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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall terminate upon the earliest to occur of (a) a Rockets Change of Recommendation, (b) the termination of the Merger Agreement in accordance with its terms and (c) the Effective Time. In addition, upon a Rockets Change of Recommendation, the provisions of Article II of this Agreement (including, without limitation, the obligations of the Stockholder contemplated thereby) shall not apply for so long as such Rockets Change of Recommendation shall remain in effect (and, for the avoidance of doubt, any proxy granted under Section 2.2 of this Agreement or otherwise hereunder shall automatically be deemed revoked); provided , however , that if the Rockets Board withdraws such Rockets Change of Recommendation and recommends that the Rockets Stockholders adopt the Merger Agreement (a “ Renewed Recommendation ”) the provisions of Article II (including, for the avoidance of doubt, the proxy granted pursuant to Section 2.2 ) shall be automatically reinstated, for so long as such Renewed Recommendation remains in effect. In the event of any such termination of this Agreement, the obligations of the Parties under this Agreement shall terminate and there shall be no liability on the part of any Party with respect to this Agreement; provided , however , that (x) this Article V and Article VI shall survive any such termination and each remain in full force and effect and (y) no Party shall be relieved or released from any liability or damages arising from a material and intentional breach of any provision of this Agreement arising prior to such termination; provided further , that in no event shall any Party be responsible to the other Party hereto for any special, punitive, exemplary, incidental, consequential or indirect damages, lost profits or losses calculated by reference to any multiple of earnings or earnings before interest, tax, depreciation or amortization (or any other valuation methodology), whether based on contract, tort, strict liability, other Law or otherwise.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Second Collateral Amendment may be executed by one or more of the parties hereto in any number of separate counterparts, and all of such counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of this Second Collateral Amendment by facsimile transmission or electronic transmission (e.g., PDF) shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you may not post , modify , distribute , or reproduce in any way any copyrighted material , trademarks , or other proprietary information belonging to others without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights .

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: that the date of a crime is not an element of the offense is consistent with our case law regarding the sufficiency of indictments containing factual disparities. In United States v. Hinton, 222 F.3d 664 (9th Cir.2000), for instance, we upheld an indictment which misstated the date of the offense by 18 days, and which misidentified the cities between which contraband was shipped in interstate commerce. In finding these errors to be insignificant, we held that “the test of the sufficiency of the indictment is not whether it could have been framed in a more satisfactory manner, but whether it conforms to minimal constitutional standards.” Id. at 672 (citing United States v. Rosi, 27 F.3d 409, 415 (9th Cir.1994)); see also United States v. Alviso, 152 F.3d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Our treatment of this issue in one recent Options: A. holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act B. holding that under a similar statute the government need only show that the defendant had the intent to carry on illegal activity and that the crime occurred in conjunction with interstate travel C. holding that the date of the offense was material to the defense where defendant could not have anticipated from the date specified in the indictment that the state would present evidence that the crime occurred nearly two months later D. holding that the government need not prove actual notice to the prisoner E. recognizing that the government need only prove that crime occurred reasonably near the date stated in the indictment

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that the government need only prove that crime occurred reasonably near the date stated in the indictment
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: If any provision of this Plan shall be held illegal or invalid for any reason, said illegality or invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof; instead, each provision shall be fully severable and the Plan shall be construed and enforced as if said illegal or invalid provision had never been included herein.

assistant: Severability
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 will not, nor will it permit any of its Restricted Subsidiaries to, sell, lease or otherwise transfer any property or assets to, or purchase, lease or otherwise acquire any property or assets from, or otherwise engage in any other transactions with, any of its Affiliates, except (a) in the ordinary course of business at prices and on terms and conditions not less favorable to the Borrower or such Restricted Subsidiary than could be obtained on an arm’s-length basis from unrelated third parties, (b) transactions between or among the Borrower and its Restricted Subsidiaries or between or among Restricted Subsidiaries not involving any other Affiliate, (c) transactions described on Schedule 7.09, (d) any Restricted Payment permitted by Section 7.08 and (e) Investments permitted by Section 7.06.

