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: ought to be subject to liability under § 10:5-12(a) because “public officers” are specifically included in the § 10:5-5(e) definition of “employer.” Although “public officers” is not defined in the LAD, it is difficult to conceive of a definition of that term that does not encompass a police inspector and a police captain, which are, respectively, the second and third highest ranking positions in the Atlantic City Police Department. All of this is to say that, even if we did not have the benefit of New Jersey state court decisions and were completely left to our own devices, the question of whether Rifiee and Madamba could be liable under LAD § 10:5-12(a) is, as the majority acknowledges, a close one. Maj. Op. at 125. But see Tyson v. CIGNA Corp., 918 F.Supp. 836, 839 (D.N.J.1996) (<HOLDING>). In matters involving state law, however, our Options: A. holding professional rules do not provide basis for civil liability B. holding that there is no individual liability under title vii C. holding no individual liability under the adea D. holding that fmla does not impose individual liability E. holding that 10512a does not provide for individual liability because it does not include any of the phrases that so clearly provide a basis for individual liability under other subparts of lad

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that 10512a does not provide for individual liability because it does not include any of the phrases that so clearly provide a basis for individual liability under other subparts of lad
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: CURIAM. The State presented insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for possession of alcohol by a minor under section 562.111, Florida Statutes. See State v. Williams, 742 So.2d 509, 511 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>). Even considering the relatively low burden of Options: A. recognizing that evidence regarding the high price the defendant had paid for the substance in question was relevant to show the substance was cocaine B. holding that possession of a controlled substance is a crime only if the defendant knowingly possesses the substance and has knowledge of the nature of that substance C. holding that quantity of the controlled substance does not have to be measurable to support a conviction for possession of such controlled substance particularly when the immeasurable amount of the substance is found on an implement used to consume the substance D. holding that mens rea required for possession of a controlled substance is knowledge that defendant possessed a controlled substance E. holding to prove possession the state must show that a defendant possessed a certain substance the substance was illegal and he had knowledge of the presence of the substance

assistant: The best answer is E. holding to prove possession the state must show that a defendant possessed a certain substance the substance was illegal and he had knowledge of the presence of the substance
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 proceeds of Loans shall be used by Borrowers solely (a) to continue any loans outstanding under the Existing Loan Agreement; (b) to pay Obligations in accordance with this Agreement; (c) to pay fees and transaction expenses associated with the closing of this amended and restated credit facility and (d) for lawful corporate purposes of Borrowers, including working capital. Borrowers shall not, directly or indirectly, use any Letter of Credit or the proceeds of any Loan, nor use, lend, contribute or otherwise make available any Letter of Credit or proceeds of any Loan to any Subsidiary, joint venture partner or other Person, (i) to fund any activities of or business with any Person, or in any Designated Jurisdiction, that, at the time of issuance of the Letter of Credit or funding of the Loan, is the subject of Sanctions; or (ii) in any other manner that would result in a violation of Sanctions by any Person (including any Person participating in the Loans, whether as underwriter, advisor, investor, or otherwise).

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: The Receiving Party shall carefully restrict access to the Confidential Information to those of its officers, directors and employees who clearly need such access in order to participate on behalf of the Receiving Party in the analysis and negotiation of a business relationship or any contract or agreement, or the advisability thereof, with the Disclosing Party and who are bound by written confidentiality agreements that protect third party information.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Adjustments will be made as of the time of the Closing in accordance with the regularly accepted practices of the Litchfield County Bar Association for commercial property in Torrington, Connecticut. Notwithstanding the foregoing, since Tenant is responsible under the Lease for payment of all real estate taxes associated with the Premises, no adjustment shall be made in favor of Tenant at Closing for real estate taxes; and further, no adjustment shall be made in favor of Tenant at Closing for any other items which are Tenant’s responsibility to pay anyway as Tenant under the terms of the Lease. Tenant agrees to assume and pay the taxes and other adjustment items assessed but not yet payable as part consideration for the sale. Special assessments, if any, shall be assumed by Tenant.

