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: that the Union’s misrepresentations, if any existed, were not so egregious as to justify setting aside the election. The standard for setting aside an election is as follows: There may be cases where no forgery can be proved, but where the misrepresentation is so pervasive and the deception so artful that employees will be unable to separate truth from untruth and where their right to a free and fair choice will be affected. We agree with the Board that it should not set aside an election on the basis of the substance of representations alone, but only on the deceptive manner in which representations are made. Van Dorn Plastic Mach. Co. v. NLRB, 736 F.2d 343, 348 (6th Cir.1984). See also Con-tech Div., SPX Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 164 F.3d 297, 307 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). 1. “Vote Yes” petition . Maremont argues that Options: A. holding that employees retaliatory discharge based on employees election to public office did not violate public policy B. holding that an employer could only distribute its proposal to union employees when the proposal was properly before the union C. holding that a settlement agreement between dana and the union rendered an appeal moot even though the agreement effectively prevented dana from communicating with its employees regarding a union campaign at one of danas subsidiaries D. holding in a case involving not intraunion politics but rather a matter of an employer requiring the union to carry out the penalty provision of a collective bargaining agreement that the statutory term otherwise disciplined is narrowly confined to regulatory actions that affect a union members rights or status as a member of the union that the sanctions imposed were employmentrelated rather than internal union related and that the safeguards in 411a5 were not available for such action E. holding that letters from the union during an election campaign containing arguably misleading statements did not affect the employees right to a free and fair choice

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that letters from the union during an election campaign containing arguably misleading statements did not affect the employees right to a free and fair choice
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: already provided for backpay. See Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 253, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994); Provencher, 145 F.3d at 11; Hennessy v. Penril Datacomm Networks, Inc., 69 F.3d 1344, 1352 (7th Cir.1995). Thus, under the scheme established under Title VII, the court awards backpay, and the jury awards other compensatory damages. The fact that the statute separates these factfinding responsibilities does not suggest that Congress abolished the general requirement that some form of compensatory damages be awarded before punitive damages be awarded. Indeed, backpay awards are compensatory in nature and are, in fact, “the most obvious economic damages in a wrongful discharge case.” Hennessy, 69 F.3d at 1352; see also Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 253, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (<HOLDING>). In this case, Corti was not awarded Options: A. holding that punitive damages do not need to be proportional to compensatory damages B. recognizing that implicit in language of 9 allowing civil action for damages or injunctive relief or both was a plain legislative intent to afford victims of discrimination the legal remedy of compensatory damages C. holding that recovery is limited to actual compensatory damages D. recognizing that backpay is a makewhole remedy that resembles compensatory damages in some respects E. holding that when compensatory damages are nominal a much higher ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages can be contemplated

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that backpay is a makewhole remedy that resembles compensatory damages in some respects
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: Sidney Jenkins, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging, inter alia, that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to protect him during his murder trial from attack by the victim’s brother. We review de novo, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Jenkins failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the defendants acted with deliberate indifference when they released the victim’s brother after his initial attack on Jenkins. See Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, Options: A. holding that deliberate indifference is the level of culpability pretrial detainees must establish to maintain a failure to protect claim under the fourteenth amendment B. holding that because pretrial detainees fourteenth amendment rights are comparable to prisoners eighth amendment rights the same standards apply C. holding that pretrial detainees can bring substantive due process claim D. holding that pretrial detainees have at least the same protections under the fourteenth amendment as posttrial detainees have under the eighth amendment E. holding that pretrial detainees possess a constitutional right against deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs because the due process rights of a pretrial detainee are at least as great as the eighth amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that deliberate indifference is the level of culpability pretrial detainees must establish to maintain a failure to protect claim under the fourteenth amendment
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: Both were behaving nervously. Appellant tries to dismiss this behavior by asserting that nervousness “is an entirely natural reaction” to the presence of law enforcement and that Ms. Lewis might have “had any number of reasons” to give the police a “single inaccurate statement.” Even if these assertions were true, “[a] determination that reasonable suspicion exists ... need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 277, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002). Instead, Officer Chih reasonably could suspect that Ms. Lewis and her son had been trying to mislead the police so they would not find appellant and his brother and that appellant’s nervousness reflected his fear of being caught— both reasonable possibilities which lent furt . 1996) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). III. Did Options: A. holding that a temporary detention designed to last only until a preliminary investigation here the showup identification procedure either generated probable cause or resulted in the release of the suspect is consistent with the fourth amendment B. recognizing that for fourth amendment purposes an arrest warrant supported by probable cause carries with it limited authority to enter a dwelling in which a suspect lives when there is reason to believe that the suspect is within C. holding that pretrial detention resulting from legal process unsupported by probable cause violates the fourth amendment D. holding a fourth amendment terry detention is not a custodial arrest and the use of handcuffs does not automatically convert a temporary detention into a fourth amendment arrest E. holding that statute allowing issuance of detention order based on reasonable grounds not amounting to probable cause to arrest to suspect the person described in the affidavit committed the offense did not violate the fourth amendment

