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: of the defendant following a bench trial. We affirm. The plaintiff sued the defendant for civil theft. See § 772.104, Fla. Stat (1995). The trial court ruled that the plaintiffs civil theft claim failed, as he failed to prove with clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with criminal intent. At the end of the proceedings, the plaintiff made an ore tenus motion to amend the pleadings to add a claim for fraudulent inducement in conformity with the evidence. The trial court denied the motion and entered final judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion to amend to conform with the evidence. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(b); Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Nunez, 646 So.2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (<HOLDING>), review denied 658 So.2d 992; see also Options: A. holding that the admission or exclusion of evidence is within discretion of the trial court and that such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of discretion B. holding that rulings on admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion C. holding that the decision whether to grant a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion D. holding that a sentence imposed within statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court E. holding that a trial courts decision to permit or to refuse amendments to pleading to conform to the evidence during trial will ordinarily not be disturbed on appeal in absence of abuse of discretion

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a trial courts decision to permit or to refuse amendments to pleading to conform to the evidence during trial will ordinarily not be disturbed on appeal in absence of abuse of discretion
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: Section 7311(b) will prevent a Board of Arbitrators from exercising its jurisdiction to modify or correct an award. Our determination of whether defects in the notice requirements are fatal must address both the timeliness and content of the notice. This Court has previously waived strict conformance to the notice provisions under the Uniform Arbitration Act, so we proceed under the premise that absolute conformance is not required. We conclude, therefore, that timely notice was given by the Township’s arbitrator to the PBA within nine days of the Award. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 7311(b). If the notice was timely provided, a failure to comply with the content requirements of a notice will not necessarily preclude jurisdiction. See e.g., In re McElhatton, 729 A.2d 163, 166 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999) (<HOLDING>). In Lautek Corp. v. UCBR, 136 Pa.Cmwlth. 79, Options: A. holding that making a nonfrivolous allegation is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction B. holding that an incorrect caption under pa rap 904 is insufficient to dismiss action C. holding that the bare assertion that a dismissal without prejudice was favorable to the plaintiff was insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss D. holding a decision denying a motion to dismiss an action for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction is not appealable E. holding that a mere allegation of fraud is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to the pslra

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an incorrect caption under pa rap 904 is insufficient to dismiss 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: Negligence Law, 50 Wash.L. Rev. 1 (1974-75); Note, Buckling Up For Safety: Should Florida Reconsider the Seat Belt Defense?, 13 Stetson L.Rev. 160 (1983); Note, The Seat Belt Defense: A Comprehensive Guide for the Trial Lawyer and Suggested Approach for the Courts, 56 Notre Dame Law. 272 (1980-81); Note, The Seat Belt Defense: Should Coloradoans Buckle Up for Safety?, 50 U.Colo.L.Rev. 375 (1978-79); See also An-not., 80 A.L,R.3d 1033 (1977); Annot., 92 A.L.R.3d 9 (1979); and Annot., 95 A.L.R.3d 239 (1979). With many states abandoning contributory negligence in favor of comparative negligence, the first objection has been viewed by at least one court to present no obstacle to adoption of the seat belt defense. See, e.g., Bentzler v. Braun, 34 Wis.2d 362, 149 N.W.2d 626 (1967) (<HOLDING>). 95 A.L.R.2d 239, supra, at 242. Further, more Options: A. holding that actual apportionment of damages is a question of fact B. holding evidence of nonuse of seat belts irrelevant to the liability issues involving the plaintiffs alleged contributory negligence C. recognizing nonuse of seat belt may constitute such negligence as will permit apportionment of damages under comparative negligence D. holding that federal comparative negligence principles prevailed over state comparative negligence principles on the basis that admiralty is not merely a basis of jurisdiction but instead it is a body of substantive principles as well E. holding comparative negligence not defense to intentional tort

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing nonuse of seat belt may constitute such negligence as will permit apportionment of damages under comparative negligence
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 set forth on Schedule 3.17 , there are no Actions (whether U.S. or non-U.S. federal, state, local or foreign) pending or, to the knowledge of WOD, threatened against or affecting any of WOD or any of WOD's properties, assets, business or employees. To the knowledge of WOD, there are no facts that might result in or form the basis for any such Action in WOD. To the knowledge of WOD, WOD is not subject to any orders.