assistant: Adjustments
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: or work potential, or possible salaries in the relevant market. See Caldwell, 287 F.3d at 1289. LINA could only avoid having to engage a vocational expert if it “could garner substantial evidence to demonstrate that [Ms. Null] is, in fact, able to perform other occupations ... in the open labor market.” See id. LINA has not garnered any information supporting such a conclusion; in fact, the weight of the evidence is to the contrary. Ignoring evidence relevant to a decision or failing to consider all the evidence in the record can lead to a conclusion that a benefits determination is arbitrary and capricious, see id. at 1284-86— that is, even more than just incorrect, which is the standard for de novo review. See Gaither v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 388 F.3d 759, 773 (10th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Given that the Plan’s operational definition Options: A. holding that evidence not submitted to the district court cannot be part of the record on appeal B. holding that with regards to jail credit claims at a minimum the motion will have to allege where in the record the information can be located and explain how the record demonstrates entitlement to the relief requested C. holding that fiduciaries cannot shut their eyes to readily available information when the evidence in the record suggests that the information might confirm the beneficiarys theory of entitlement and when they have little or no evidence in the record to refute that theory D. recognizing that when a beneficiary requests information from an erisa fiduciary who is aware of the beneficiarys status and situation the fiduciary has an obligation to convey complete and accurate information material to the beneficiarys circumstance even if that requires conveying information about which the beneficiary did not specifically inquire E. holding appeal of termination is limited to information that is part of the record

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that fiduciaries cannot shut their eyes to readily available information when the evidence in the record suggests that the information might confirm the beneficiarys theory of entitlement and when they have little or no evidence in the record to refute that theory
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the Plan constitute the entire agreement of the parties hereto with regard to the subject matter hereof, and contain all the covenants, promises, representations, warranties and agreements between the parties with respect to the Phantom Units granted hereby; provided, however , that the terms of this Agreement shall not modify and shall be subject to the terms and conditions of any employment and/or severance agreement between the Partnership, the General Partner, any of the Partnership Entities or any of their respective Affiliates and Participant in effect as of the date a determination is to be made under this Agreement. Without limiting the scope of the preceding sentence, all prior understandings and agreements, if any, among the parties hereto relating to the subject matter hereof are hereby null and void and of no further force and effect.

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: To the extent permitted by applicable law, the parties hereby waive any right to trial by jury in any legal proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby. The provisions of this Section shall survive the Closing or earlier termination of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pavlock has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Pavlock’s application to proceed in formal pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED * Pavlock’s motion for reconsideration was filed more than 28 days after the district court entered its dismissal order and, thus, the mo-lion did not toll Pavlock’s time to appeal the district court’s dismissal order. See Fed. R. App, P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (vi); Fed. R, Civ, P. 59(e); see also Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988) Options: A. holding that prisoners notice of appeal is deemed filed on date he delivered it to prison officials for mailing to court B. holding that prisoners notice of appeal deemed filed on date he delivered it to prison officials for mailing to court C. holding that pro se prisoners 28 usc 2254 application deemed filed for limitation purposes when deposited with prison officials for mailing D. holding that a pro se prisoners notice of appeal is considered filed upon delivery to prison authorities for mailing to the court E. holding that an noa filed by a pro se prisoner is deemed filed on the date that the prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for mailing

