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: “spoliation” of evidence, see Continental Ins. Co. v. Herman, 576 So.2d 313, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), we decline the Perezes’ invitation to further extend this implied exception to employer immunity. We reach this conclusion for three reasons. First, the purpose of a spoliation claim generally is not served by permitting suit where no notice is given. The genesis of the cause of action was the need to deter the recalcitrant defendant who attempts to unfairly deprive a plaintiff and court access to damning evidence. See Humana Worker’s Comp. v. Home Emergency Servs., 842 So.2d 778, 781 (Fla.2003)(“Negligent spoliation of evidence is a tort claim based on a defendant’s breach of a duty to preserve evidence.”); Lincoln Ins. Co. v. Home Emergency Servs., 812 So.2d 433, 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)(<HOLDING>). In fact, barring the rare case where the Options: A. recognizing that the loss or destruction of evidence may seriously impair a partys ability to present its case B. recognizing cause of action C. recognizing cause of action for loss of consortium D. recognizing spoliation as an independent cause of action for negligence where a party is unable to prove its case due to the loss or destruction of key evidence E. recognizing the cause of action

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing spoliation as an independent cause of action for negligence where a party is unable to prove its case due to the loss or destruction of key 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the Employment Term, the Executive shall serve as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and as member of the Board of Directors, reporting directly to the Board of Directors of the Company (the “ Board ”). For purposes of this Agreement, it is expressly recognized that the Board may delegate its authority in a particular matter to one or more committees of the Board, including but not limited to the Compensation Committee of the Board (the “ Compensation Committee ”), as provided by the governing documents of the Company. In such position, the Executive shall have such duties, authority and responsibility as are consistent with the Executive’s position, including, without limitation supervising operations and management of the Company and its subsidiaries.

assistant: Positions
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: “inherent power” to discipline attorneys. See In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 643, 105 S.Ct. 2874, 86 L.Ed.2d 504 ( ral courts are free to exercise jurisdiction over all claims against attorneys that have practiced in front of them in the name of discipline, even if those claims relate to their practice of law. To allow such an expansive reach of federal jurisdiction would be contrary to the well-established maxim that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g.; Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673. Even if ancillary jurisdiction were possible through Zeisl’s tangential relationship to the German Foundation Agreement, the district court would have abused its discretion if it chose to exercise it. See Chesley v. Union Carbide Corp., 927 F.2d 60, 64, 65-66 (2d Cir.1991)(<HOLDING>). For these reasons, I would affirm the Options: A. holding that issue concerning forum non conveniens decision was not suitable for interlocutory appeal in part because a forum non conveniens decision is inherently factsensitive B. holding that a district court may dismiss based on forum non conveniens without first addressing personal jurisdiction C. holding that although a dismissal of the underlying litigation on forum non conveniens grounds did not automatically preclude the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction over a subsequent claim for attorneys fees exercise of such jurisdiction would nonetheless be an abuse of discretion where international comity required the district court to refrain from consideration of the claims D. holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion E. holding that a district court has discretion to grant a defendants forum non conveniens motion to transfer before disposing of any other threshold challenges

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that although a dismissal of the underlying litigation on forum non conveniens grounds did not automatically preclude the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction over a subsequent claim for attorneys fees exercise of such jurisdiction would nonetheless be an abuse of discretion where international comity required the district court to refrain from consideration of the claims
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: See Gearren, 660 F.3d at 610. 2. Alleged Misstatements Plaintiffs allege Morgan Stanley and Jamesley communicated with Plan participants through “SEC filings, annual reports, press releases and Plan documents ..., which included and/or reiterated . these statements.” (Compl. ¶ 243.) The SEC filings were incorporated into the SPDs and Form S-8 registration statements. (Compl. ¶ 243.) These communications, Plaintiffs allege, were actionable misstatements. (Compl. ¶¶ 245-47.) With respect to Morgan Stanley, Plaintiffs’ argument fails becáuse the Company was not “a Plan administrator responsible for communicating with Plan participants, [and] therefore [did not] act[] as a Plan fiduciary when making the statements at issue.” Citigroup, 662 F.3d at 143-44; Gearren, 660 F.3d at 611 (<HOLDING>); Fisher, 469 Fed.Appx. at 60. Accordingly, Options: A. holding that erisa does not preempt the plaintiffs claim that the erisa plan administrator is liable for medical malpractice where the plaintiff premised the claim solely on state law and did not invoke the erisa plan B. holding defendants were not liable under erisa because the alleged misstatements were made while acting in a corporate rather than erisa fiduciary capacity C. holding that employer was acting as erisa fiduciary when it misled employees regarding security of their benefits D. holding that because an erisa plan is not a participant beneficiary or fiduciary subject matter jurisdiction did not exist under 502e of erisa over a suit brought by such a plan E. holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans

assistant: The best answer is B. holding defendants were not liable under erisa because the alleged misstatements were made while acting in a corporate rather than erisa fiduciary capacity
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: 134 L.Ed.2d 440 (1996) (discussing the importance of imposing standards governing disposition of habeas applications before district courts because of the complex issues involved) (citing McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991)). Commentators agree with this assessment. It is axiomatic that the complexity of habeas proceedings “makes it unlikely that capital defendants will' be" able to file successful petitions for collateral relief without the assistance of persons learned in the law.” McFarland, 512 U.S. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 2572 (emphasis added) (quoting Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1, 14, 109 S.Ct. 2765, 2772, 106 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (Kennedy, J., joined by O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment)). See also Lonchar, — U.S. at-, 116 S.Ct. at 1302 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). Section 2261 reflects this Options: A. holding no right to counsel for capital defendants in state habeas proceedings B. holding that even capital prisoners have no constitutional right to counsel in habeas cases C. holding that in general aedpa applies only to habeas petitions filed after the statutes effective date of april 24 1996 and noting that aedpas special procedures for 28 usc 2254 petitions in capital cases apply also to petitions pending on april 24 1996 D. recognizing the common practice of substituting specialized capital counsel for habeas petitions filed by capital defendants E. holding that the right applies at capital sentencing in particular

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing the common practice of substituting specialized capital counsel for habeas petitions filed by capital defendants
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No modification or amendment to this Agreement or any Order shall be effected by or result from the receipt, acceptance, signing or acknowledgement of any purchase order, quotation, invoice, shipping document or other business form containing terms or conditions different from those set forth in this Agreement or any Order, and all such additional terms and conditions are hereby specifically rejected by both Parties.

assistant: Amendments
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 costs and expenses (including, but not limited to, attorneys’ fees) incurred by the Executive in investigating, defending, being a witness in, appealing or otherwise participating in any threatened or pending claim or any threatened or pending action, suit or proceeding described in Section 7.1 shall, at the written request of the Executive, be paid by the Company in advance of final judgment or settlement with the understanding, undertaking and agreement hereby made and entered into by the Executive and the Company that the Executive shall, if it is ultimately determined in accordance with Section 7.2 or pursuant to Section 7.10 that the Executive is not entitled to be indemnified, or was not entitled to be fully indemnified, repay to the Company such amount, or the appropriate portion thereof, so paid or advanced. Such advancements shall be made within ten business days of written request therefor by the Executive.

assistant: Expenses
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: exception in Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996)(“We conclude, then, that a federal court’s examination of whether a factor can ever be an appropriate basis for departure is limited to determining whether the Commission has proscribed, as a categorical matter, consideration of the factor. If the answer is no — as it will be most of the time — the sentencing court must determine whether the factor, as occurring in the particular circumstances, takes the case outside the heartland of the applicable Guideline.”) Moreover, what little case law there is on the subject makes clear that district courts can depart downward on the basis of factors relating to immigration-related factors. See, e.g., United States v. Farouil, 124 F.3d 838 (7th Cir.1997)(<HOLDING>); United States v. Charry Cubillos, 91 F.3d Options: A. holding that deportable alien status is not a ground for departing downward B. holding that the district court could consider increased sentence severity resulting from deportable alien status C. holding that the district court cannot be faulted for failing sua sponte to also address whether the defendants deportable status would affect the severity of his sentence D. holding that defendants status as a deportable alien could be considered by the district court at sentencing E. holding that departure based on deportable alien status was prohibited