assistant: Litigations
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: but guilty of resisting arrest without violence. We reverse because the trial court committed reversible error in failing to conduct a Neil inquiry regarding the Campos peremptory strike. Under Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759, 764 (Fla.1996)(footnotes omitted), the defense properly put the Campos strike at issue: A party objecting to the other side’s use of a peremptory challenge on racial grounds must: a) make a timely objection on that basis, b) show that the venireperson is a member of a distinct racial group, and c) request that the court ask the striking party its reason for the strike. If these initial requirements are met (step 1), the court must ask the proponent of the strike to explain the reason for the strike. See also State v. Johans, 618 So.2d 1319, 1321 (Fla.1993) (<HOLDING>). As Melbourne notes, a “simple objection and Options: A. holding that courts must entertain a challenge to a private litigants racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges in a civil trial B. holding that peremptory challenges may not be exercised in a discriminatory manner C. holding that racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment D. holding that from this time forward a neil inquiry is required when an objection is raised that a peremptory challenge is being used in a racially discriminatory manner E. holding that is not the fact that a jury is all white or all black that violates batson rather it is the racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges to strike jurors

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that from this time forward a neil inquiry is required when an objection is raised that a peremptory challenge is being used in a racially discriminatory manner
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 member of the Committee or the Board, and no employee of the Company shall be liable for any act or failure to act with respect to the Plan, except in circumstances involving his or her bad faith or willful misconduct, or for any act or failure to act hereunder by any other member of the Committee or employee or by any agent to whom duties in connection with the administration of this Plan have been delegated. The Company shall indemnify members of the Committee and the Board and any agent of the Committee or the Board who is an employee of the Company or a subsidiary against any and all liabilities or expenses to which they may be subjected by reason of any act or failure to act with respect to their duties on behalf of the Plan, except in circumstances involving such person’s bad faith or willful misconduct.

assistant: Indemnifications
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: none of the worldly experiences that this defendant would have, of course Melvin Boone would respect a man like this. [A476J Hakim argues that these references have no relation to the crime with which he was being charged: bank robbery. Boone was brought to the stand to identify Hakim as the second robber in the surveillance photograph. As such, Hakim maintains that the prosecution had only to establish that Boone was able to identify Hakim; testimony that he had known Hakim for 10 years would have been sufficient. Hakim therefore contends that the government elicited the testimony about his faith in an attempt to peg him as a potential terrorist in the minds of the jurors and that such use of race or ethnicity is improper. See, e.g., Moore v. Morton, 255 F.3d 95, 113 (3d Cir.2001)(<HOLDING>). As noted above, because Hakim’s lawyer did Options: A. holding that summary judg ment was not appropriate where the agency limited its search to one record system without making clear that the single system was the only possible place that responsive records are likely to be located and stating that at the very least the agency was required to explain in its affidavit that no other record system was likely to produce responsive documents B. holding the evidence supported the inference that the victim was not released in a safe place where the victim overpowered the defendants and effected his own escape C. holding relevance of evidence is established by any showing however slight that the evidence makes it more or less likely that the defendant committed the crime in question D. holding that the victims statement was inadmissible when made two to three hours after victim was allegedly raped because the victims testimony supported the conclusion that her statement was made with conscious reflection E. holding that where the prosecutor suggested that the fact that the black defendant was married to a white woman allegedly showing his preference for white women made it more likely he had raped the white victim racially or ethnically based prosecutorial arguments have no place in our system of justice