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a pro se prisoners notice of appeal is considered filed upon delivery to prison authorities for mailing to the court
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 Executive’s position as an officer (including, without limitation, as Chief Financial Officer of Edge), employee, and in any other capacity with Edge terminated on the Separation Date, and all benefits and perquisites of employment ceased as of the Separation Date, except as otherwise specifically provided herein. The Employment Agreement terminated as of the Separation Date; provided , however , that , notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Separation Agreement, (i) Article 1, Article 8, Article 9 and Articles 12 through 19 of the Employment Agreement shall survive the termination of Executive’s employment with Edge in accordance with their terms and (ii) the Executive Confidentiality and Invention Assignment Agreement between Executive and Edge, which was executed by Executive on March 6, 2014 (the “ Executive Confidentiality and Invention Agreement ”) shall remain in full force and effect from and after the Separation Date in accordance with its terms. All payments due to the Executive from Edge on and after the Separation Date shall be determined under the applicable provisions of this Separation Agreement. The Executive acknowledges and agrees that, to the extent unpaid as of the Separation Date, he is entitled to receive the payment for (i) any earned but unpaid base salary as of the Separation Date, (ii) any accrued but unpaid vacation as of the Separation Date in accordance with Edge’s vacation policy, (iii) reimbursement for any business expenses incurred prior to, but not reimbursed as of, the Separation Date, but only to the extent reimbursable in accordance with Edge’s expense reimbursement policies, (iv) payment of Executive’s 2016 annual bonus based on actual performance (to be paid when 2016 bonuses are paid to active employees) and (v) any vested benefits under Edge’s employee benefit plans in which he was participating immediately prior to the Separation Date, to be provided in accordance with the terms of such plans (collectively, the payments and benefits under clauses (i) through (v), the “ Accrued Benefits ”) . All unvested options to purchase the common stock of Edge, 0.00033 par value per share (“ Common Stock ”), held by the Executive as of the Separation Date that are regularly scheduled to vest (i.e., ignoring any potential vesting acceleration) after the one-year anniversary of the Separation Date shall be immediately terminated as of the Separation Date with no compensation, payment or other benefit due to the Executive.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: officer saw the weapon as soon as he took a step or two into the kitchen. But the court did not say that expressly, and neither did the testimony. All that Mara-diaga said was that Moon found the gun “on top of the refrigerator,” App. 102; Moon did not himself testify. Moreover, although there was evidence that the apartment was small and that the kitchen was “adjacent” to the dining room, there were no findings or testimony regarding the details of the apartment’s layout: we do not know how far it was from the dining room table to the kitchen’s threshold or how far it was from that threshold to the refrigerator. Nor do we know whether the path to either location was direct or obstructed. Nor — because we do not know how, or how well, s v. Allen, 159 F.3d 832, 839-40 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Compare United States v. Silvestri, 787 F.2d Options: A. holding that claimant did not establish good cause because she erroneously thought the determination was not final B. holding that inevitability was not established by an officers testimony that if she had not mistakenly thought that the defendants bag had been abandoned she would have used her narcotics dog to sniff the bag and establish probable cause for a warrant C. holding that when the defendant asserted in her answer that she was not a tenant and that she had an equitable interest in the property ejectment not eviction was the proper remedy and the matter should have been transferred to the circuit court D. holding that substantial evidence did not support agencys finding fear speculative when petitioner had offered evidence that she had already had two children that she planned to have more that she had gone to great lengths to avoid being sterilized in china and that she had removed her iud after escaping to the united states E. holding that plaintiff must establish that had she learned of impairment during her pregnancy she would have terminated pregnancy

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that inevitability was not established by an officers testimony that if she had not mistakenly thought that the defendants bag had been abandoned she would have used her narcotics dog to sniff the bag and establish probable cause for a warrant
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: state rebuts the defendant’s claim by showing no government inducement. 7 . See e.g., Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484, 96 S.Ct. 1646,48 L.Ed.2d 113 (1976); United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973); State v. Keating, 551 S.W.2d 589, 592-93 (Mo. banc 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1071, 98 S.Ct. 1255, 55 L.Ed.2d 775 (1978). 8 . See United States v. Anderton, 629 F.2d 1044, 1047-48 n. 3 (5th Cir.1980) (uncontradicted testimony of both defendant and unwitting government agent that the agent pressured de fendant into making bribery payments was insufficient to establish entrapment as a matter of law since “the jury could have rejected their testimony”). 9 . But cf. Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 373, 78 S.Ct. 819, 821, 2 L.Ed.2d 848 (1958) (<HOLDING>). DONNELLY, Judge, dissenting. In State v. Options: A. holding that unless an affirmative defense is established as matter of law defendant bears burden of obtaining jury findings necessary to support defense B. holding that if the undisputed testimony of the prosecutions witnesses establishes or corroborates an entrapment defense entrapment is established as a matter of law C. holding as a general rule of contract law if no other meaning is reasonable the court shall rule as a matter of law that the meaning is established D. holding that we must sustain legal sufficiency or noevidence challenge if record shows that evidence conclusively establishes opposite of vital fact and matter is established as matter of law if reasonable people could not differ as to conclusion to be drawn from evidence E. recognizing that in any criminal trial the credibility of the prosecutions witnesses is central

