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: his disability was a “determining factor” in his termination. At best, there is weak evidence of temporal proximity, because Plaintiff was terminated approximately five months after his cancer diagnosis. However, the passage of five months between Plaintiffs cancer diagnosis and his termination is too attenuated — without more — for Plaintiff to establish that there was a causal connection. See Meiners v. Univ. of Kan., 359 F.3d 1222, 1231 (10th Cir.2004) (internal quotation omitted) (“Unless an adverse action is very closely connected in time to the protected activity, a plaintiff must rely on additional evidence beyond mere temporal proximity to establish causation.... [A] three-month period, standing alone, is insufficient”); Ainsworth, 232 Fed.Appx. at 772, n. 4 (quotation omitted) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, the Court finds that Options: A. holding that standing alone even very close temporal proximity cannot operate as a proxy for a plaintiffs evidentiary requirement and is insufficient to carry a plaintiffs burden on the third prong of his prima facie case B. holding that a three to four month period between the protected activity is not enough to show very close temporal proximity C. holding that close temporal proximity is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation D. holding that onemonth temporal proximity was sufficient to establish causation and noting that the prima facie burden in this context is not an onerous one E. holding that although temporal proximity alone may show causation the proximity must be very close and action taken 20 months later suggests by itself no causality at all

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that standing alone even very close temporal proximity cannot operate as a proxy for a plaintiffs evidentiary requirement and is insufficient to carry a plaintiffs burden on the third prong of his prima facie case
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 judge is absolutely immune from liability for his judicial acts even if his exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors.”). Furthermore, “[b]y enacting the 1996 Federal Courts Improvement Act ... Congress ... expanded the ambit of judicial immunity by amending § 1983 so as to prohibit injunctive relief against a judicial officer.” Gilbert v. Ferry, 298 F.Supp.2d 606, 611 (E.D.Mich.2003); see Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-317, § 309(c), 110 Stat. 3847, 3853 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Absolute judicial immunity applies not only to judges, but has extended, in the form of quasi-judicial immunity, to any person acting as an arm of the absolutely immune judicial officer. See Bush v. Rauch, 38 F.3d 842, 847 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Absolute immunity may be overcome in two Options: A. holding that absolute immunity applies to claims of perjured testimony B. holding that the petitioner could demonstrate its constitutional standing for the first time on judicial review of an order of the land use board of appeals because the need to do so first arose when the petitioner sought to invoke the courts jurisdiction on judicial review C. holding that federal law applies because judicial estoppel relates to protection of the integrity of the federal judicial process D. holding that where employees involvement necessarily arose in the execution of the judicial order absolute quasiimmunity applies E. holding that where the employment of the injured employees was the occasion of the injury the injuries arose out of employment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that where employees involvement necessarily arose in the execution of the judicial order absolute quasiimmunity applies
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: Whenever any Borrower desires the issuance of a Letter of Credit, Crawford shall give any Issuing Bank written notice on behalf of such Borrower (and each Borrower hereby irrevocably and unconditionally authorizes Crawford to give any such notice from time to time in any form or substance as permitted under this Section 3.2 ) with a copy to the Administrative Agent not later than 11:00 a.m., Charlotte time, three Business Days (or such shorter period as is acceptable to such Issuing Bank in any given case) prior to the requested date of issuance thereof. Each such notice (each, a “ Letter of Credit Notice ”) shall be irrevocable, shall be given in the form of a Letter of Credit Application and shall specify (i) the requested date of issuance, which shall be a Business Day, (ii) the requested Stated Amount, Currency and expiry date of the Letter of Credit and (iii) the name and address of the requested beneficiary or beneficiaries of the Letter of Credit. The applicable Borrower shall also complete any application procedures and documents reasonably required by the applicable Issuing Bank in connection with the issuance of any Letter of Credit. Upon its issuance of any Letter of Credit, the applicable Issuing Bank shall promptly notify the Administrative Agent of such issuance, and the Administrative Agent shall give prompt notice thereof to each Lender. The renewal or extension of any outstanding Letter of Credit shall, for purposes of this Article III , be treated in all respects as the issuance of a new Letter of Credit.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, Buyer shall be entitled to deduct and withhold from the consideration otherwise payable to any Person pursuant to this Agreement such amounts as it is required to deduct and withhold with respect to the making of such payment under any provision of applicable Law. If the applicable withholding Party or agent determines that deduction or withholding is required pursuant to this Section 2.9 , it shall give advance notice of any amount to be deducted or withheld to the Person in respect of which such deduction or withholding would be made. The Parties shall reasonably cooperate with each other, as and to the extent reasonably requested by the other Party, to minimize or eliminate to the extent permissible under applicable Laws the amount of any such deduction or withholding. To the extent the Buyer withholds any such amounts, such amounts shall be treated for all purposes of this Agreement as having been paid to the applicable Person in respect of which such deduction and withholding was made.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in this action. After the entry of the stipulated judgment, Bay Bridge moved to vacate the judgment because the person who signed the stipulation on its behalf was not authorized to do so. The Superior Court denied the motion, and, on appeal, we vacated the judgment against Bay Bridge. See Hamill v. Bay Bridge Assocs., 1998 ME 181 P.2d 435, 437 (1978) (same). 4 . Defendants also suggest that a creditor may not simultaneously pursue alternate remedies to collect a debt. Defendants do not assert, however, that Hamill pursued conflicting remedies regarding the auctioned assets. Nor do defendants present any reasoned basis for vacating or otherwise amending the judgment on the basis of other collection efforts by Hamill. See Glamorgan Coal Corp. v. Bowen, 742 F.Supp. 308, 311 (W.D.Va.1990) (<HOLDING>); Bank One Akron, N.A. v. Nobil, 80 Ohio App.3d Options: A. holding that a secured judgment creditor may pursue simultaneous remedies to collect a debt as long as his pursuit does not constitute harassment B. holding that where a security agreement contained collateral other than collateral for which creditor advanced funds to debtor since it secured antecedent debts as well as new debt and the agreement provided that the security interest secured payment and performance of the debtors present and future debts to the creditor the creditor did not have a pmsi and the debtors could avoid the creditors lien on collateral claimed as exempt C. holding that because secured creditor did not attempt to collect its entire debt through the bankruptcy proceeding the liens in question were not property dealt with by the plan for 1141c purposes D. holding assignee could collect debt on stated account E. holding that article nine remedies remain available to secured party who becomes a judgment creditor