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a temporary detention designed to last only until a preliminary investigation here the showup identification procedure either generated probable cause or resulted in the release of the suspect is consistent with the fourth amendment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: in the event that any of the terms and conditions are held by a court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable , such provisions shall be limited or eliminated to the minimum extent necessary so that these terms and conditions shall otherwise remain in full force and effect .

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: investigations resulting in losses to shareholders. In addressing this question, the Court first must determine whether Plaintiffs have pleaded omissions rendering prior FCPA-related statements “in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.” 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. The Court must then determine whether the omissions plausibly satisfy all the elements of fraud set forth in Stoneridge, including materiality, scienter, and causation of artificially high stock prices and losses to shareholders after the subpoenas were announced. If Plaintiffs have not pleaded omissions rendering prior statements misleading, Rule 10b-5 does not apply. Pontiac, 752 F.3d at 184 (quoting Ciresi v. Citicorp, 782 F.Supp. 819, 823 (S.D.N.Y.1991), aff'd, 956 F.2d 1161 (2d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>)); In re Par Pharm. Cos., Inc. Sec. Litig., 733 Options: A. holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant B. holding state has affirmative duty to disclose favorable and material evidence to defense C. holding that erisas duty of loyalty creates a duty to disclose certain information to beneficiaries D. holding prosecutor has affirmative duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence E. holding companies do not have a duty to disclose uncharged unadjudicated wrongdoing

assistant: The best answer is E. holding companies do not have a duty to disclose uncharged unadjudicated wrongdoing
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: statement that he would “just as soon wait” until he had an attorney before talking to the police [Statement 1], followed immediately by his statement that he was willing to discuss the “circumstances” [Statement 2], was not an unequivocal assertion of the right to counsel or a statement declaring an intention to remain silent. People v. McKinney, 794 N.W.2d at 614-15 (internal citation omitted). However, the crux of this case is whether Detective Hod-shire’s comment “Well that’s fine, but like I said” was interrogation. If Hodshire’s statement was interrogation, then the Michigan Supreme Court improperly used McKinney’s second statement in determining that he did not unequivocally request counsel. See Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 100, 105 S.Ct. 490, 83 L.Ed.2d 488 (1984) (<HOLDING>). The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision did not Options: A. holding that after a suspect unambiguously requests counsel the suspects responses to further interrogation may not be used to cast retrospective doubt on the clarity of the initial request B. holding that a suspect must unambiguously request counsel C. holding that fifth amendment protection against selfincrimination requires police to notify suspect of right to counsel and to cut off interrogation once suspect invokes the right absent counsel further interrogation may not occur unless suspect initiates subsequent conversation if police initiate subsequent interrogation there can be no valid waiver of counsel even though police advise suspect of his or her constitutional rights and suspect acquiesces in the interrogation D. holding suspect must unambiguously request counsel before applying rule established in edwards that police questioning must cease once suspect requests counsel during interview E. holding that interrogation must cease if the suspect unambiguously asserts his right to counsel

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that after a suspect unambiguously requests counsel the suspects responses to further interrogation may not be used to cast retrospective doubt on the clarity of the initial request
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: to the extent not prohibited by law , if you have any basis for recovering damages , you can recover from the application publisher only direct damages up to the amount you paid for the application or $ 1.00 , whichever is greater .