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that if the undisputed testimony of the prosecutions witnesses establishes or corroborates an entrapment defense entrapment is established as a matter of 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to Perelman v. Adams 35, when Perelman requested them in 2007. Perelman contends that he only discovered the lack of payment, however, af ter he received the purchase agreements in 2010. We agree with the District Court that a reasonably diligent person, “shocked and dismayed,” id., in 2007 that his wishes with respect to the trust had not been carried out, would not have waited three more years before viewing the purchase agreements. Perelman’s complaint does not allege any facts with respect to the three-year lapse between the 2007 meeting and his 2010 discoveries. At the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff who seeks to invoke equitable tolling need only “plead the applicability of the doctrine.” See Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1391 (3d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Here, however, Perelman has not made any Options: A. holding that a plaintiff who pled in her complaint that her law firm actively misled her in support of her request for application of the discovery rule had sufficiently pled the application of the doctrine B. holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment C. holding that where the plaintiff discovered the injury on the very datedefendant informed her of her discharge the discovery rule offered no relief in relation to the timeliness of the filing of her discriminatory discharge claim D. holding that a teachers complaint to school authorities that her principal had instructed her to make improper changes in her own students grades was unprotected because it was made pursuant to her official duties E. holding that a defendants argument that her psr overstated the seriousness of her past conduct was not a sufficiently specific objection to the fact of her previous conviction

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a plaintiff who pled in her complaint that her law firm actively misled her in support of her request for application of the discovery rule had sufficiently pled the application of the doctrine
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: “three distinct, but not necessarily inconsistent tests” for determining a corporation’s principal place of business: (1) the “nerve center” test, which searches for the location from which the corporation’s activities are controlled and directed; (2) the “center of corporate activity” test, which searches for the location of the corporation’s day-to-day management; and (3) the “locus of the operations of the corporation” test, which searches for the location of the corporation’s actual physical operations. Topp v. CompAir Inc., 814 F.2d 830, 834 (1st Cir.1987). While we have not had occasion to apply these tests to a general partnership whose partners are corporate identity of subsidiary where evidence showed that it operated independently from its parent); Topp, 814 F.2d at 833 (<HOLDING>); Lugo-Vina, 574 F.2d at 43 (recognizing Options: A. 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 B. recognizing separate corporate identity of subsidiary holding company despite evidence that it could not act without the express permission of its parent and that its sole function was to serve as financial conduit for parent C. recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that subsidiary performed the lions share of the film production for the parent D. recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that parent consolidated its profits and losses with that of its whollyowned subsidiary in presenting parents financial reports to shareholders that subsidiary was considered a division of parent and that subsidiary accounted for 60 of parents and subsidiarys combined operations E. recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that parent was alterego of its subsidiary and was being sued for acts of its subsidiary

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing separate corporate identity of subsidiary holding company despite evidence that it could not act without the express permission of its parent and that its sole function was to serve as financial conduit for parent
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: True, the residents’ visual impact study was prepared by a landscape architect with limited qualification for that task; but the residents were not required to offer any expert testimony at all. More broadly, this Court has refused “to create by fiat a constitutional requirement that all zoning boards in this Circuit use expert testimony or written studies to support their decisions.” Harlen Assocs. v. Inc. Vill. of Mineola, 273 F.3d 494, 501 n. 3 (2d Cir.2001). Third, we reject Omnipoint’s argument that the Board gave improper deference to community opposition. In Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d at 495-96, we declined to rule whether constituent comments amount to substantial evidence, and noted tension between Omnipoint Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 20 F.Supp.2d 875, 880 (E.D.Pa.1998) (<HOLDING>), and AT & T Wireless PCS v. City Council of Options: A. holding that unsubstantiated personal opinions expressing generalized concerns about the aesthetic and visual impacts on the neighborhood do not amount to substantial evidence B. holding that personal disputes do not constitute persecution C. holding that nontreating physicians opinions are entitled to little weight when contradictory to treating physicians opinions and will not constitute substantial evidence standing alone D. holding that loss of substantial clients does not amount to an unconscionable injury E. holding that the district court must make findings on the record as to the basis for its conclusion about the amount of actual loss

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that unsubstantiated personal opinions expressing generalized concerns about the aesthetic and visual impacts on the neighborhood do not amount to substantial evidence
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: accommodation claims because she had failed to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether she is disabled under the ADA and the PWDCRA. The court correctly held that, because Plaintiff failed to show that she was a qualified individual with a disability, MGM had no duty to accommodate Plaintiff under those statutes. On appeal, Plaintiff has not challenged the district court’s dismissal of her wrongful discharge claim, nor has she raised it in her statement of issues, perhaps because her notice of appeal challenged only the court’s denial of her motion for reconsideration, which challenged only the finding that she was not disabled. Thus, she has waived the wrongful discharge issue on appeal. See, e.g., Security Watch, Inc. v. Sentinel Sys., Inc., 176 F.3d 369, 376 (6th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). In any event, we are satisfied that the Options: A. holding that generally arguments not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned or waived B. holding issues raised in notice of appeal but not briefed are deemed waived C. holding issues not adequately briefed on appeal are abandoned D. holding that issues not briefed are deemed abandoned E. recognizing that arguments not briefed on appeal are waived

