statute, Options: A. holding that meinhardt did not commit a violation by flashing his highbeam headlights two times at an oncoming vehicle because the plain language of the statute did not prohibit the quick flashing of highbeam headlights B. recognizing that where the statutory language is not ambiguous the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute must be given effect C. holding that general statement of intent does not override plain language of statute D. holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute E. holding the trial judge did not commit reversible error through the chosen method of remedying the batson violation

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that meinhardt did not commit a violation by flashing his highbeam headlights two times at an oncoming vehicle because the plain language of the statute did not prohibit the quick flashing of highbeam headlights
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: and Edwards v. Born, Inc., 792 stent in its position that the inquiry provision is hortatory, as indicated by the Executive Director’s first letter stating the contrary. The State is also inconsistent in its interpretation of the “should refrain” language in its briefs, repeatedly characterizing identical language in the harassment provision of the Act as a mandatory prohibition against unnecessary harassment, State’s Br. at 1, 6, 18, 27, 35 n.8, 39, and describing the inquiry provision itself as “proscribing] ... inquiries,” id. at 11, and “prohibiting] conduct: health care providers must not interrogate patients about firearms ... if it is not relevant to a patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others,” id. at 39 (emphasis added). But cf. Wilson, 132 F.3d at 1428-29 (<HOLDING>). Neither is it controlling that — as the State Options: A. holding that attorneys and not clients choose the arguments to present B. holding disbarred attorneys lacked standing to challenge state bar rules that limit the ways in which disbarred attorneys can represent themselves to the public or have contact with clients where the state bar had repeatedly and consistently taken the position that the challenged rules had no application to the types of scenarios the disbarred attorneys have posed C. holding that an attorneys bills are high evidence as to the maximum value of the attorneys services D. holding that the district court could properly deny attorneys readmission on the ground that he had not been readmitted to the bar of the state of new york E. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his petition for reinstatement where membership in good standing in the state bar was required before attorney could be admitted to the federal bar and applicant had not been readmitted to state bar

assistant: The best answer is B. holding disbarred attorneys lacked standing to challenge state bar rules that limit the ways in which disbarred attorneys can represent themselves to the public or have contact with clients where the state bar had repeatedly and consistently taken the position that the challenged rules had no application to the types of scenarios the disbarred attorneys have posed
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) To the best of the knowledge of the Responsible Officers of such Pre-Export Borrower, each Pre-Export Loan Party is, to the extent applicable, in compliance in all material respects with Sanctions and Anti-Corruption Laws.

assistant: Sanctions
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: have been perceived and treated with caution by the District. John Doe’s behavioral history did not put the District on notice of any “propensity” to be sexually victimized. Although it was reported that John Doe had looked over bathroom stalls to observe other children while at Bethel Springs, his teachers and the Assistant Director of Special Education all stated that they did not believe these acts were sexual in nature. John Doe’s mother, who holds an advanced degree in school nursing, also testified to that effect. Ms. Reichert corroborated the teachers’ explanation that John Doe liked to climb, and that he used the bathroom to escape the supervision of his female teachers. See, e.g., Doe v. Allentown, No. 06-1926, Order on Summ. J., at *9, E.D. Pa. Mar. 21, 2012 (Docket No. 286) (<HOLDING>); see also Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., Options: A. holding that the officers awareness that the defendant could be dangerous and that he had a previous weapons conviction was not enough to justify the sweep because once the defendant was in custody he no longer posed a threat to the police B. holding delayed title vii suit not frivolous where there was no evidence that the plaintiff knew he had been given a right to sue letter C. holding that the district court did not err in continuing the trial without defendant when the trial had commenced in defendants presence he vigorously expressed his desire to be absent he was given ample opportunity to change his mind despite the disturbance he had created he had competent counsel and he knew of his right to be present D. holding that although school officials knew that the eventual perpetrator had a history of misbehaving in sexually suggestive ways there is no evidence that he had done anything that would have put officials on notice of the serious risk he posed E. holding that the trial court properly failed to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication and manslaughter where there was no evidence that the appellant was intoxicated at the time of the offense although there was evidence that the appellant had been drinking beer on the day of the offense where there was no evidence concerning the quantity of beer he had consumed

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that although school officials knew that the eventual perpetrator had a history of misbehaving in sexually suggestive ways there is no evidence that he had done anything that would have put officials on notice of the serious risk he posed
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 Lender shall have received all fees required to be paid, and all expenses required to be reimbursed for which invoices have been presented (including the reasonable fees and expenses of outside legal counsel), on or before the Effective Date. All such amounts will be paid with proceeds of Loans made on the Effective Date and will be reflected in the funding instructions given by the Borrower to the Lender on or before the Effective Date.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: statute is to determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute in the case.”). The inquiry “must cease if the statutory language is unambiguous and the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Claimants argue that their claims do not arise from the purchase or sale of Tele-group’s common stock because a claim “aris[es] from the purchase or sale of ... a security” only if the claim alleges that the purchase or sale of the security was itself unlawful. According to claimants, a claim does not arise from the purchase or sale of a security if it is predicated on conduct that occurred after the purchase or sale. See In re Amarex, Inc., 78 B.R. 605, 610 (W.D.Okla.1987) (<HOLDING>); In re Angeles Corp., 177 B.R. 920, 926 Options: A. holding that a claim arises from the purchase or sale of a security only if there is an allegation of fraud in the purchase sale or issuance of the instrument B. holding that a partnership agreement that contained prohibitions against the sale or assignment of a partners interest in the partnership without the others consent would be enforced C. holding that a claim for breach of a partnership agreement because it is based on conduct that occurred after the issuance and sale of the partnership units does not arise from the purchase or sale of those units D. holding that under 510b a claim does not arise from the purchase or sale of a security if it is predicated on conduct that occurred after the securitys issuance E. holding that claims for breach of fiduciary duty do not arise from the purchase or sale of limited partnership interests where the wrongful conduct occurred after the sale of those interests

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a claim for breach of a partnership agreement because it is based on conduct that occurred after the issuance and sale of the partnership units does not arise from the purchase or sale of those units