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that where the prosecutor suggested that the fact that the black defendant was married to a white woman allegedly showing his preference for white women made it more likely he had raped the white victim racially or ethnically based prosecutorial arguments have no place in our system of justice
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 not been advised, and has no reason to believe, that it and each of its subsidiaries are not conducting business in compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations of the jurisdictions in which it is conducting business, except where failure to be so in compliance would not be reasonably expected to result in a Material Adverse Change.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrowers shall, and shall cause Guarantor and Subservicer to keep all property useful and necessary in its business in good working order and condition. The Borrowers shall and shall cause Subservicer to maintain a fidelity bond and be covered by insurance (including, without limitation, errors and omissions insurance) of the kinds and in the amounts customarily maintained by such similarly situated entities in the same jurisdiction and industry as the Borrowers, in amounts acceptable to the Agencies, and no Borrower or Subservicer shall reduce such coverage without the written consent of Lender, and shall also maintain such other insurance with financially sound and reputable insurance companies, and with respect to property and risks of a character usually maintained by entities engaged in the same or similar business similarly situated, against loss, damage and liability of the kinds and in the amounts customarily maintained by such entities.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Cir.); Country Pine Fin., LLC v. Comm’r, 98 T.C.M. (CCH) 410 (2009). 14 . Because Crispin resided in the United States Virgin Islands when he filed his petition for review by the Tax Court, the Court noted that an appeal in Crispin’s case would lie in this Circuit, and then followed our law in reaching its decision. Crispin sought review by the Tax Court pursuant to I.R.C. §§ 6211, 6212. We have jurisdiction under I.R.C. § 7482(a)(1). 15 . The Commissioner has also questioned the deductibility of Crispin’s CARDS loss under several other provisions of the Code, including whether the loss from a currency transaction was ordinary or capital, under I.R.C. § 988, and whether Crispin was "at risk” for the amount of the dedu 90) (same), and Todd v. Comm'r, 862 F.2d 540, 543 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). However, Crispin’s reliance on Todd and Options: A. holding that a second deficiency notice issued for a taxable year was valid where it determined a deficiency in a different type of tax than did the earlier deficiency notice B. holding that the penalty was inapplicable when the deficiency was not due to overstated basis but to a failure to place property into service C. holding that where notice of deficiency fails adequately to describe the basis on which the commissioner relies for his deficiency determination burden shifts to the commissioner to prove the accuracy of the deficiency determination D. holding that overvaluation penalty did not apply where the taxpayers conceded other grounds of adjustment in the notice of deficiency including that they lacked a profit objective that the property at issue was not qualifying property and that the property was not placed in service E. holding that any deficiency in failure to object to hearsay did not prejudice defendant when testimony was cumulative of other evidence

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the penalty was inapplicable when the deficiency was not due to overstated basis but to a failure to place property into service
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 undisputed facts as admitted, however, the court implicitly chose to base its decision on all of the evidentiary materials in the record on summary judgment. See Tipton v. Bergrohr GMBH-Siegen, 965 F.2d 994, 998 (11th Cir.1992) (“In opposing summary judgment, the nonmoving party may avail itself of all facts and justifiable inferences in the record taken as a whole.”); Tippens v. Celotex Corp., 805 F.2d 949, 952 (11th Cir.1986) (“The District Court shall consider all evidence in the record when reviewing a motion for summary judgment— pleadings, depositions, interrogatories, affidavits, etc. — and can only grant summary judgment if everything in the record ... demonstrates that no genuine issue of material fact exists.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Holtz, 258 F.3d at 73 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks and citations Options: A. holding that while a court is not required to consider what the parties fail to point out in their local rule 561 statements it may in its discretion opt to conduct an assiduous review of the record even where one of the parties has failed to file such a statement B. holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record C. holding parties to an exculpatory clause where the parties intent is clear D. holding that an appellate court has discretion to consider an issue not argued by the parties E. holding that parties can stipulate that they were both parties to a contract and thus the real parties in interest even when one party did not sign the contract

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that while a court is not required to consider what the parties fail to point out in their local rule 561 statements it may in its discretion opt to conduct an assiduous review of the record even where one of the parties has failed to file such a statement
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: its legislative history, and this court’s case law. ORS 161.295(1) provides: “A person is guilty except for insanity if, as a result of mental disease or defect at the time of engaging in criminal conduct, the person lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of the conduct or to conform the conduct to the requirements of law." (Emphasis added.) The form of the verdict, “guilty except for insanity,” implies that the trier of fact’s initial inquiry is one of criminal culpability. A trial court, when appropriate, has always asked a jury if it found the defendant “guilty,” “not guilty,” or “guilty except for insanity” (or some verbal variation of the third option). See Leland v. Oregon, 343 US 790, 793-94, 72 S Ct 1002, 96 L Ed 1302, reh’g den 344 US 848 (1952) (<HOLDING>). In such a case, if the state did not prove Options: A. recognizing that under puerto rico law res judicata may not apply if public policy demands an exception but noting that this exception was successfully argued in only two cases and concluding that public policy does not demand an exception in this case B. recognizing this courts limitations in rendering qualitative opinions about witnesses testimony C. recognizing this method D. recognizing that the fear experienced by the victim before death is a significant factor in determining the existence of this aggravating circumstance E. recognizing exception