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that generally arguments not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned or waived
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: Source Book: Legislative History, Texts, and Other Documents 217 (Comm. Print 1976) [hereinafter Source Book ]. 25 . Throughout the legislative history of the Act, Congress recognized the need to protect civil rights claimants whose financial circumstances would foreclose litigation aimed at vindicating deprivations of important nonpecuniary rights. S.Rep. No. 1011, at 2, reprinted in- 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5910 (“In many cases arising under our civil rights laws, the citizen who must sue to enforce the law has little or no money with which to hire a lawyer. If private citizens are to be able to assert their civil rights ... then [they] must have the opportunity to recover what it costs them to vindicate these rights in court."); H.R.Rep. No. 1558, at 1, reprinted in Source Book 209 (<HOLDING>); Rivera, 477 U.S. at 577, 106 S.Ct. at 576 Options: A. holding that title viis broad venue provision was necessary to support the desire of congress to afford citizens full and easy redress of civil rights grievances B. recognizing that it is important that the judicial remedy be full and complete and stating because a vast majority of the victims of civil rights violations cannot afford legal counsel they are unable to present their cases to the courts C. holding that the illegality or unconstitutionality of a state or municipal tax or imposition is not of itself a ground for equitable relief in the courts of the united states in such a case the aggrieved party is left to his remedy at law when that remedy is as complete practicable and efficient as the remedy in equity D. recognizing a criminal defendants right to present a complete defense E. holding that the trial court violated the defendants allocution rights when the court in the defendants absence did not afford defense counsel an opportunity to present information in mitigation of punishment

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that it is important that the judicial remedy be full and complete and stating because a vast majority of the victims of civil rights violations cannot afford legal counsel they are unable to present their cases to the courts
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: 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) & 846. 6 . Defendant Cloud also argues that he could not "depend on” other coconspirators for success because the evidence demonstrated that he did not transact business with several members of the conspiracy. This argument is inconsistent with the longstanding principle that a conspiracy conviction will stand if "each member of the conspiracy realized that he was participating in a joint venture, even if he did not know the identities of every other member, or was not involved in all the activities in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Martinez, 430 F.3d at 332-33; Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 556-57, 68 S.Ct. 248, 92 L.Ed. 154 (1947); see also United States v. Potts, No. 97-6000, 1999 WL 96756, *7 (6th Cir. Feb.2, 1999) (unpublished disposition) (<HOLDING>). 7 . There were other links between Options: A. holding an individual who acts outside the scope of a conspiracy cannot bind his coconspirators B. holding that once a defendant becomes associated with a conspiracy he is responsible for all of the acts of the conspiracy even those which occurred before or after his association with the conspiracy C. holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that an oral agreement existed and that it was not modified D. holding that evidence was sufficient for jury to find that the defendant participated in the conspiracy even though he did not have a relationship with all of his fellow coconspirators E. holding the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it may find the defendant guilty if the jury found the defendant had conspired with the two coconspirators named in the indictment or both of them or others where evidence tended to show a conspiracy between the defendant and some person other than the named coconspirators

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that evidence was sufficient for jury to find that the defendant participated in the conspiracy even though he did not have a relationship with all of his fellow coconspirators
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 proceeds of the Bridge Loan shall be used to support the Reeves County Drilling Program and general working capital needs of the Borrower and no payments will be made to repay indebtedness owed to affiliates of the Borrower unless and until the Bridge Loan Notes have been repaid in full.