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices by the Participant or the Participant’s successors or permitted assigns shall be addressed to JetBlue Airways Corporation, 27-01 Queens Plaza North, Long Island City, New York 11101, Attention: General Counsel, or such other address as the Company may from time to time specify. All notices to the Participant shall be addressed to the Participant at the Participant’s address in the Company's records.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: to start an arbitration proceeding , use the form on aaa 's website ( www.adr.org ) or call them at 1-800-778-7879 .

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Failure or delay by either party to enforce compliance with any term or condition of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of such term or condition. A waiver of any breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach or default.

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: Church v. Napolitano, Civ. No. 11-4491 (RMB/AMD), 2013 WL 162986, at *5 (D.N.J. Jan. 15, 2013) (“[T]he Statute is not ‘silent’ as to the legal status of work performed in the United States-it is inclusive of all work performed inside and outside the United States, whether lawful or unlawful....”). The absence of any such requirement does not make the statute ambiguous or subject to interpretation; it makes it unequivocal. Cf. Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 116-20, 115 S.Ct. 552, 130 L.Ed.2d 462 (1994) (concluding that imposition of regulatory “fault” requirement on statute that required compensation for any “injury,” without regard to fault, was inconsistent with the plain language of statute); Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 60-65, 100 S.Ct. 915, 63 L.Ed.2d 198 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, where Congress wished past or current Options: A. holding that duration of limitation is a factor in determining whether limitation is significant B. recognizing that a principal may limit the authority of its agent and such limitation will be binding on a third party who is aware of the limitation C. holding that the patentees argument that any shape would be equivalent to the conical limitation would write such a limitation out of the claim D. holding that congress intended no limitation on coverage of statute where the text contained no modifier or exception or other suggestion of any such limitation E. holding that the discovery rule within mcl 6005838a2 is an alternative to the other periods of limitation and it is itself a period of limitation

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that congress intended no limitation on coverage of statute where the text contained no modifier or exception or other suggestion of any such limitation
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 captions and headings to the sections and paragraphs of this Guaranty are for convenience only and shall not be deemed part of the text of the respective sections or paragraphs and shall not vary, by implication or otherwise, any of the provisions of this Guaranty.

assistant: Headings
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: To the knowledge of the Company, the Company and the Subsidiaries have, or have rights to use, all patents, patent applications, trademarks, trademark applications, service marks, trade names, trade secrets, inventions, copyrights, licenses and other intellectual property rights and similar rights necessary or required for use in connection with their respective businesses and which the failure to so have could have a Material Adverse Effect (collectively, the “ Intellectual Property Rights ”). All Intellectual Property Rights are set forth in the SEC Reports. None of, and neither the Company nor any Subsidiary has received a written notice that any of, the Intellectual Property Rights has expired, terminated or been abandoned, or is expected to expire or terminate or be abandoned, within two (2) years from the date of this Agreement. Neither the Company nor any Subsidiary has received, since the date of the latest audited financial statements included within the SEC Reports, a written notice of a claim or otherwise has any knowledge that the Intellectual Property Rights violate or infringe upon the rights of any Person, except as could not have or reasonably be expected to not have a Material Adverse Effect. To the knowledge of the Company, all such Intellectual Property Rights are enforceable and there is no existing infringement by another Person of any of the Intellectual Property Rights. The Company and its Subsidiaries have taken reasonable security measures to protect the secrecy, confidentiality and value of all of their intellectual properties, except where failure to do so could not, individually or in the aggregate, 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: and facing certain deportation.” St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 325, 121 S.Ct. 2271. The latest possible moment that either of these consequences — i.e., certain deportation or possible deportation — can attach is at the time of conviction. The instant before the jury returns its verdict, the defendant is subject to no immigration consequence; the instant after, he is subject to an immigration consequence. Which consequence a defendant ultimately suffers depends on whether statutes passed after his conviction apply to him. Therefore, application of a “new” law to the past event of conviction results in a different consequence than would otherwise apply — the precise concern of Landgraf. It is true that, because conviction is humer, 520 U.S. 939, 948-49, 117 S.Ct. 1871, 138 L.Ed.2d 135 (1997) (<HOLDING>). In each of these cases the Supreme Court Options: A. holding that dismissal is proper for a derivative cause of action but not for a direct cause of action B. holding statute that expanded cause of action and thus increased liability had retroactive effect C. holding that the elements of a cause of action were not subject matter jurisdictional simply because the statute that created the cause of action provided that district courts shall have jurisdiction of such actions D. recognizing the cause of action E. recognizing cause of action