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing this method
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: Clause. Id. at 530. As Hill recognizes, “[t]his holding appears to foreclose much of the defendant’s arguments.” (Appellant’s Br. at 9.) Consistent with our precedent, United States v. Speakman, 330 F.3d 1080, 1082 n. 6 (8th Cir.2003), we hold that the enactment of § 922(g)(1) was not beyond the scope of congressional authority- Hill’s claim that the indictment was defective because it did not allege a substantial affect on interstate commerce also fails. The statute in question requires proof that Hill, a felon, possessed a gun “in or affecting commerce.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The indictment tracks this language, and we fail to see how an indictment under § 922(g)(1) that tracks the statutory elements is defective. See United States v. Gresham, 118 F.3d 258, 264-65 (5th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). We thus affirm Hill’s conviction for being a Options: A. holding that an indictment that is substantially in the language of the code is sufficient inform and substance B. holding that an indictment under 922g1 was not required to allege a substantial effect on interstate commerce an indictment which tracked the statutory language was sufficient C. holding initial indictment which was subsequently found to be invalid tolled the thirtyday period and superseding indictment alleging different charges based on same fraudulent acts as earlier indictment was therefore timely D. holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense E. holding that an indictment phrased in the statutory language was sufficient to satisfy ors 1325507

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an indictment under 922g1 was not required to allege a substantial effect on interstate commerce an indictment which tracked the statutory language was sufficient
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: Neither the Company nor any of its Subsidiaries or Affiliates, nor any Person acting on its or their behalf, has engaged in any form of general solicitation or general advertising (within the meaning of Regulation D) in connection with the offer or sale of the Common Shares. The Company shall be responsible for the payment of any placement agent’s fees, financial advisory fees, or brokers’ commissions (other than for Persons engaged by or providing services to the Buyer or its Affiliates (a “ Buyer Provider ”)) relating to or arising out of the transactions contemplated hereby. The Company shall pay, and hold the Buyer harmless against, any liability, loss or expense (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and out-of-pocket expenses) in connection with any claim relating to any such payment to a Person that is not a Buyer Provider. The Company represents that neither it nor any of its Subsidiaries has engaged any placement agent or other agent in connection with the sale of the Common Shares or the making of the Loan.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Interest as calculated pursuant to Section 2.3 shall accrue and remain unpaid on the outstanding principal balance of the Loan until January 15, 2017 (the “Maturity Date”). On the Maturity Date, the entire outstanding principal amount of the Loan, together with any accrued and unpaid interest thereon, shall become immediately due and payable without demand therefor.

assistant: Interests
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: Lender waives compliance with the provisions of Sections 6.11(b), 6.11(d), 6.12 and 6.13. This waiver is effective through the Secured Line Termination Date.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: hence from the creditors) for the benefit of the debtor.” Owen v. Owen, 500 U.S. 305, 308, 111 S.Ct. 1833, 114 L.Ed.2d 350 (1991); accord Smith v. Kennedy (In re Smith), 235 F.3d 472, 478 (9th Cir.2000) (“It is widely accepted that property deemed exempt from a debtor’s bankruptcy estate revests in the debtor.”). As the Second Circuit has stated, “[q]uite simply, property that has been exempted belongs to the debtor.” Bell v. Bell (In re Bell), 225 F.3d 203, 216 (2d Cir.2000). This principle is consistent with the text of the Bankruptcy Code, which defines exempt property as property that, unlike all the debtor’s other property, does not belong to the bankruptcy estate. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1); see also S. REP. No. 95-989, at 52 (1978), as reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5838 (<HOLDING>). The homestead exemptions available to the Options: A. holding that because property was no longer property of the estate the court could not order turnover B. recognizing that exempt property ceases to be property of the estate C. holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate D. holding that once the automatic stay is lifted the property ceases to be property of the estate and there is no longer any power of abandonment E. holding that the mortgaging or conveying of exempt property to a creditor is not against the public policy of the state of michigan and that that the bankrupt had the power to convey to a creditor his existing exemptions resulting in the exempt property not being property of the debtor or the debtors bankruptcy estate