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a secured judgment creditor may pursue simultaneous remedies to collect a debt as long as his pursuit does not constitute harassment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: U.S. at 171-72, 98 S.Ct. at 2684-85. Since Gamory was not entitled to a Franks hearing, there was no violation of his rights to due process, confrontation, or right to counsel. B. THE RAP VIDEO Gamory challenges the District Court’s admission, over his objection, of the rap video that was described above. He contends the District Court abused its discretion by admitting the video because it was irrelevant, inadmissible hearsay, contrary to the Confrontation Clause, and unfairly prejudicial. In the District Court, Gamory only objected based on Fed. R.Evid. 403 “with regards to prejudicial information that’s contained on this video.” Because he did not preserve his relevancy, hearsay, and Confrontation Clause claims, they are subject to plain error review. See Arbolaez, 450 F.3d at 1291 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, Options: A. holding coconspirator hearsay exception does not violate confrontation clause B. holding that hearsay argument for admission of evidence did not preserve confrontation clause challenge on appeal argument could have referred either to rules of evidence or confrontation clause but failed to identify confrontation clause as basis and thus did not put trial court on notice of issue C. holding that the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial hearsay D. holding that an objection on hearsay grounds did not preserve for appeal an exception to the hearsay rule that was not specifically raised E. holding that hearsay objection does not preserve a confrontation clause challenge