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: This Agreement together with the several agreements and other documents and instruments referred to herein or therein or attached hereto or thereto, embody the complete agreement and understanding among the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede and preempt any prior understandings, agreements or representations by or among the parties, written and oral, that may have related to the subject matter hereof in any way.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: articles and bylaws, including stock transfer restriction agreements, constitute a contract between the shareholders themselves and between the corporation and the shareholders. See id. at 445. It is not a contract with the world at large. In order to be bound by such an agreement, an outside party must have notice of the restrictions. Id. at 446. See also Kelley, Glover & Vale v. Heitman, 220 Ind. 625, 685, 44 N.E.2d 981, 985 (1942) (enforcing validity of corporate note allegedly executed in violation of corporate bylaws and holding, “[pjersons who are not members or officers of a corporation are not affected in any of their rights by corporate by-laws of which they have no notice.”), cerf. denied; State ex rel. Koons v. First Nat’l Bank of Jeffersonville, 89 Ind. 302, 310 (1883) (<HOLDING>). A business’s internal bylaws or operating Options: A. holding that after the sale of stock former shareholders have no standing to file a claim against the corporation B. holding trial court erred in ordering that in event wife failed to pay equalization judgment to husband court clerk could automatically enter judgment against wife and order sale of stock in closelyheld family business C. holding stock transfer restriction in corporate bylaws did not prevent levy against and sale of stock by third party in order to pay judgment D. holding in action for breach of contract caused by wrongful foreclosure and sale of shares of stock plaintiff was entitled to recover the fair market value of the stock at the time of its sale E. holding transfer restriction granted right of first refusal in event of voluntary or involuntary transfer of stock

assistant: The best answer is C. holding stock transfer restriction in corporate bylaws did not prevent levy against and sale of stock by third party in order to pay judgment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in having preferred vanity plates if she does not receive a hearing before the plates are revoked. It will ordinarily be apparent on the face of a vanity plate whether it is “offensive ... to the general public.” Vr. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, § 304(d). Accordingly, it is only the rare case — in which there is room for genuine factual dispute as to the sensibilities of the “general public” — in which a pre-revocation hearing will reduce the risk of an erroneous deprivation of particular vanity plates. In short, applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test to the circumstances presented here, we conclude that the Due Process Clause did not vest Perry with a right to a hearing before her vanity plates were revoked. Cf., e.g., Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977) (<HOLDING>); Sutton v. City of Milwaukee, 672 F.2d 644 Options: A. holding insufficient officers advisement that defendants license may be suspended if he refused to submit to breath test when statute mandates that license will be suspended for refusal of chemical test B. holding that officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a vehicle stop where official license and registration records reflected that the vehicle was registered to a driver with a revoked license C. holding motorist entitled to hearing before taking his license under statute that required loss of license if uninsured driver involved in an accident D. holding a drivers license may be summarily suspended before any hearing has been provided where official records show that a particular driver has an ex traordinarily poor driving record E. holding that probable cause existed to arrest for driving on a suspended license under state law

assistant: The best answer is D. holding a drivers license may be summarily suspended before any hearing has been provided where official records show that a particular driver has an ex traordinarily poor driving record
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 by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada applicable to contracts made and to be performed in such state without giving effect to its principles of conflicts of laws. The Company and Indemnitee hereby irrevocably and unconditionally: (a) agree that any action or proceeding arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be brought only in the Nevada Court and not in any other state or federal court in the United States, (b) consent to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Nevada Court for purposes of any action or proceeding arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, and (c) waive, and agree not to plead or make, any claim that the Nevada Court lacks venue or that any such action or proceeding brought in the Nevada Court has been brought in an improper or inconvenient forum.

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: Any provision of this Agreement that is prohibited or unenforceable in any jurisdiction shall, as to such jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or unenforceability without invalidating the remaining provisions hereof, and any such prohibition or unenforceability in any jurisdiction shall not invalidate or render unenforceable such provision in any other jurisdiction.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the question is whether a reasonable jury could find that a person in the Gardenhires’ position would have felt free to leave. We agree with the district court’s analysis in concluding that a jury could find that a reasonable person in the Gardenhires’ position would not have felt free to leave. The undisputed facts the district court considered were that Chief Schubert: (1) told the Gardenhires at their residence they “needed to go” to the police station; (2) read them their Miranda rights at the police station; (3) questioned the Gardenhires extensively at the police station; (4) told the Garde unter intensified with the time the Gardenhires spent there and the fact that Chief Schubert read them their Miranda rights. See United States v. Obasa, 15 F.3d 603, 608 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The most compelling factor may be Officer Options: A. holding miranda inapplicable because defendant not in custody B. 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 C. holding that miranda warnings do not have to be given in the exact form stated in the miranda opinion as long as an effective equivalent is given D. holding defendant was in custody under miranda while being detained under terry E. holding police officer knew that miranda rights are required to be given only to individuals who are in custody and although giving miranda warnings to a detainee may not automatically convert a terry stop into an arrest it is evidence that the nature of the detention has grown more serious