assistant: The best answer is B. holding statute that expanded cause of action and thus increased liability had retroactive effect
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: as a matter of law even if it had been conducted according to Hoyle. We disagree. It is well settled that interrogation is a legitimate police investigative tool which the police have a right to pursue no matter how strong the other evidence of a suspect’s guilt may be. It is obviously desirable for the police to get as much exact information as they can in-any criminal case, and especially in a first-degree murder case, so as to reduce to an absolute minimum the possibility that an innocent person will be convicted. Indeed we have found no support for the dissent’s novel sugges tion that even if the police have conclusive evidence of the identity of an offender, it is improper to interrogate him. 8 . See also Stein v. New York, supra, 346 U.S. at 185-86, 73 S.Ct. at 1093-94 (<HOLDING>); Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918, 926 (11th Options: A. holding that creditors could not seek relief from a bankruptcy stay because they were not the real parties in interest and lacked standing as they were not holders of the notes and failed to establish that mers was the holder or had authority to transfer the notes B. holding confessions voluntary and noting that these men were not young soft ignorant or timid they were not inexperienced in the ways of crime or its detection nor were they dumb as to their rights C. holding that neglect was not excusable where the defendants did not do all that they were required to do after they received the summons and complaint in that they did not contact a lawyer or make any other arrangements with respect to their defense D. holding that tort claims were arbitrable because they arose out of and were related to contract E. holding that statements downplaying internal control problems were actionable because they misled investors into believing the problems were not as serious or extensive as they were

assistant: The best answer is B. holding confessions voluntary and noting that these men were not young soft ignorant or timid they were not inexperienced in the ways of crime or its detection nor were they dumb as to their rights
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: jurisdiction to entertain any appeal from the order compelling arbitration. Celltex first contends we lack jurisdiction because K-Stemcell’s and Biostar’s notices of appeal state they are taken from the trial court’s order signed February 12, 2015, not the September 22, 2014, order compelling arbitration. Rule 25.1 provides that a notice of appeal must state the date of the judgment or order appealed from. Tex. R. App. P 25.1(d)(2). However, the rules do not require an appellant to list in the notice of appeal every interlocutory ruling that he desires to challenge on appeal. See Ostrovitz & Gwinn, LLC v. First Specialty Ins. Co., 393 S.W.3d 379, 386 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2012, no pet.) (citing Gunnerman v. Basic Capital Mgmt., Inc., 106 S.W.3d 821, 824 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>)); Vazquez v. Vazquez, 292 S.W.3d 80, 82-83 Options: A. holding that orders remanding an action to a federal agency are generally not considered final appealable orders B. holding same as to the filing of a notice of an interlocutory appeal C. holding that a notice of appeal that referred only to the final judgment was sufficient to support review of earlier orders including an order involved in an unsuccessful attempt to take a premature appeal D. holding that notice of appeal from final judgment brought forward the entire case including earlier interlocutory orders that were not independently appealable E. holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that notice of appeal from final judgment brought forward the entire case including earlier interlocutory orders that were not independently appealable
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: jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute because neither Fall Grain nor Agriservices was a member of the NGFA at the time the contracts were entered. This argument fares no better than the argument made in Argiris. There is nothing in the language of the NGFA’s arbitration rules to suggest that one party must be a member of the organization at the time of contract formation. The language simply provides that the NGFA “may properly consider a case involving a dispute between ... [ajctive members of the National and nonmembers, by consent of both parties.” In the absence of explicit language to the contrary, NGFA’s jurisdiction could reasonably be established at the point when The Andersons commenced arbitration. See Asadourian v. Kuni German Motors, LLC, 2007 WL 4388490, at *4 (D.Or.2007) (<HOLDING>). There is no factual dispute that The Options: A. recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that parent was alterego of its subsidiary and was being sued for acts of its subsidiary B. holding that a parent company was not liable for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty by its subsidiary because the parent company was not a stranger to the business relationship between its subsidiary and the plaintiff giving rise to and underpinning the contract C. holding that american subsidiary of a japanese parent had no treaty defense because the subsidiary was not a company of japan D. holding parent company bound in subsequent action by res judicata effect of judgment against subsidiary E. holding that in employment dispute where corporate subsidiary no longer existed at the time arbitration complaint was filed the plaintiff was bound to arbitrate with the parent company that survived