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that hearsay objection does not preserve a confrontation clause challenge
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: See Society of Financial Examiners v. National Ass’n of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc., 41 F.3d 223, 225 (5th Cir.) (“The gravamen for any action of trademark infringement or common law unfair competition is whether the challenged mark is likely to cause confusion.”), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1103, 115 S.Ct. 2247, 132 L.Ed.2d 255 (1995). Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the use of its mark by defendant “is likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the source, affiliation, or sponsorship” of defendants’ “products or services. A ‘likelihood of confusion’ means that confusion is not just possible, but probable.” Scott Fetzer Co. v. House of Vacuums, Inc., 381 F.3d 477, 483 (5th Cir.2004); see also Kentucky Fried Chicken v. Diversified Packaging Corp., 549 F.2d 368, 382 (5th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). The digits of confusion test applies to this Options: A. holding that antitrust violations are unfair methods of competition under the ftc act B. holding that actual reliance is not required to establish injury under nc gen stat 5863151 2001 which governs the unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance C. holding that the determinative question in applying common law tort of unfair competition is whether the tortfeasors practices are likely to mislead customers into believing that the product emanates from or has been endorsed by the claimant D. holding that for a plaintiff to establish secondaryline competitive injury resulting from price discrimination injuring competition among the discriminating sellers customers the plaintiff must show actual competition with that sellers customers E. holding that though we do not have exclusive jurisdiction over unfair competition claims our own circuit law nonetheless determines when inequitable conduct also constitutes unfair competition

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the determinative question in applying common law tort of unfair competition is whether the tortfeasors practices are likely to mislead customers into believing that the product emanates from or has been endorsed by the claimant
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 may be terminated by any Purchaser, as to such Purchaser’s obligations hereunder only and without any effect whatsoever on the obligations between the Company and the other Purchasers, by written notice to the other parties, if the Closing has not been consummated on or before March 4th, 2016; provided , however , that such termination will not affect the right of any party to sue for any breach by any other party (or parties).

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: because he has violated the bargained-for rules of the game and destroyed the equilibrium of a fair and equal balance. “The Act is designed to provide quick and reliable recovery for injured workers while at the same time protecting society by shifting the burden of caring for injured workers away from society and toward industry.” Breen v. Carlsbad Mun. Sch., 2005-NMSC-028, ¶ 36, 138 N.M. 331, 120 P.3d 413, (2005). Further, though it was the legislature’s intention for accidentally-injured employees to receive compensation quickly, certainly the Act cannot be utilized as a shield for the employer’s willful or intentional misconduct because such intentional misconduct was not bargained for by employees and is, therefore, outside the scope of the Act. To allow that 2, 228 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Jones, 472 N.E.2d at 1054 (holding that an Options: A. holding that once the workers compensation act provides a remedy it is exclusive and the employee has no right to bring an action in commonlaw negligence against his employer B. holding that the debtors knowing act of failing to obtain workers compensation insurance so that the employer owed an employee a debt after the employee suffered a workplace injury was not the sort of willful and malicious injury required for nondischargeability under 523a6 because it cannot not be said that the employer intended for the employee to suffer a fall or that there was an unbroken chain of events leading from the employers intentional act to the employees physical injury C. holding that when an employee is injured by his employers tortious conduct his employer owes him damages and compensation under the act D. holding that an employee could not establish pretext when the employer in good faith believed that the employee engaged in misconduct regardless whether the employee in fact engaged in the misconduct E. holding that when an employer intentionally engages in misconduct knowing it is substantially certain to cause serious injury or death to employees and an employee is injured or killed by that misconduct the employee may pursue a civil action against his employer and also pursue benefits under the workers compensation act