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the district court could consider increased sentence severity resulting from deportable alien status
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: health did not warrant a variance. The record, however, does not support this claim. As for Byars’s claim that he was old, the district court simply disagreed and told Byars that he was “not that old.” Doc. 45 (Sent. Hr’g Tr. (7/21/09) at 12). Furthermore, it is clear from the record that the distl'iet court considered Byars’s poor health, cited Byars’s need for medical treatment as one of its rationales for the sentence it chose, and recommended that Byars receive a medical evaluation once in custody. When a district court’s sentence is crafted in such a way that it explicitly accommodates factors to which the defendant has drawn attention, it is difficult to claim that the district court failed to respond to those factors. See United States v. Liou, 491 F.3d 334, 340 (6th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Byars further argues that the district court Options: A. holding that the district court did not commit plain error in admitting physical evidence of the defendants prior drug arrest in addition to the fact of the arrest itself when the evidence was relevant under rule 404b and the district court gave a limiting instruction B. holding that a district court should decide a motion for expedited discovery on the entirety of the record to date and the reasonableness of the request in light of all the surrounding circumstances unless the circumstances are such that the notaro factors apply C. holding that district court adequately responded to the defendants emphasis on his family circumstances when the district court gave the defendant sixty days to selfreport in order to accommodate those circumstances D. holding that an exception to the general rule applied when counsel asked the court whether its ruling was the final order of the court and the court responded yes E. recognizing that an order denying a motion to modify a family court order where the motion is based on changed factual or legal circumstances is appealable as a special order after final judgment

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that district court adequately responded to the defendants emphasis on his family circumstances when the district court gave the defendant sixty days to selfreport in order to accommodate those circumstances
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 shall not, without the prior written consent of the Company or as may otherwise be required by law or any legal process, or as is necessary in connection with any adversarial proceeding against any member of the Company Affiliated Group (in which case the Executive shall cooperate with the Company in obtaining a protective order at the Company's expense against disclosure by a court of competent jurisdiction), communicate, to anyone other than the Company and those designated by the Company or on behalf of the Company in the furtherance of its business, any trade secrets, confidential information, knowledge or data relating to any member of the Company Affiliated Group, obtained by the Executive during the Executive's employment by the Company that is not generally available public knowledge (other than acts by the Executive in violation of this General Release). This confidentiality obligation is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other contractual, statutory and common law confidentiality obligation of the Executive to the Company.

assistant: Confidentiality
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: if they are clearly erroneous. State v. Cuffle, 171 Ariz. 49, 51, 828 P.2d 773, 775 (1992). Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.8(d) requires a court to “make specific findings of fact, and .,. state ejquessly its conclusions of law relating to each issue presented.” See State v. Tankersley, 211 Ariz. 323, 324, 121 P.3d 829, 830 (2005). Unfortunately, the PCR court made few specific findings and failed to connect them to its conclusions on many of the issues presented. The court failed to make findings for some claims at all. Most problematic, the PCR court did not explain how Pandeli suffered prejudice from any of the acts or omissions it deemed to constitute IAC or to violate due process. Cf. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (<HOLDING>). As a result, our ordinary deference to the Options: A. recognizing prejudice as an element for an iac claim B. holding that prejudice or injury is a necessary element of standing C. holding the connection is an element D. recognizing as an element of pain and suffering E. holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing prejudice as an element for an iac claim
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 of the Company and each of its Restricted Subsidiaries is in compliance with (i) all applicable Laws applicable to the conduct of its business and the ownership of its property and (ii) all contracts and agreements to which it is a party, in each case, except such non-compliance as (x) has not had (unless same has ceased to exist in all respects) and (y) is not reasonably likely to, individually or in the aggregate, have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: 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: 731 F.3d 678, 686 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 323, 129 S.Ct. 781, 172 L.Ed.2d 694 (2009)). Such a frisk is lawful only When the officer has some articulable suspicion that the subject might be armed and dangerous. Id. As we just explained, by the time Agent Reynolds encountered Thompson, he clearly had reason to believe that Thompson was participating in a drug trafficking operation. Based on that belief, it was reasonable for Agent Reynolds to suspect that Thompson was armed because guns are known tools of the drug trade, as our cases have recognized. See, e.g., United States v. Gulley, 722 F.3d 901, 909 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[I]t is widely known that guns and drugs go hand in hand.”); see also United States v. Askew, 403 F.3d 496, 507 (7th Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Agent Reynolds knew that Thompson Options: A. holding that guns were properly admitted to prove intent to distribute drugs because it has uniformly been recognized that substantial dealers in narcotics possess firearms and that such weapons are as much tools of the trade as more commonly recognized drug paraphernalia B. recognizing the connection between guns and drug trafficking C. recognizing the inherent danger in stopping those suspected of drug trafficking for which guns are known tools of the trade D. holding that because violence and danger are inherent in drug trafficking activity the court can reasonably infer that the informant cooperated under an implied assurance of confidentiality E. recognizing firearms as common tools of the drug trade