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: Cf. United States v. Harris, 223 Fed.Appx. 747, 751-52 (10th Cir.2007) (unpublished) (affirming district court’s rejection of magistrate judge’s report and recommendation suggesting disclosure of confidential informant’s identity when confidential informant was not involved in drug buy). Moreover, an in camera procedure may be the fairest approach when the Court faces a dichotomous dilemma; that dilemma being, either deny disclosure, which may render the plaintiff virtually unable to pursue his or her cause of action, or conversely, grant disclosure, which may result in harm to the confidential informant or subsequent difficulty for a governmental entity to recruit citizens to act as confidential informants. See Rodriguez v. City of Springfield, 127 F.R.D. 426, 431 (D.Mass.1989) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, when a plaintiffs cause of action Options: A. holding that where a party claims a document is privileged and the trial court fails to conduct an in camera review or balancing test the trial court has departed from the essential requirements of the law B. holding that court should balance competing interests C. recognizing that while an in camera hearing has its deficiencies both for the defendant and the plaintiff it offers itself as the fairest and most expeditious method for balancing the parties competing interests D. recognizing that competing interests of parents children and the state requires additional analysis E. holding that the proper test for balancing national security interests with a persons due process rights is the mathews balancing test

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that while an in camera hearing has its deficiencies both for the defendant and the plaintiff it offers itself as the fairest and most expeditious method for balancing the parties competing interests
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Stockholder shall, from time to time, execute and deliver, or cause to be executed and delivered, in each case without further consideration, such additional or further transfers, assignments, endorsements, consents and other instruments as Parent may reasonably request for the purpose of effectively carrying out Stockholder’s obligations under this Agreement; provided, however, that this Section 4 shall not require Stockholder to deliver a proxy in connection with any of the Securities. Parent agrees to take, or cause to be taken, (a) all actions reasonably necessary or desirable to comply promptly with all legal requirements that may be imposed with respect to the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and (b) all actions reasonably necessary or desirable to consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.

assistant: Further Assurances
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: committed.” The court thus concluded that the crime “to which Mr. Delgado pled guilty was a crime of violence.” Other than a general objection to reb-anee on the police report, Delgado offered nothing about the circumstances of the plea hearing or the creation of the police report to challenge the sentencing court’s conclusion that Delgado and the government both believed that he was entering a guilty plea to the “generically violent crime” of breaking and entering a dwelling. Harris, 964 F.2d at 1236. In the absence of such a proffer, we conclude that there was no clear error in the district court’s finding that, by a preponderance of the evidence, Delgado pled guilty to the amended charge of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a felony. See Damon, 127 F.3d at 141 (<HOLDING>). Delgado gains nothing by arguing that the Options: A. holding that the government must prove the facts used in sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence B. holding that findings of fact are reviewed for clear error C. holding that factual findings in sentencing context are reviewed for clear error D. holding that factual conclusions of sentencing court which must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence are reviewed for clear error E. holding that district courts factual findings for purposes of obstruction enhancement are reviewed for clear error

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that factual conclusions of sentencing court which must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence are reviewed for clear error
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Cir.2007). Thus we must address the legal question of whether the IJ properly applied the evidentiary standard. The IJ found that Sillah’s testimony was “[injsufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he last arrived in the United States on May 29, 2002.” The IJ’s conclusion rests on his supporting finding that Sillah could not remember the name of the person whose fraudulent passport and visa he used and claimed he was never questioned by an immigration officer either upon departing Sierra Leone or upon entering the United States, and because his testimony as to his entry date lacked corroboration. Given that Sillah’s testimony was undisputed and must be accepted as true, the IJ’s conclusion was clearly erroneous. See Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). II. The IJ found, in the alternative, that Options: A. holding that ij failed to make explicit credibility finding when he described applicants testimony as general and meager making his demand for corroborating evidence improper B. holding that no corroborating evidence required from asylum applicants who have testified credibly C. holding remedy for lack of sufficient corroborating evidence is acquittal D. holding that the corroborating evidence need not be medical evidence if the appellant explains why medical evidence is not available E. holding that in light of an applicants omission of various relevant facts from his asylum application substantial evidence supported the ijs adverse credibility determination