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that when an employer intentionally engages in misconduct knowing it is substantially certain to cause serious injury or death to employees and an employee is injured or killed by that misconduct the employee may pursue a civil action against his employer and also pursue benefits under the workers compensation act
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of Clanton, 605 So.2d 835, 838-40 (Ala.1992), we held that an innkeeper had the duty to protect a guest, a battered wife who had informed the innkeeper that she was fleeing her husband, from unauthorized access to her room by her husband. In both Young and Thetford, the plaintiffs were completely dependent upon the defendants for protection. Unlike the sedated patient or the battered and fearful wife, Finley, the chief of police, was an armed, trained law enforcement officer with years of experience in dealing with domestic disputes and violent criminals. It cannot be maintained that Officer Finley was dependent on the elderly Ms. Patterson for protection. Accordingly, the “special relationship” exception did not impose a duty on Ms. Patterson to protect Finley from the criminal .1984) (<HOLDING>). However, Nail, supra, is that rare case in Options: A. recognizing that negligent conduct of police investigations does not give rise to a cause of action because the duty to protect citizens and enforce the law is one owed generally to the public B. holding that 8 incidents of assault theft robbery or burglary on the premises and 80 similar incidents within a 2bloek area within the prior 3 years did not constitute special circumstances giving rise to a duty to protect C. holding landowner had duty to provide security in parking lot to protect its invitees from criminal acts of third parties D. holding that 1 battery 6 breakings and enterings of cars 2 robberies and 7 thefts in a parking deck within the prior 10 years did not constitute special circumstances giving rise to a duty to protect E. recognizing a 1982 amendment giving rise to this claim

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that 1 battery 6 breakings and enterings of cars 2 robberies and 7 thefts in a parking deck within the prior 10 years did not constitute special circumstances giving rise to a duty to protect
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 not, nor shall it permit any of its Permitted Subsidiaries to, enter into, renew, extend or be a party to, any transaction or series of related transactions (including, without limitation, the purchase, sale, lease, transfer or exchange of property or assets of any kind or the rendering of services of any kind) with any affiliate, except (i) transactions approved by a majority of the Company’s independent directors and a Majority In Interest and (ii) transactions in the ordinary course of business in a manner and to an extent consistent with past practice and necessary or desirable for the prudent operation of its business, for fair consideration and on terms no less favorable to it or its Subsidiaries than would be obtainable in a comparable arm’s length transaction with a Person that is not an affiliate thereof, provided that the foregoing shall in no way limit or prevent the Company from consummating the Reserve Amount Forgiveness (as defined in the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 12, 2016, among the Company, Zone Acquisition, Inc. and Zone Technologies, Inc.) or entering into a consulting agreement with a non-independent director of the Company provided that cash compensation paid to such non-independent director for consulting services thereunder does not exceed $225,000 per year.

assistant: Transactions With Affiliates
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: review I propose looks merely to see whether Idaho's formulation, requiring unnecessary torture, has been consistent. 14 . State v. McKnight, 135 Idaho 440, 19 P.3d 64 (2000) (upholding, in a non-capital case, the trial court's finding that the murder was “heinous, atrocious, or cruel'' because the defendant beat his victim repeatedly with a golf club, causing profuse bleeding, continued to beat the victim with a second golf club, asking his victim if he liked choking on his own blood, and then ran over him with a vehicle at least five times); State v. Wood, 132 Idaho 88, 967 P.2d 702 (1998) (the defendant kept his victim captive for over a day, during which time he sexually molested her and then shot her in the head with a rifle); State v. Porter, 130 Idaho 772, 948 P.2d 127 (1997) (<HOLDING>); State v. Wells, 124 Idaho 836, 864 P.2d 1123 Options: A. holding that before a defendant is entitled to introduce evidence of the victims character for violence there must be sufficient evidence to support a finding that the victim was the first aggressor and that once the defendant testified that he was attacked and cut by the victim without provocation before using the victims utility tool to stab the victim the defendant was clearly entitled to question the victim about past acts of violence reflected in court documents from the state of oregon B. holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction C. holding that evidence the victim tried to keep defendant from fleeing the scene of a crime and defendant killed victim in order to escape supported the finding that murder was committed to avoid arrest D. holding that there was sufficient evidence to show that the victim suffered before she died based on numerous bruises on her forearms that appeared to be defensive wounds and the large amount of blood found at the scene of the crime indicating that many of the wounds were inflicted before the victim died E. holding that emergency medical technicians lay opinion that a victims wounds were caused by a squareheaded or phillips head screwdriver was permissible where technician had previously observed wounds made by screwdrivers and observed the victims wounds as the opinion was one which a normal person who had previously seen puncture wounds made by screwdrivers would form