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that exempt property ceases to be property of the estate
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: Participants in the Plan shall be those Eligible Persons who, in the judgment of the Committee (or, pursuant to Section 3.4(b), the Chief Executive Officer of the Company), are performing, or during the term of their incentive arrangement will perform, vital services in the management, operation, and development of the Company or an Affiliate, and significantly contribute, or are expected to significantly contribute, to the achievement of the Company’s long-term corporate economic objectives. Participants may be granted from time to time one or more Awards; provided, however, that the grant of each such Award shall be separately approved by the Committee or granted in accordance with Section 3.4(b) hereof, and receipt of one such Award shall not result in automatic receipt of any other Award. Upon determination that an Award is to be granted to a Participant, as soon as practicable, written notice shall be given to such person, specifying the terms, conditions, rights and duties related thereto. Each Participant shall, if required by the Committee, enter into an agreement with the Company, in such form as the Committee shall determine and which is consistent with the provisions of the Plan, specifying such terms, conditions, rights, and duties. Awards shall be deemed to be granted as of the date specified in the grant resolution of the Committee (or, in the case of grants made pursuant to Section 3.4(b), in accordance with the guidelines established by the Committee), which date shall be the date of any related agreement with the Participant. In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of the Plan and any such agreement entered into hereunder, the provisions of the Plan shall govern.

assistant: Participations
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: was a “substantial factor” or “motivating factor” in Walker’s allegedly retaliatory actions. Abrams argues that a reasonable jury could infer, as a result of this chronology, that he was “falsely arrested” and that he was arrested “because of what [he] said.” Abrams then opines that “the arrest was for an illegal purpose” and finally that “[a]nger often leads to unthinking retaliation.” After reviewing the record and the standards presented in our line of cases, we agree with the district court’s finding that this chronology is unconvincing, as it fails to present “definite, competent evidence to rebut the motion,” Michael v. St. Joseph County, 259 F.3d 842, 845 (7th Cir.2001), contains mere speculation, and demands the making of unreasonable inferences in suppo -84 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). We recognize that such a step would not be Options: A. holding that qualified immunity applies only if an officer had arguable probable cause to arrest B. holding that probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest C. holding that the existence of probable cause for an arrest is a complete defense to a first amendment retaliation claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity D. holding that the existence of probable cause is a complete defense to a 1983 claim alleging false arrest E. recognizing first amendment retaliation right

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the existence of probable cause for an arrest is a complete defense to a first amendment retaliation claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity
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: Upon receipt or delivery by the Company of any notice in accordance with the terms of this Warrant, unless the Company has in good faith determined that the matters relating to such notice do not constitute material, nonpublic information relating to the Company or its Subsidiaries (as defined in the Securities Purchase Agreement), the Company shall within one (1) Business Day after any such receipt or delivery publicly disclose such material, nonpublic information on a Current Report on Form 8-K or otherwise. In the event that the Company believes that a notice contains material, nonpublic information relating to the Company or its Subsidiaries, the Company so shall indicate to such Holder contemporaneously with delivery of such notice, and in the absence of any such indication, the Holder shall be allowed to presume that all matters relating to such notice do not constitute material, nonpublic information relating to the Company or its Subsidiaries.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Third Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts. Furthermore, the parties agree that (i) this Third Amendment may be transmitted between them by electronic mail and (ii) electronic signatures shall have the effect of original signatures relative to this Third Amendment.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: ordinance, (2) whether the change constitutes a material variance, and (8) whether the action is appropriate for voter participation. Id. at 1124-25. Rather than treating these three questions as elements that must be answered in the affirmative or negative in a sequential order, the district courts should treat this analysis as involving three prongs that are balanced against each other. The district court must consider each of these prongs in context to determine if the disputed action was legislative-thereby amenable to referendum-or administrative. 1 83 A balancing test for this legislative/administrative analysis gives effect to our original holding in Marakis, as each element of it continues to have the potential to be determinative on the entire analysis. See id. at 1125-26 (<HOLDING>). Such a test would remain true to the Options: A. recognizing possibility that landlord had administrative claim for postpetition conversion of its property B. holding that scope of review of administrative decision is the same as that for an appeal in any nonjury case C. holding that ideas procedural requirements can only be fairly construed to contemplate that once a final favorable administrative decision has been gained by a plaintiff the state will carry out that decision although it may have opposed the position of the plaintiff in the administrative proceedings D. holding that a decision that the enacting authoritys action was administrative on any of the three elements will eliminate the possibility of a referendum E. recognizing the possibility but denying relief