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that no corroborating evidence required from asylum applicants who have testified credibly
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 Issuer shall use the net proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Securities (a) to support the Commercialization of the Product, (b) to pay fees, costs and expenses arising in connection with the issuance of the Securities, (c) to fund the Reserve Account in the amount of $20,000,000, (d) to fund the Collateral Account in the amount of $25,000,000 and (e) for working capital and general corporate purposes in respect of the Commercialization of the Product. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the remaining net proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Securities after application of such proceeds for the purposes set forth in clauses (b), (c) and (d) of the preceding sentence, which for the avoidance of doubt shall not be less than $89,274,816.45 of such net proceeds, shall be deposited into the Collateral Account on the Issue Date (in addition to the $25,000,000 to be deposited pursuant to clause (d) of the preceding sentence) and only to be used for the purposes set forth in clauses (a), (b) and (e) of the preceding sentence following the release of funds from the Collateral Account in accordance with Section 4.25(d).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, the consummation of the purchase and sale of the Purchased Shares hereunder (the “ Closing ”) shall take place at the offices of Vinson & Elkins L.L.P., 1001 Fannin, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas 77002 at 9:00 a.m. (Central Time) on December 22, 2016 or at such other time as the Company and Purchasers representing a majority of the aggregate Purchase Prices determine (the date of such closing, the “ Closing Date ”). The parties agree that the Closing may occur via delivery of facsimiles or photocopies of the Operative Documents and the closing deliverables contemplated hereby and thereby. Unless otherwise provided herein, all proceedings to be taken and all documents to be executed and delivered by all parties at the Closing will be deemed to have been taken and executed simultaneously, and no proceedings will be deemed to have been taken nor documents executed or delivered until all have been taken.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the Court may be viewed as the position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds." Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193, 97 S.Ct. 990, 993, 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The narrowest ground for the court's disposition in Williams is that of the lead opinion and Justice Thomas: the subject report was not testimonial. But, as the Arizona Supreme Court recently explained, the plurality's 'primary purpose' test nor Justice Thomas's solemnity standard can be deemed a subset of the other; therefore, there is no binding rule for determining when reports are testimonial." State v. Medina, 232 Ariz. 391, 306 P.3d 48, 63 (2013) (citing United States v. Alcon Aluminum Corp., 315 F.3d 179, 189 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). We agree, and apply Williams accordingly. [¶ Options: A. holding an issue not preserved when one ground is raised to the trial court and another ground is raised on appeal B. holding that animal husbandry operations were included in the definition of farm even if the animals do not touch the ground graze on the land or feed from crops grown on the land and holding that land used to support buildings used in the production of agricultural products is a productive use of the land C. holding that there is no first amendment or common law right of access to documents which played no role in a judicial decision D. holding that when no single standard legitimately constitutes the narrowest ground for a decision on that issue there is then no law of the land E. holding that the deed and not the historical description of the land determines what land constitutes the forfeitable property

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that when no single standard legitimately constitutes the narrowest ground for a decision on that issue there is then no law of the land
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 executed by one or more of the parties to this Agreement on any number of separate counterparts, and all of said counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed signature page of this Agreement by facsimile transmission or by email shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof. A set of the copies of this Agreement signed by all the parties shall be lodged with the Borrower and the Administrative Agent.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Lease may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and all of which shall be one and the same agreement. The parties agree to accept a digital image (including but not limited to an image in the form of a PDF, JPEG, GIF file, or other e-signature) of this Lease, if applicable, reflecting the execution of one or both of the parties, as a true and correct original.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: in no event will fitbit 's total liability arising out of or in connection with these terms or from the use of or inability to use the fitbit service exceed the amounts you have paid to fitbit for use of the fitbit service or one hundred dollars ( $ 100 ) , if you have not had any payment obligations to fitbit , as applicable .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the best mode. See United States Gypsum Company v. National Gypsum Company, 74 F.3d 1209, 1213 (Fed.Cir.1996) (quoting the inventor definitively stating “[a]t the time the application was filed, I considered a perlite supplied by Silbrico ... to be the best commercially available .... ”)• Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 . The court agrees with Plaintiffs that its use of various terms throughout the specification to signify a theoretical win profile do not arise to the level of semantic indefiniteness as was found in Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus. Inc. 299 F.3d 1336 (Fed.Cir.2002)(<HOLDING>) 2 . For purposes of Defendants' Summary Options: A. holding that the scope of coverage of the claims may change if a patentee has relinquished a potential claim construction in an amendment to the claim or in an argument to overcome or distinguish a reference B. recognizing the validity of the holding in south middlesex with respect to parallel claims under 3604 of the fha and section 1983 C. holding that at least with respect to the constitutionally inadequate notice in that case the errors were not structural D. holding that the argument that an additional limitation be read into claims 1 3 and 4 was only correct with respect to claim 1 and thus only claim 1 was invalid E. holding that in the case where patentee was attempting to argue that parallel meant perpendicular with respect to a particular claim and a claim ended with an incomplete limitation the claims at issue were indefinite