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that there was sufficient evidence to show that the victim suffered before she died based on numerous bruises on her forearms that appeared to be defensive wounds and the large amount of blood found at the scene of the crime indicating that many of the wounds were inflicted before the victim died
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 Warrant Agent shall account to the Company with respect to Warrants exercised or converted and pay to the Company all moneys received by the Warrant Agent on behalf of the Company on the purchase of Warrant Shares through the exercise of Warrants pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 5(f)(v). The Warrant Agent shall advise the Company by facsimile or by electronic transmission at the end of each day the number of Warrant Exercise Notices received, and, if known, the identity of the Holder(s) of the Warrant(s) exercised or converted.

assistant: Payments
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 of limitations^ Plaintiffs assert a number theories to buttress their contention that the district court’s holding with respect to the statute of limitations was in error. Plaintiffs first claim that the district court applied the incorrect statute of limitations; in the alternative, they assert a “continuing violation” theory, a “continuing conspiracy” theory, and a “discovery” theory. 1. Wrong Statute of Limitations The plaintiffs’ claim that the district court applied the wrong statute of limitations is meritless. The plaintiffs cite to two Ohio Court of Appeals decisions which hold that Ohio’s four-year “residual” statute of limitations is the proper statute of limitations in § 1983 eases. See Bojac Corp. v. Kutevac, 64 Ohio App.3d 368, 581 N.E.2d 625, 627 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Weethee v. Roso, 64 Ohio App.3d 532, 582 Options: A. holding district court erred in relying on authority other than that of the supreme court of the united states in its analysis under 2254d B. recognizing that prior supreme court precedent to the contrary see patterson v mclean credit union 491 us 164 109 sct 2363 105 led2d 132 1989 was superceded by the 1991 amendments C. recognizing the supreme court of the united states confirmed that in creating the faa congress principal purpose was ensuring that private arbitration agreements are enforced according to their terms quoting volt info scis inc v bd of trustees of leland stanford junior univ 489 us 468 478 109 s ct 1248 103 l ed 2d 488 1989 D. recognizing that the circuits vary in their interpretations of 1915 but noting that neitzke v williams us 109 sct 1827 104 led2d 338 1989 declined to rule on the preferred approach E. holding that ohio revcode 230509d is the most logical and appropriate statute of limitations in a 1983 action based on the united states supreme court holding in owens v okure 488 us 235 109 sct 573 102 led2d 594 1989

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that ohio revcode 230509d is the most logical and appropriate statute of limitations in a 1983 action based on the united states supreme court holding in owens v okure 488 us 235 109 sct 573 102 led2d 594 1989
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: White arrived on the scene to when he arrived with the appellant at the Travis County Jail.” However; in light of M'cNeely, we conclude that this case is distinguishable from Schmerber. Here, although Roop was involved in á traffic accident, nothing in‘the record suggests that this fact significantly ■ delayed the collection of Roop’s blood. Officer White testified that he came into contact with Roop at about- 4:00 a.m., placed Roop under arrest at 4:25, and ordered her blood to be drawn at 5:09. The stop for Roop to use the restroom took just a few minutes, and the drive to the jail took only seven to eight minutes. We are not persuaded that'the mere existence of-a traffic accident constitutes a per se exigency justifying a warrantless blood draw. - See Evans, 2015 WL 545702, at *6 (<HOLDING>). In addition, “[ajlthough the findings of fact Options: A. holding that officers cannot base a warrantless search on an exigent circumstance of their own creation B. holding that the threat of imminent destruction of evidence of criminal activity created an exigent circumstance C. recognizing exigent circumstance exception to warrant requirement D. holding that accident investigation by itself is not exigent circumstance E. holding that blood alcohol dissipation was not sufficient by itself to create an exigent circumstances exception to virginia statutory requirement that the driver be arrested within three hours of the offense