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that in employment dispute where corporate subsidiary no longer existed at the time arbitration complaint was filed the plaintiff was bound to arbitrate with the parent company that survived
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Recipient shall: (a) only disclose the Confidential Information to those employees and contractors with a need to know; provided that Recipient binds those employees and contractors to terms at least as restrictive as those stated in this Agreement (or, with respect to professional advisors, advises them of its obligations with respect to the 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: ( b ) if legally incompetent , has obtained a verifiable consent from his or her legal guardian ( s ) , as required under applicable law , to accept the terms and conditions of these terms of use ;

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall terminate upon the earlier of (i) the tenth anniversary of the date of this Agreement or (ii) the date as of which (A) all of the Registrable Securities have been sold pursuant to a Registration Statement (but in no event prior to the applicable period referred to in Section 4(3) of the Securities Act and Rule 174 thereunder) or (B) the Vendors holding all Registrable Securities are permitted to sell the Registrable Securities under Rule 144 (or any similar provision) under the Securities Act without limitation on the amount of securities sold or the manner of sale. The provisions of Section 3.5 and Article IV shall survive any termination.

assistant: Terms
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: Despite the brevity of the discussion, it is apparent that Congress intended to expand the federal government’s prosecutorial power to encompass significant misapplication of federal funds at a local level. The phrase “significant acts of theft” implies that Congress did not intend the statute to reach theft of minimal amounts or theft aggregated over long periods of time. The temporal limitation requirement, in conjunction with the monetary threshold requirement, meets that stated objective. The government’s construction of the statute, on the other hand, would nullify the limitation desired by Congress. Although this issue is one of first impression, inferential support can be found in United States v. Urlacher, 784 F.Supp. 61, 63 (W.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 979 F.2d 935 (2d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). In that case, the district court concluded Options: A. holding that the source of the federal funds was not a relevant factor in determining the number of violations B. recognizing that the supremacy clause is not a source of any federal rights C. holding that sophistication of investor is relevant factor in determining when plaintiff placed on inquiry notice D. holding that the passage of time was a relevant factor when determining custody issues E. recognizing the dol opinion letter as the source of the nonstatutory factor

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the source of the federal funds was not a relevant factor in determining the number of violations
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: authority. 9 As is evident from the majority's discussion of the standard of review, the majority does not address whether the circuit court's decision to grant Henley a new trial was an appropriate exercise of its discretion. Majority op., ¶¶ 28-29. Since I would hold the circuit court has the authority to grant a new trial here, I would review that decision under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard. Totsky, 233 Wis. 2d 371, ¶ 46; Pulaski, 23 Wis. 2d at 142 ("A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty and for a trial, as we deem the defendant's motions to be ... is a motion directed to the discretion of the court in the interest of justice which the court has the inherent power to hear."); Lee, 88 Wis. 2d at 246 (quoting Pulaski for this proposition); Schill, 93 Wis. 2d at 378 (<HOLDING>); Behning, 57 Wis. 2d at 186 ("An order for a Options: A. holding that unless discovery is granted as a matter of statute court rule or the constitution discovery is within the discretion of the trial court whose ruling will be upheld on appeal absent an abuse of discretion B. holding that a motion to vacate a judgment under fedrcivp 60b is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court citations omitted C. holding that the decision whether to grant a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not bedisturbed absent an abuse of discretion D. 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 E. holding a motion to withdraw a guilty plea and grant trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the supreme court will not upset the courts ruling unless there is a sufficient showing of abuse of discretion