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that in the case where patentee was attempting to argue that parallel meant perpendicular with respect to a particular claim and a claim ended with an incomplete limitation the claims at issue were indefinite
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 essential elements of official immunity. Instead, appellants claim they are “statutorily immune from liability” under Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 312.006(a) (Vernon 2001) and Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 101.101 (Vernon 2005). These are the same damages cap and notice provisions on which appellants based their plea to the jurisdiction. As previously discussed, neither statute confers immunity. Moreover, neither statute applies to individuals. By the terms of the statutes, section 312.006(a) applies under certain conditions to a “medical and dental unit, supported medical or dental school, or coordinating entity,” while section 101.101 applies only to “governmental units.” See Smith v. City of Houston, 960 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Appellants do not contend that the Physicians Options: A. holding that the notice requirements of section 101101 do not apply to employees because they are not governmental units B. holding that owners notice substantially complied with federal requirements because the owner intended to demolish the housing units and noted that ajlthough the notice did not follow the statutory language it would have been misleading had it strictly followed the statute C. holding that the federal register notice requirements do not apply to federal criminal statutes D. holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not know the residence for which they obtained a warrant actually contained multiple units E. holding that the notice requirements of 38 usc 5103a do not apply to motions based on clear and unmistakable error

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the notice requirements of section 101101 do not apply to employees because they are not governmental units
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: be actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, sufficient evidence must be presented showing that the action complained of was committed under color of state law and that said conduct worked a denial of rights secured by the United States Constitution. Romero-Barceló v. Hernández-Agosto, 75 F.3d 23, 32 (1st Cir.1996). There are two aspects to the second prong: (1) there must be an actual deprivation of a federally protected right; and (2) there must be a causal connection between defendants’ conduct and the deprivation of such right. Gutiérrez-Rodríguez v. Cartagena, 882 F.2d 553, 559 (1st Cir.1989). Additionally, the causal connection element requires that plaintiffs establish for each defendant, that the defendant’s own actions deprived the plaintiff of his or her protected rights. Id. at 562 (<HOLDING>). In addition, it is also set in stone that Options: A. holding that municipality may not be held liable under 1983 upon theory of respondeat superior B. holding that a municipality cannot be liable on a respondeat superior theory C. holding that liability may not be predicated upon a theory of respondeat superior because a supervisor can be liable only for his own acts or omissions D. holding that a party can be held liable for securities fraud on an agency or a respondeat superior theory E. recognizing respondeat superior liability

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that liability may not be predicated upon a theory of respondeat superior because a supervisor can be liable only for his own acts or omissions
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: In consideration of the benefits and payments to be made to you under this Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which you hereby acknowledge, you agree that you will not criticize, disparage, defame, or otherwise attempt to impugn the character, integrity or reputation of Releasees or the products or services of Harris and its subsidiaries or affiliates (verbally, in writing or otherwise), nor will you unlawfully interfere with any of the business relationships of Harris and its subsidiaries or affiliates. The provisions of this Section 21 are separate from and in addition to any other non-disparagement agreement between you and Harris or its subsidiaries or affiliates, including but not limited to, the non-disparagement restrictions contained in the equity awards granted to you by Harris. Any breach of the above-described additional non-disparagement provisions will also constitute a violation and breach of this Agreement.