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that accident investigation by itself is not exigent circumstance
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower owns, or has the legal right to use, all patents, trademarks, trade names, copyrights, technology, know-how and processes necessary for it to conduct its business as currently conducted and will own or obtain the legal right to use all patents, trademarks, trade names, copyrights, technology, know-how and processes necessary for it to conduct its business as currently conducted (collectively the "Intellectual Property"), except for those the failure to own or have such legal right to use could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. As of the date of this Agreement, set forth in Schedule 4.01(q) is a list of all Intellectual Property registered with the United States Copyright Office or the United States Patent and Trademark Office and owned by the Borrower or that the Borrower has the right to use (other than Intellectual Property that is easily obtainable without undue expense). Except as provided in Schedule 4.01(q), no claim has been asserted and is pending by any Person challenging or questioning the use of any such Intellectual Property or the validity or effectiveness of any such Intellectual Property, nor does the Borrower know of any such claim, and, to the knowledge of the Borrower, the use of such Intellectual Property by the Borrower does not infringe on the rights of any Person, except for such claims and infringements that, in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Intellectual Property
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 statement had to be determined by a jury. In this case, Biber admits that he was dishonest in his dealings with Duplicator Sales. Although the label offends him, it is based on truthful facts and is not actionable. We disagree with the circuit court’s opinion that communications between corporate employees is not a publication for the purpose of establishing a defamation action. We affirm the summary judgment, however, because the words allegedly uttered were absolutely privileged as expressions of opinion based on truthful facts. ALL CONCUR. 2 . Morganfield Nat. Bank v. Damien Elder & Sons, Ky., 836 S.W.2d 893 (1992). 3 . O’Bryan v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., Ky., 413 S.W.2d 891 (1966). 4 . Hunt Enterprises, Inc. v. John Deere Industrial Equipment Co., 18 F.Supp.2d 697 (1997)(<HOLDING>). 5 . Firestone Textile Co., Div. v. Meadows, Options: A. holding there were no grounds for challenging in a termination proceeding the alleged failure to comply with the ada in the provision of services because services are not required by the termination statute B. holding that the numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of the persons primarily responsible for plaintiffs termination when coupled with the timing of plaintiffs termination and the conflicting reasons given by defendants agents for the termination might well persuade a jury that defendant fired the plaintiff in retaliation for the letter sent by her attorney to defendants general counsel C. holding that although a reason was provided in the termination letter the without cause termination provision was applicable D. holding that oral termination was invalid where cba called for written termination and that termination was effected only when written notice was given to the funds and the union according to the specific date requirements of the cba E. holding that although the plaintiff was a problem employee and eventually may have been terminated for that reason the immediate cause of his termination was the osha report

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that although a reason was provided in the termination letter the without cause termination provision was applicable
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: citation with a .demand for more trial-like procedures, much less a jury trial. . The point, rather, seems to have been that while.fhe Cabinet acquiesced in the court’s informal manner of proceeding, it did, so only with the- understanding that such proceedings could not give rise to a "serious” penalty. ... 15 . The Cabinet provides no authority for this assertion, but the claim is certainly plausible. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15)(C) (“In order ' for a state to be eligible for payments under this Part [Part E of Title 42, Chapter 7, Sub-chapter IV, Federal Payments for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance], it shall have a plan approved by the Secretary which ... provides that ... reasonable efforts shall be made to place the child in a timely manner in accordance with the perma (<HOLDING>); United States v. Droganes, 728 F.3d 580 (6th Options: A. holding that the commission is a commonwealth agency entitled to sovereign immunity B. holding that plaintiffs claim was not barred by sovereign immunity because he sought specific relief against a government official C. holding that sovereign immunity was implicated and violated by the bankruptcy courts criminal contempt citation against a government agency the irs D. holding that district courts award of monetary sanctions for contempt violated the sovereign immunity of the united states but also reversing on other grounds E. holding that sovereign immunity barred claim for compensatory sanctions against the government