assistant: The best answer is E. holding police officer knew that miranda rights are required to be given only to individuals who are in custody and although giving miranda warnings to a detainee may not automatically convert a terry stop into an arrest it is evidence that the nature of the detention has grown more serious
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: 537 A.2d at 339). On cross-examination,. a fact-witness may be questioned with respect to any publication in the field that he considers generally reliable and the evidence is admissible to challenge the witness’s credibility, but the writing cannot be admitted for the truth of the matter asserted. Majdic, mi A.2d at 339. Excerpts from a publication which are read into evidence for the purpose of proving the truth of the statements contained therein are still hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible. This fact is not changed merely because the document is read into evidence by the witness instead of being received as an exhibit for inspection by the jury. It is the purpose for which the information is offered, not the manner in which is introduced, which makes it objectionable.. Id. at 340 (<HOLDING>). Upon a party’s request, the trial court shall Options: A. holding that trial court did not err B. holding that trial court erred in prohibiting discovery or testimony from a witness it deemed an expert when appellant merely sought to discover facts that were observed by the witness C. holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony D. holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting gangrelated evidence E. holding trial court did not err by prohibiting expert witness from reading contents of treatises into evidence and by not admitting treatises into evidence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding trial court did not err by prohibiting expert witness from reading contents of treatises into evidence and by not admitting treatises into evidence
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: child. Cohen reasoned that if a set-off of social security benefits had been intended, provision therefor should have been made in the settlement agreement which required child support. Similarly, in the case before us, if the intentions of the parties had been to permit a set-off for social security payments, the settlement agreement should have so provided. See Craver v. Craver, 649 S.W.2d 440 (Mo.1983) (refusing to permit, as a matter of law, a set-off of social security payments to the wife drawn on the husband’s account against support payments owed by the husband). We are cognizant of the husband’s argument that the wife waived her right to full alimony by not objecting to the reduced payments for approximately fifteen months. See Stephenson v. Stephenson, 52 So.2d 684 (Fla.1951) (<HOLDING>). But waiver is the intentional relinquishment Options: A. holding waiver did not preclude rule 32d motion challenging validity of waiver due to ineffective assistance of counsel B. holding class action waiver to be enforceable under section 2 of the faa notwithstanding claim that waiver was unconscionable under state law C. holding that the waiver in two previous contracts was insufficient to support waiver of the contract at issue in that appeal D. recognizing that courts will enforce waiver of appeal rights when waiver is knowing and voluntary E. recognizing waiver by acquiescence as a possible defense to an action for past due alimony but finding no waiver under the facts presented

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing waiver by acquiescence as a possible defense to an action for past due alimony but finding no waiver under the facts presented
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 MSC and Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 38.001. Under general maritime law a prevailing party is not entitled to recover attorney's fees absent some statutory authorization or contractual provision. Noritake Co., Inc. v. M/V Hellenic Champion, 627 F.2d 724, 730 (5 th Cir.1980). See also Natco Ltd. Partnership v. Moran Towing, 267 F.3d 1190, 1193 (11th Cir.2001) ("Attorneys’ fees generally are not recoverable in admiralty unless (1) they are provided by the statute governing the claim, (2) the nonprevailing party acted in bad faith in the course of the litigation, or (3) there is a contract providing for the indemnification of attorneys’ fees.” (citing Noritake, at 730-31 & n. 5); Texas A & M Research Foundation v. Magna Transp., Inc., 338 F.3d 394, 405 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>) ("Maritime disputes generally are governed by Options: A. holding that wrongful death actions asserted under admiralty jurisdiction lie under general maritime law for death caused by violation of maritime duties and are not limited to standards of liability created by state law B. holding that general maritime law preempts state law C. holding that the general rule of maritime law that parties bear their own costs coupled with the need for uniformity in federal maritime law precludes the application of state attorneys fee statutes such as texas civ prac remcode 38001 to maritime contract disputes D. holding that uniformity is as important in maritime survival actions as it is in maritime wrongful death actions E. recognizing products liability concepts as part of general maritime law

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the general rule of maritime law that parties bear their own costs coupled with the need for uniformity in federal maritime law precludes the application of state attorneys fee statutes such as texas civ prac remcode 38001 to maritime contract disputes