assistant: Non-Disparagement
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: claim of CUE is a collateral attack that can only be made on a final RO or Board decision, see id. at 1380-81, and generally, rating decisions by the VA are deemed “final and binding ... as to conclusions based on the evidence on file at the time the VA issues written notification” of a decision, 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(a). In cases of grave procedural error, however, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has consistently held that RO or Board decisions are not final for purposes of direct appeal. See Tablazon v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 359, 361 (1995) (concluding that “where VA has failed to procedurally comply with statutorily mandated requirements, a claim does not become final for purposes of appeal to the [Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims]”); Hauck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 518, 519 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Kuo v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 662, 666 (1992) Options: A. holding that where an appellant never received notification of any denial the oneyear period within which to file an nod which commences with the date of mailing of notice of the result of initial review or determination did not begin to run B. holding that a notice of claim period did not begin to run until discovery of the injury C. holding that where va never sent the claimant a formal application form pursuant to 3155 the oneyear time period to return it could not have begun to run and therefore the effective date of the claim was the date of the informal claim D. holding that oneyear period commences on date of discovery of the fraudulent nature of the transfer E. holding that the time in which to file a petition for review of a commissioners order commences upon the signing of the written order

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that where an appellant never received notification of any denial the oneyear period within which to file an nod which commences with the date of mailing of notice of the result of initial review or determination did not begin to run
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 totality of the circumstances, I would hold that there was no reasonable, articulable suspicion to frisk Johnson. Although the totality of the circumstances may have been puzzling or ambiguous — in fact they may have caused Officer Harvey to suspect that something was amiss — such “inchoate suspicion” is not sufficient to warrant a frisk. Terry, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868; see also Singleton v. United States, 998 A.2d 295, 300-01 (D.C.2010) (“[T]o be articulable, there must be specific evidence — not merely conclusions — that led the officer to suspect criminal activity in a particular circumstance.”). The totality of the circum stances failed to indicate why a reasonable officer would suspect that Johnson was armed and dangerous. See In re R.M.C., 719 A.2d 491, 496 (D.C.1998) (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. United States, 658 A.2d 1036, Options: A. holding there was no reasonable suspicion which would justify an investigatory stop despite report of a domestic disturbance B. holding that because a violation of a statute had no practical effect there was no concrete injury C. holding that no fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and defendant because there was no evidence that the parties agreed that defendant would be acting primarily for the benefit of the plaintiffs D. holding that there was no reasonable articulable suspicion for a frisk despite suspects walking unnaturally clutching his rib cage and acting nervously because there was no evidence to indicate a weapon and no report of criminal activity outside of a curfew violation E. holding that there is no constitutional right to appeal a criminal conviction

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that there was no reasonable articulable suspicion for a frisk despite suspects walking unnaturally clutching his rib cage and acting nervously because there was no evidence to indicate a weapon and no report of criminal activity outside of a curfew violation
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: discovery process in the hope of uncovering some sort of wrongdoing or of obtaining a substantial settlement.” Decker v. Massey-Ferguson, Ltd., 681 F.2d 111, 116 (2d Cir.1982). Accordingly, courts have not been hesitant to dismiss securities fraud complaints on findings of insufficient allegations of fraudulent intent. See, e.g., Thornton v. Micrografx, Inc., 878 F.Supp. 931 (N.D.Tex.1995); Kriendler v. Chemical Waste Mgmt., Inc., 877 F.Supp. 1140 (D.C.Ill.1995); Sheldon Co. Profit Sharing Plan and Trust v. Smith, 828 F.Supp. 1262 (W.D.Mich.1993); Gordon v. Diagnostek, Inc., 812 F.Supp. 57 (E.D.Pa.1993); Martin v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 639 F.Supp. 931 (D.Md.1986); see also In re Cryomedical Sciences, Inc. Securities Litigation, 884 F.Supp. 1001 (D.Md.1995 , 374-75 (D.Md.1991) (<HOLDING>). Rule 9(b) provides that “in all averments of Options: A. holding that the provisions of the false claims act allowing suit imposing liability on any person who presented false claims to the federal government did not allow suits against state governments B. holding that apparel cleaners submission of false statements of their receipts a percentage of which were to be paid to the united states did not constitute false claims within the meaning of the federal false claims act C. holding plaintiffs fraud claim failed rule 9b particularity requirement which in turn meant deceptive trade practices claim failed the particularity requirement D. holding that the public harm requirement applies to fraudulent inducement claims because the fraud claims arise from related contract claims E. holding that particularity requirement under rule 9b for allegations of fraud applied to claims by shareholders under federal securities laws for false registration statements and false prospectus even though such provisions do not contain scienter requirement but where gist of claims involved fraudulent scheme