assistant: The best answer is E. holding a motion to withdraw a guilty plea and grant trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the supreme court will not upset the courts ruling unless there is a sufficient showing 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Section 8.2.6(2) of the Credit Agreement requires that the Loan Parties comply with certain conditions prior to making a Permitted Acquisition, including, but not limited to the following: (1) the Borrower shall demonstrate that it will be in Pro Forma Compliance with the covenant contained in Section 8.2.16 [Maximum Leverage Ratio] for the four quarter period immediately after giving effect to such Permitted Acquisition by delivering at least five (5) Business Days prior to such Permitted Acquisition a calculation evidencing such compliance, except that for the sole purpose of measuring such Pro Forma Compliance, the maximum ratio set forth in Section 8.2.16 [Maximum Leverage Ratio] shall be deemed to be reduced by 0.25, and (2) the Borrower shall demonstrate that immediately after giving effect to such Permitted Acquisition that the amount of Availability shall not be less than $30,000,000. The Borrower intends to consummate the Freelandville Acquisition on the terms and conditions substantially similar to those contained in the Purchase Agreement and it has indicated that if it does so it will not be able to comply with the above conditions (the " Default Event "). The Borrower hereby requests that the Administrative Agent and the Lenders execute this Waiver to evidence their waiver of the Default Event and include the Freeland Acquisition as a Permitted Acquisition under the Credit Agreement. The Borrower further requests the consideration being paid in connection with the Freeland Acquisition be excluded from the restriction contained in Section 8.2.6(2)(vii) of the Credit Agreement (the " Waived Inclusion "). By signing below, the Lenders agree to waive the Default Event and agree to the Waived Inclusion so long as the Borrower complies with the remaining acquisition requirements of Section 8.2.6(2). Except as expressly waived hereby, the terms and provisions of the Credit Agreement remain unchanged, are and shall remain in full force and effect unless and until modified or amended in writing in accordance with their terms, and are hereby ratified and confirmed. Except as expressly provided herein, this Waiver shall not constitute an amendment, waiver, consent or release with respect to any provision of any Loan Document, a waiver of any Potential Default or Event of Default under any Loan Document, or a waiver or release of any of the Lenders' or Administrative Agent's rights and remedies (all of which are hereby reserved).

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed in all respects, including validity, interpretation, and effect, by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Michigan executed and to be performed wholly within the State of Michigan, without giving effect to the choice of law or conflict of law principles thereof or of any other jurisdiction to the extent that such principles would require or permit the application of the laws of another jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The capitalization of the Company is as set forth on Schedule 3.1(g) . The Company has not issued any capital stock and/or Common Stock Equivalents not set forth on Schedule 3.1(g) . No Person has any right of first refusal, preemptive right, right of participation, or any similar right to participate in the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents. Except as a result of the purchase and sale of the Securities or as described on Schedule 3.1(g) , there are no outstanding options, warrants, scrip rights to subscribe to, calls or commitments of any character whatsoever relating to, or securities, rights or obligations convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for, or giving any Person any right to subscribe for or acquire any shares of Common Stock, or contracts, commitments, understandings or arrangements by which the Company or any Subsidiary is or may become bound to issue additional shares of Common Stock or Common Stock Equivalents. The issuance and sale of the Securities will not obligate the Company to issue shares of Common Stock or other securities to any Person (other than the Purchasers) and will not result in a right of any holder of securities of the Company to adjust the exercise, conversion, exchange or reset price under any of such securities. All of the outstanding shares of capital stock and other securities of the Company are duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable, have been issued in material compliance with all federal and state securities laws, and none of such outstanding shares was issued in violation of any preemptive rights or similar rights to subscribe for or purchase securities. No further approval or authorization of any stockholder, the Board of Directors or others is required for the issuance and sale of the Securities. Except for the Company’s certificate of incorporation, there are no stockholders agreements, voting agreements or other similar agreements with respect to the Company’s capital stock to which the Company is a party or, to the knowledge of the Company, between or among any of the Company’s stockholders.