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that sovereign immunity was implicated and violated by the bankruptcy courts criminal contempt citation against a government agency the irs
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: order, Deputy Commissioner Phillips did not intend to provide Ammons with TTD benefits in addition to full salary when she entered the January Award. Indeed, as noted by Deputy Commissioner Phillips in the July Award, “double recovery is not contemplated by [the Workers’ Compensation Act].” To “clarify” the January Award “so that there was no confusion between the parties regarding benefits[,]” Deputy Commissioner Phillips amended the January Award on her own motion. Rather than attempting to provide relief from some erroneous finding or conclusion, as Ammons suggests, the amendment to the January Award properly sought to “clarify” Deputy Commissioner Phillips’ intentions regarding the benefits awarded. Cf. Alston v. Fed. Express Corp., N.C. App. -, -, 684 S.E.2d 705, 707 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Because the amendment of the January Award Options: A. holding that third party seeking to be reimbursed for costs incurred in responding to discovery request had standing to appeal because its interests were directly represented by its own counsel in the trial court it was effectively bound by the trial courts final order of dismissal the other party would have had the right to appeal the trial courts ruling if it had granted the request for reimbursement and the third party had no other legal remedy to contest the trial courts denial of its request B. holding that where no discovery order was violated sanctions could not imposed pursuant to rule 37 but nevertheless upholding the sanction order under the courts inherent power C. holding that in a situation where the parties could not agree on how to interpret the trial courts order pursuant to rule 60b6s grand reservoir of equitable power the trial court had jurisdiction to revisit its order so that its intentions could be made clear D. holding that the trial court had no jurisdiction to modify its final order more than 30 days after its final judgment E. holding that the defendant could appeal the district courts order granting a new trial because his right not to be subjected to a second trial for the same offense could not be remedied once the second trial has taken place

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that in a situation where the parties could not agree on how to interpret the trial courts order pursuant to rule 60b6s grand reservoir of equitable power the trial court had jurisdiction to revisit its order so that its intentions could be made clear
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: Exclusive Jurisdiction Doctrines. Although this court declines to decide whether the state-action doctrine applies to state antitrust claims, it seems clear that it does apply, contrary to the district court’s holding. Aplt.App. 3942-43. Oklahoma’s antitrust law is to “be interpreted in a manner consistent with federal antitrust law ... and the case law applicable thereto.” Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 79, § 212; see also Teleco, Inc. 587 P.2d at 1362; Oakridge Investments, Inc. v. S. Energy Homes, Inc., 719 P.2d 848, 850 (Okla.Ct. App.1986). Nothing suggests that Oklahoma would reject the state-action doctrine which we have applied to federal antitrust claims in similar circumstances. See Trigen Oklahoma City Energy Corp. v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., 244 F.3d 1220, 1225-1226 (10th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); S. Disposal, Inc. v. Tex. Waste Mgmt., 161 Options: A. holding that interpretation of regulation by va that conflicted with plain meaning of regulation not entitled to deference B. recognizing oklahomas policy of allowing regulation instead of competition in electricity sales C. recognizing oklahomas policy of allowing regulation instead of competition in waste disposal services D. holding that pma process is not specific regulation because the requirements are not contained in formal regulation E. recognizing 1857a is a clear expression of oklahomas policy favoring arbitration agreements

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing oklahomas policy of allowing regulation instead of competition in electricity sales
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: right-of-way. In short, by crafting its complaint to avoid any connection to U.S. Route 27, Union County has also managed to avoid pleading any personal interest in its own case. As such, the trial court did not err in dismissing Union County’s declaratory judgment claim for lack of standing. Union County Cannot Maintain Its Claim for Injunctive Relief Under Third-Party Standing Principles. Union County also alleges a third-party interest in this suit, namely that INDOT’s actions “may impact other properties and may implicate a broader public health and safety concern for Union County, Indiana.” Appellant’s App. at 25. Unlike declaratory judgment actions, a party may seek equitable relief (such as an injunction) on the basis of third-party standing. Cf. Cittadine, 790 N.E.2d at 984 (<HOLDING>). While the general rule of standing requires a Options: A. recognizing that the issuance of a writ of mandamus is itself generally a matter of discretion B. holding that to grant a writ of mandamus a court in the exercise of its discretion must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances C. holding that a writ of mandamus was an appropriate means of vacating a commission order D. holding no appeal permitted from dismissal of writ petition E. holding public standing doctrine permitted action for emergency writ of mandamus