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that particularity requirement under rule 9b for allegations of fraud applied to claims by shareholders under federal securities laws for false registration statements and false prospectus even though such provisions do not contain scienter requirement but where gist of claims involved fraudulent scheme
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party acknowledges and agrees that its compliance with each of the provisions of this Agreement is necessary in order to protect the other party and the investment of time and resources the other party has made in its business, and that any breach of any of this Agreement by either party will irreparably and continually harm the other party in a manner for which money damages may not be adequate compensation. Therefore, in the event of a breach or threatened breach of any of the provisions of this Agreement by either party, the other party shall be entitled, in addition to any other remedies and damages available to seek a temporary, preliminary and/or permanent injunction, without bond, to restrain the violation of any of the provisions of this Agreement by either party and any persons or entities acting for or in concert with such party.

assistant: Enforcements
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: “award[ed] an overwhelming majority of all services contracts as nonpersonal services contracts, though they were personal in nature.” OIG Report at 15; see also [Proposed] Second Am. Compl. ¶ 56. The court is generally reluctant to void a contract with the government on the basis of the government’s noncompliance with, a statutory or regulatory requirement. See American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United States, 177 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The court will ordinarily defer to the judgment of the government in issuing the contract and find it valid, “impos[ing] the binding stamp of nullity only when the illegality is plain.” John Reiner & Co. v. United States, 163 Ct.Cl. 381, 386, 325 F.2d 438 (1963); see also Springfield Parcel C, LLC v. United States, 124 Fed.Cl. 163, 183-90 (2015) (<HOLDING>). In the circumstances at hand, the court is Options: A. holding that the trial court exceeded its authority by conditioning probation upon the payment of taxes and that the excess sentence imposed was void B. holding in a bid protest that a lease awarded by a federal agency was void because it exceeded an explicit congressional limitation legitimated by statute C. holding that a protest was invalid either because it was filed the day before customs denied a previous claim for relief or barred by the provision allowing only one protest per entry of merchandise D. holding that agency exceeded statutory authority in enacting regulation concerning medicare payment recovery because rule plainly covered some situations in which recovery was barred by statute E. holding that enactment of 13981 exceeded congressional authority under either the commerce clause or section 5 of the fourteenth amendment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding in a bid protest that a lease awarded by a federal agency was void because it exceeded an explicit congressional limitation legitimated by statute
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: is supported by an examination of Plaintiffs brief and expert reports, which do not allege that the fire was caused by any defect in the electricity, but rather by PSE & G’s failure to promptly discontinue electrical service to the building. Because this conduct relates to the maintenance of the electrical service, and not a defect inherent in the product, it does not qualify as “harm caused by a product” and is therefore not cognizable under the NJPLA. See Potwora v. Grip, 319 N.J.Super. 386, 725 A.2d 697, 704 (1999)(concluding that when an injury does not result from a defective product, but rather from a service, the NJPLA is inapplicable because the plaintiffs claim is “not ‘for harm caused by a product’ within the meaning of the Act”); see also Ridenour, 707 A.2d at 1097 (<HOLDING>). A similar result was reached in Thomas v. Options: A. holding that ordinary negligence and gross negligence are not separate causes of action B. holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law C. holding that claims of improper maintenance and installation are governed by negligence law not the njpla D. holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law E. holding that the contours of the demand requirement founded on federal statute are governed by that law