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing the inherent danger in stopping those suspected of drug trafficking for which guns are known tools of the trade
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, NEITHER PARTY MAKES ANY REPRESENTATIONS OR EXTENDS ANY WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH RESPECT TO ANY SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING ANY PRODUCTS OR ANY SERVICES RENDERED HEREUNDER, OR ANY TECHNOLOGY, MATERIALS OR INFORMATION THAT MAY BE PROVIDED HEREUNDER OR USED IN SUCH SERVICES OR INCORPORATED INTO SUCH PRODUCTS.

assistant: Warranties
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: Subject to the conditions of this Section 3 , the amendment and restatement of the Prior Loan Agreement shall become effective on the Amendment Date contemporaneously with the execution hereof (the “ Closing ”) subject, however, to the prior or simultaneous closing of Borrower’s sale of its CTS Business for a cash purchase price of not less than $54,000,000 on terms previously represented to Lenders.

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: several claims of error are without merit or have been waived, there is no cumulative error. ¶ 25 WE CONCUR: MICHAEL J. WILKINS, Presiding Judge and NORMAN H. JACKSON, Judge. 1 . This Amended Opinion replaces the Opinion issued on December 10, 1998, in Case No. 971200-CA. 2 . "Precursor" can be one of several ingredients necessary for the production of methamphetamine. 3 . See United States v. Smith, 3 F.3d 1088, 1098 (7th Cir.1993) ("We have held that a consent to search is not a self-incriminating statement, and. therefore, does not amount to interrogation. This view comports with the view taken by every court of appeals to address the issue.”), cert. denied, Smith v. United States, 510 U.S. 1061, 114 S.Ct. 733, 126 L.Ed.2d 696 (1994); Cody v. Solem, 755 F.2d 1323, 1329 (8th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 833, 106 S.Ct. 104, 88 Options: A. holding that a consent to search is not an interrogation within the meaning of miranda B. holding that the first amendment protects communicative aspects of video games C. holding miranda violation does not vitiate voluntary consent D. holding fifth amendment prohibits comment on accuseds testimonial silence E. holding miranda violation does not invalidate consent to search as fifth amendment only protects testimonial and communicative evidence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding miranda violation does not invalidate consent to search as fifth amendment only protects testimonial and communicative 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party irrevocably and unconditionally waives any right it may have to a trial by jury in respect of any legal action arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby.

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: savings fund is his separate property. This court has long held that as a general rule, all property accumulated and acquired by either spouse during the marriage is part of the marital estate. See, generally, Davidson v. Davidson, 254 Neb. 656, 578 N.W.2d 848 (1998). Terry argues that because he brought the savings fund into the marriage, the savings fund was solely in his name, and he made the deposits to the savings fund, the entirety of the savings fund belongs to him. We disagree. Terry’s argument ignores the fact that during the parties’ marriage, the savings fund grew as a result of income Terry earned during the parties’ marriage. Terry’s income which accumulated during the parties’ marriage was a marital asset. Compare, Meints v. Meints, 258 Neb. 1017, 608 N.W.2d 564 (2000) (<HOLDING>); Parde v. Parde, 258 Neb. 101, 602 N.W.2d 657 Options: A. holding that separate property may become marital property if spouse donates it to marital unit with intent at time of donation that property become marital B. holding income tax liability incurred during marriage is one of accepted costs of producing marital income and should be treated as marital debt for purposes of determining equitable distribution of marital estate C. holding that in determining whether a substantial change of circumstances has occurred trial court must consider income available to parents new marital community D. holding trial court had no authority to award portion of the marital property to wifes children from another marriage even though money they received by way of social security benefits were commingled with the marital estate and used in part for the aequisition of marital property E. holding that circuit court erred in failing to consider that marital property in the form of marital earnings was used to pay debt against nonmarital property