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a decision that the enacting authoritys action was administrative on any of the three elements will eliminate the possibility of a referendum
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 set forth on Schedule 8.1.18 hereto, there are no actions, suits, proceedings or investigations pending, or to the knowledge of the Loan Parties, threatened, against or affecting any Loan Party or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries, or the business, operations, Properties, prospects, profits or condition of any Loan Party or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries which, singly or in the aggregate, could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. Neither any Loan Party nor any of its Restricted Subsidiaries is in default with respect to any order, writ, injunction, judgment, decree or rule of any Governmental Authority, which, singly or in the aggregate, could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Litigations
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 401(k) Administration Committee shall have the discretion and authority to (i) make, amend, interpret, and enforce all appropriate rules and regulations for the administration of this Plan, and (ii) decide or resolve any and all questions, including benefit entitlement determinations (including but not limited to the 401(k) Administrative Committee's authority to determine whether a Participant qualifies for a distribution on account of Disability or an Unforeseeable Emergency) and interpretations of this Plan, as may arise in connection with the Plan. When making a determination or calculation, the 401(k) Administration Committee shall be entitled to rely on information furnished by a Participant or the Company. The 401(k) Administration Committee may delegate some or all of its powers and authority under this Plan.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH BORROWER, THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT AND EACH LENDER HEREBY WAIVES TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY JUDICIAL PROCEEDING INVOLVING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ANY MATTER (WHETHER SOUNDING IN TORT, CONTRACT OR OTHERWISE) IN ANY WAY ARISING OUT OF, RELATED TO, OR CONNECTED WITH ANY LOAN DOCUMENT OR THE RELATIONSHIP ESTABLISHED THEREUNDER.

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

user: 8. If either party becomes legally obligated, or receives a subpoena or other legal demand, to disclose any of the other party's Conﬁdential Information, the party subject to the obligation shall notify the other party in writing immediately, shall cooperate with the other party in seeking a prospective order or other appropriate remedy, and shall use its reasonable best eﬀorts to protect the conﬁdential and proprietary status of any disclosed Conﬁdential Information.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as may otherwise be provided by the Administrator either in the Award Certificate or, subject to Section 15, in writing after the Award is issued, a Grantee’s rights in all Dividend Equivalent Rights shall automatically terminate upon the Grantee’s termination of employment (or cessation of service relationship) with the Company and its Subsidiaries for any reason.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereto and supersedes any and all prior agreements, arrangements and understandings, whether written or oral, between the parties with respect thereto, including the TPA. There are no restrictions, agreements, promises, warranties, covenants or undertakings between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein other than those expressly set forth herein. This Agreement may not be altered, modified, or amended except by written instrument signed by the parties hereto. The Employee acknowledges and agrees that he is not relying on any representations or promises by any representative of the Company concerning the meaning of any aspect of this Agreement. This Agreement may not be altered or modified other than in a writing signed by the Employee and an authorized representative of the Company.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the Chapter 13 Plan, and by selecting which exemptions, if any, the Debtor should claim on Schedule C, the Defendants engaged in providing legal advice to the Debtor in violation of § 110(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. “Advising of available exemptions ... or actually choosing an exemption for the debtor ... requires the exercise of legal judgment beyond the capacity and knowledge of lay persons.” In re Kaitangian, 218 B.R. 102, 110 (Bankr.S.D.Cal.1998). See also In re Dunkle, 272 B.R. 450 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.2002) (classifying and selecting exemptions violates § 110); In re Moffett, 263 B.R. 805 (Bankr.W.D.Ky.2001) (advising upon available exemptions violates § 110). Such business practice also constitutes the unlawful practice of law. See In re Bachmann, 113 B.R. 769 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1990) (<HOLDING>). Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 110(Z)(1), the Options: A. recognizing legal services organizations first amendment right of associating to advocate legal rights B. holding that bpps may not engage in legal assistance make inquiries or answer legal questions C. recognizing that inmates have no freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance D. recognizing that courts may make reasoned adjustments in legal system E. holding that many courts have recognized that an employer may make reasonable inquiries into the retirement plans of its employees

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that bpps may not engage in legal assistance make inquiries or answer legal questions
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: Notwithstanding anything in this Separation Agreement to the contrary, Novogratz shall continue to have all rights (i) to director’s and officer’s insurance on the same basis as was applicable to him prior to the Resignation Date with respect to his service as a director or officer of the Company and its affiliates and (ii) under the Indemnification Agreement dated as of February 8, 2007, by and between Fortress Investment Group LLC and Novogratz.