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that claims of improper maintenance and installation are governed by negligence law not the njpla
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: claims lack merit, defense counsel was not ineffective by failing to object, and habeas relief is not warranted on the petitioner’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on the lack of objection to to the prosecutor’s statements during voir dire, opening statement, and closing argument. D. The petitioner next argues that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by failing to provide notice of the intent to introduce evidence of other acts as required by Michigan state law. Those other acts, the petitioner explains, consist of the victims’ testimony about uncharged acts of sexual abuse. The violation of the State’s notice requirement will not warrant relief from this Court. See, e.g., Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780, 110 S.Ct. 3092, 111 L.Ed.2d 606 (1990) (<HOLDING>). On direct review applying a plain-error Options: A. holding that federal habeas relief is not available to correct errors of state law B. holding that gardenvariety errors of state law do not warrant federal habeas relief C. holding that claim of cumulative error does not entitle state prisoner to habeas corpus relief unless 1 claim of cumulative error refers to errors rather than mere unfavorable rulings or events 2 habeas review is not procedurally barred and 3 the errors more likely than not caused a suspect verdict D. holding that errors in state law cannot support federal habeas relief E. holding that federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law
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 Seller shall not engage in any transaction with the Originator or any Affiliate of the Originator except pursuant to, or as contemplated by, this Agreement, or as is necessary to carry out its obligations hereunder or under the other Transaction Documents.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Effective as of the Effective Date, each Party does hereby forever release, discharge and acquit the other Party of and from any and all claims, demands, obligations, liabilities, indebtedness, responsibilities, disputes, breaches of contract, breaches of duty or any relationship, acts, omissions, cause or causes of action (whether at law or in equity), debts, sums of money, accounts, compensations, contracts, controversies, promises, damages, costs, rights of offset, losses and expenses, of every type, kind, nature, description or character (“ Claims ”), whatsoever arising out of the Management Agreement or any acts or omissions of the other Party to the Management Agreement, occurring at any time before or after the date hereof, which in any way arise out of, are connected with or relate to the Management Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, this provision shall not release, discharge or acquit any Party from any Claim other than Claims arising under the Management Agreement.

assistant: Releases
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 Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. Delivery of an executed counterpart hereof by facsimile or other electronic means shall be deemed to be an original.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement represents the entire agreement and understanding between the Company and Employee concerning the subject matter of this Agreement and Employee’s employment with and separation from the Company and the events leading thereto and associated therewith, and supersedes and replaces any and all prior agreements and understandings concerning the subject matter of this Agreement and Employee’s relationship with the Company, with the exception of the Confidentiality Agreement and the Stock Agreements, except as modified herein.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different parties on separate counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and all of which when taken together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: by accessing the service , you understand that you may be waiving rights with respect to claims that are at this time unknown or unsuspected , and in accordance with such waiver , you acknowledge that you have read and understand , and hereby expressly waive , the benefits of section 1542 of the civil code of california , and any similar law of any state or territory , which provides as follows : `` a general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release , which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor . ''

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: M.M. that he was suspended and called his mother to pick him up. M.M was then instructed by the administrative dean to go to the indoor waiting room outside of her office. The school resource officer was-.contacted after M.M. continued to engage in disruptive behavior in the waiting room. Despite instructions from both the dean and the school resource officer that he must remain in the waiting area, M.M. walked outside into an adjacent open-air courtyard (near the back of the school campus), where he was arrested for trespass. M.M. argues that he cannot be found guilty of unlawfully entering or remaining on school property because he was expressly authorized (actually required) to remain on campus until his mother arrived. Cf. E.W. v. State, 873 So.2d 485, 487-88 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>). In essence, M.M. argues that as long as he Options: A. holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours B. holding that evidence was insufficient to establish that appellant remained unlawfully on school property because as a minor appellant could not leave school without parental consent C. holding trial court reversibly erred in not permitting appellant to withdraw his plea where court erroneously stated appellant could appeal motion was in fact not dispositive and appellant was entitled to rely on the courts statement D. holding that a students private school tuition should be reimbursed where parent did not unilaterally place student in private school because the school district tacitly consented to the private school attendance before proposing a different placement E. holding the tlo standard governs school searches when school resource officers who although employed by the local police department are primarily responsible to the school district are acting in conjunction with school officials

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that evidence was insufficient to establish that appellant remained unlawfully on school property because as a minor appellant could not leave school without parental consent