assistant: The best answer is E. holding public standing doctrine permitted action for emergency writ of mandamus
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 provisions of Section 14(d) of the Plan are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. In addition, the Committee, subject to its having considered the applicable accounting impact of any such determination, has full discretion to allow the Participant to satisfy, in whole or in part, any additional income, employment and/or other applicable taxes payable by the Participant with respect to an Award by electing to have the Company withhold from the Restricted Stock that would otherwise be retained by the Participant upon the vesting of the Award, shares of Common Stock having an aggregate Fair Market Value that is greater than the applicable minimum required statutory withholding liability (but such withholding may in no event be in excess of the maximum statutory withholding amount(s) in the Participant’s relevant tax jurisdictions).

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: apprehend the suspect outweighed a clear risk of harm to the public in continuing the pursuit.” Chambers, 883 S.W.2d at 656. Because review is based on what a reasonably prudent officer could have believed, courts are not concerned with the individual officer’s state of mind. Wadewitz, 951 S.W.2d at 466. Courts do, however, consider the information possessed by the officer in question at the time the incident occurred. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d at 656. . In determining whether official immunity applies, courts , do not consider evidence concerning whether the officer in.question was actually negligent. City of Fort Worth v. Robinson, 300 S.W.3d 892, 899-900 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.); see also Harris Cty. v. Garza, 971 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Chambers, 883 S.W.2d at 655 (“The complex Options: A. holding that bad faith includes lack of good faith in investigating the facts of a complaint B. holding that the district courts good faith finding is reviewed for clear error C. holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law D. holding determination of good faith renders finding of negligence immaterial E. holding that a finding of specific intent to defraud necessarily excludes a finding of good faith

assistant: The best answer is D. holding determination of good faith renders finding of negligence immaterial
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 for the subsidiaries described in Schedule 3(a) , the Company has no subsidiaries and (i) does not otherwise own or control, directly or indirectly, any other Person and (ii) does not hold equity interests, directly or indirectly, in any other Person. Except as otherwise disclosed herein or in the PPM, the Company is not a participant in any joint venture, partnership, or similar arrangement material to its business.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: must be presumed to have concluded that the public interest was thereby being served. Public records by their very nature are of interest to those concerned with the administration of government, and a public benefit is performed by the reporting of the true contents of the records by the media. The freedom of the press to publish that information appears to us to be of critical importance to our type of government in which the citizenry is the final judge of the conduct of public business. Id. at 495, 95 S.Ct. at 1046. Thus, once certain information is in the public domain, as it is here, the entitlement to privacy is lost. This is the case even when the information in question is part of a federal income tax return. Cooper v. Internal Revenue Service, 450 F.Supp. 752 (D.D.C.1977) (<HOLDING>). Not only is there no right of privacy for Options: A. holding that tax returns and tax return information cannot regain their confidential status once the returns have become part of the public record by their use in a public trial B. holding that late state income tax returns fail to comply with applicable filing requirements C. holding that agency could not claim confidentiality for tax returns that had been exhibits in tax court and were therefore public records D. holding that tax returns are privileged under the statutes that prohibited the tax board and employees from disclosing any information and this privilege should not be nullified by allowing third parties to obtain the information by demanding copies of the returns E. holding that the lower court erred both in requiring production of copies of the defendants income tax returns and in receiving the returns into evidence over objection

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that tax returns and tax return information cannot regain their confidential status once the returns have become part of the public record by their use in a public trial
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices, consents, waivers, and other communications under this Agreement must be in writing and will be deemed to have been duly given when (a) delivered by hand (with written confirmation of receipt), (b) sent by facsimile (with written confirmation of receipt), provided that a copy is mailed by registered mail, return receipt requested, or (c) when received by the addressee, if sent by a nationally recognized overnight delivery service (receipt requested), in each case to the appropriate addresses and facsimile numbers set forth below (or to such other addresses and facsimile numbers as a party may designate by notice to the other parties).

assistant: Notices