assistant: Indemnifications
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: Search . The results of a Code or other lien search showing all financing statements and other documents or instruments on file against Debtor in such locations as Lender may reasonably request, dated no more than TEN (10) days prior to the Effective Date.

assistant: Liens
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: 1298 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1127, 125 S.Ct. 2935, 162 L.Ed.2d 866 (2005). Under this standard of review, there must be (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights. Id. If these three conditions are met, we may notice the error only if “the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). Williams’s methamphetamine conspiracy conviction carried a 40-year (480-month) statutory maximum and his marijuana conspiracy conviction carried a 20-year (240-month) statutory maximum. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1), 846. Williams was sentenced to 97 months’ imprisonment under the advisory Guidelines. The district court submitted the question of the amount of 1th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Dulcio, 441 F.3d 1269, 1277 Options: A. holding that if sentence does not exceed maximum authorized by facts admitted by defendant or found by jury there is no sixth amendment violation B. holding that where the defendants sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum and the district court applies the guidelines as advisory the district court does not err by enhancing the defendants sentence based on facts not charged in the indictment or admitted by him C. holding that the statutory maximum for apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant and without any additional findings by the court D. holding nonconstitutional booker error occurs when the district court applies the guidelines in a mandatory rather than advisory fashion even though the resulting sentence was calculated based solely upon facts admitted by the defendant or found by a jury E. holding that there is no sixth amendment error when the sentence does not exceed the maximum authorized by facts the defendant admitted

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that where the defendants sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum and the district court applies the guidelines as advisory the district court does not err by enhancing the defendants sentence based on facts not charged in the indictment or admitted by him
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: malice. Id. These affidavits confirm that those acting on behalf of appellant thought the information in the documentary was true or that they did not have a high degree of awareness as to the falsity of the information. By negating actual malice, appellant established its right to judgment as a matter of law. See Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 558; Labatt, 894 S.W.2d at 395. Once appellant established its right to judgment, the burden shifted to appellee to offer sufficient summary judgment proof to raise an issue of fact on the question of actual malice. See Rogers, 946 S.W.2d at 446; Labatt, 894 S.W.2d at 396; Schauer v. Memorial Care Sys., 856 S.W.2d 437, 450 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ); see also City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 (Tex.1979) (<HOLDING>); Tex.R.CivP. 166a(c). To overcome appellant’s Options: A. holding that once movant established right to summary judgment burden shifts to nonmovant to demonstrate otherwise B. holding that movant is entitled to summary judgment when party with burden of proof fails to establish genuine fact issue C. holding that burden shifts to nonmovant to raise issue of fact D. holding that in a traditional motion for summary judgment the burden shifts to the nonmovant to raise a fact issue after the movant has facially established its right to judgment as a matter of law E. holding that if the movant cannot demonstrate conclusively that the nonmovant cannot prevail summary judgment is precluded

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that once movant established right to summary judgment burden shifts to nonmovant to demonstrate otherwise
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: endorsed hereon.” 13 . For example, we agree with the dissent that a corporate merger is not the only way to create a successor to the interest of Briar Green. Under the Thompson definition and the language of the policy, it could be argued that either a person or an entity that acquires the subset of Briar Green's rights and obligations relevant to the matter at hand is a successor to the interest of Briar Green. We need not decide this question here, however, because there is no evidence in the record that Travelers acquired any of Briar Green's obligations to Primo. 14 . See also Holland v. Williams Mountain Coal Co., 256 F.3d 819, 821-22 (D.C.Cir.2001) (concluding that party acquiring property of a firm does not become the seller’s successor in interest); Sitaram, 152 S.W.3d at 826 (<HOLDING>). 15 . The court referred to the purchasers of Options: A. holding that the use of excessive force does not constitute a prison condition in the ordinary sense of the term B. holding term successor does not contemplate acquisition by ordinary purchase from another corporation C. holding that a hearing does not contemplate an oral presentation unless required by express language or context D. holding that when a term is not defined in a contract the presumption is that the term is to be given its ordinary meaning and significance E. holding that statutory authority to modify does not contemplate fundamental changes

assistant: The best answer is B. holding term successor does not contemplate acquisition by ordinary purchase from another corporation