assistant: Capitalization
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: appellant could only be guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime if he intended that crime to be accomplished. Logic dictates, however, and this Court has recognized that it is impossible for one to intend to commit an unintentional act.” 833 A.2d at 796 (citing Commonwealth v. Spells, 417 Pa.Super. 233, 612 A.2d 458, 461 n. 5 (1992) (“[a]n attempt to commit murder can only constitute an attempt to commit murder of the first degree, because both second and third degree murder are unintended results of a specific intent to commit a felony or serious bodily harm, not to kill”)). See also Commonwealth v. Barnyak, 432 Pa.Super. 483, 639 A.2d 40, 45 n. 5 (1994) (noting that there is no crime of attempted third-degree murder); Commonwealth v. Griffin, 310 Pa.Super. 39, 456 A.2d 171, 177 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Although this Court has not yet spoken to Options: A. holding that because statutory variants of an underlying crime are not elements of an attempt to commit the underlying crime jurors are not required to unanimously find which specific statutory variant the defendant intended to commit it is sufficient that they unanimously conclude that the defendant intended to commit any of the applicable statutory variants B. holding that an individual cannot attempt to commit murder of the second or third degree because the crime of attempt is a specific intent crime and an attempt to commit second or third degree murder would require proof that the individual intended to perpetrate an unintentional killing which is logically impossible C. holding that a conviction for conspiracy to commit firstdegree depravedmind murder could not stand under current case law because conspiracy requires both intent to agree and intent to commit the offense which is the object of the conspiracy and depravedmind murder is an unintentional killing resulting from highly reckless behavior D. holding that firstdegree murder is one crime although the defendant can commit the crime in several ways E. holding different rule applicable for conviction of second degree murder

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an individual cannot attempt to commit murder of the second or third degree because the crime of attempt is a specific intent crime and an attempt to commit second or third degree murder would require proof that the individual intended to perpetrate an unintentional killing which is logically impossible
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: Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the April 29, 2008 order of the BIA denying her timely motion to reopen. In re Min Lin, No. A98 586 787 (B.I.A. Apr. 29, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, see Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006), and its subsidiary factual findings for substantial evidence, see Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169, 172-73 (2d Cir.2008). Lin contends that the BIA failed properly to evaluate or consider her newly proffered evidence of feared future persecution based on her practice of Roman Catholicism. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (<HOLDING>). We disagree. Notwithstanding Lin’s Options: A. recognizing that bia may deny motion to reopen where movant has not established prima facie eligibility for relief sought B. recognizing that failure to offer new previously unavailable evidence establishing a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought is a proper ground on which the bia may deny a motion to reopen C. recognizing that there are at least three independent grounds on which the bia may deny a motion to reopen 1 failure to establish a prima facie case 2 failure to introduce evidence that was material and previously unavailable and 3 a determination that despite the aliens statutory eligibility for relief he or she is not entitled to a favorable exercise of discretion D. recognizing that in an untimely motion to reopen based on changed country conditions the movant must submit previously unavailable evidence demonstrating his prima facie eligibility for relief E. holding that a movants failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief is a proper ground for the bia to deny a motion to reopen

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that bia may deny motion to reopen where movant has not established prima facie eligibility for relief sought
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 validity, interpretation, construction and performance of this Note, and all acts and transactions pursuant hereto and the rights and obligations of the Maker and Holder shall be governed, construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of Texas, without giving effect to principles of conflicts of law.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: did not have a reasonable belief that he was opposing an employment practice made unlawful by Title VII when he filed his complaint regarding Defendant Fetter’s alleged harassment and ridicule. See McMenemy v. City of Rochester, 241 F.3d 279, 285 (2d Cir.2001) (citation omitted). As will be discussed below, at best, Plaintiff is merely attempting to allege that he was retaliated against in violation of the First Amendment. Even though Plaintiff may believe that Defendants’ actions were wrongful or even spiteful, the courts have repeatedly emphasized that “Title VII is not a general ‘bad acts’ statute.” Wimmer v. Suffolk County Police Dep't, 176 F.3d 125, 135 (2d Cir.1999) (quotation and other citation omitted); see also Cruz v. Coach Stores, Inc., 202 F.3d 560, 566 (2d Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>); see also Montanile v. National Broadcast Co., Options: A. holding that a sixmonth gap between the protected activity and the employees termination was insufficient to infer that the protected activity was a contributing factor B. holding that the term protected activity refers to action taken to protest or oppose statutorily prohibited discrimination quotation and other citation omitted C. holding that informal complaints to superiors about discrimination constitute protected activity D. holding that qualified immunity turns upon the objective legal reasonableness of the officers action assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken internal quotation marks and citation omitted E. holding the term earnings for purposes of 541a6 is not limited to wages and salary but refers to all income generated by an individual citation omitted

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the term protected activity refers to action taken to protest or oppose statutorily prohibited discrimination quotation and other citation omitted