assistant: The best answer is B. holding income tax liability incurred during marriage is one of accepted costs of producing marital income and should be treated as marital debt for purposes of determining equitable distribution of marital estate
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: We cannot say that the trial court’s best-interest finding was clearly erroneous. Despite the court’s orders | sand the fact that the case was moving toward termination, Wafford' did not obtain separate living arrangements. Both parents admitted to being long-time drug abusers, and Miles did not submit to drug treatment. Two of their children were born with drugs in their systems, and the other child was medically neglected in his first year of life. Neither parent completed parenting classes or counseling, Wafford had no income, and Miles was facing incarceration. A parent’s lack of stable housing or employment can demonstrate potential harm to a child,'as can a parent’s continued illegal-drug usage. Jung v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2014 Ark. App. 523, 443 S.W.3d 555 (<HOLDING>). Miles also challenges each of the grounds for Options: A. holding that while there was some evidence that jung was recently employed and sober at the time of the hearing there was insufficient proof that given her history she could maintain employment or sobriety B. holding although there was some evidence plaintiff subjectively believed conduct he reported violated the law there was legally insufficient evidence this belief was reasonable C. holding that the employee was acting within the course of her employment when she died while returning from the workrelated session because her death occurred on a public highway which was brought within the scope of her employment by her employers requirement that she attend training at the state police academy D. recognizing that the necessary inquiry is not whether there was a warrant or whether there was time to get one but whether there was probable cause for the arrest E. holding that although there was evidence of discrimination based on race there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of constructive discharge

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that while there was some evidence that jung was recently employed and sober at the time of the hearing there was insufficient proof that given her history she could maintain employment or sobriety
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 will be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of the State of Delaware as applicable to contracts made and to be performed in the State of Delaware, without regard to conflicts of laws principles. The Parties hereby submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state or federal courts located in the County of New Castle, City of Wilmington, State of Delaware (United States of America) in respect of any proceeding related to or arising out of this Agreement, including any proceeding involving the interpretation or enforcement of the provisions within this Agreement, and the Parties hereby waive, and agree not to assert, any defense in any such action, suit or proceeding, that they are not subject thereto or that such action, suit or proceeding may not be brought or is not maintainable in such courts or that the Agreement may not be enforced in or by such courts or that their property is exempt or immune from execution, that such suit, action or proceeding is brought in an inconvenient forum, or that the venue of such suit, action or proceeding is improper.

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: Employee accepts this Award subject to all the terms and provisions of the Plan and this Agreement. The undersigned Employee hereby accepts as binding, conclusive and final all decisions or interpretations of the Committee upon any questions arising under the Plan and this Agreement.

assistant: Interpretations
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 Transferor has filed or caused to be filed all U.S. federal income tax returns and all other material returns, statements, forms and reports for taxes, domestic or foreign, required to be filed by it and has paid all taxes payable by it which have become due or any assessments made against it or any of its property and all other material taxes, fees or other charges imposed on it or any of its property by any Governmental Authority, except to the extent that such taxes are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and for which such reserves or other appropriate provisions, if any, as are required by generally accepted accounting principles shall have been made.

assistant: Taxes
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: demonstrates the officers’ actions in maliciously procuring the disorderly conduct complaint. Upon review of the record, the court finds no support for plaintiffs contentions. Plaintiff had adequate due process in the form of both a municipal and district court trial. In each of these venues, plaintiff had the ability, through her counsel, to cross-examine witnesses and test their veracity. At most, plaintiff has demonstrated that some of the witnesses had varying points of view concerning the incident. This does not, however, demonstrate perjury. State v. Barker, 18 Kan.App.2d 292, 294, 851 P.2d 394, 396 (1993) (perjury cannot be established by one person’s testimony countering another person’s testimony); see also Dukes v. State of New York, 743 F.Supp. 1037, 1042 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, plaintiff advances no facts to Options: A. holding that allegations of perjury require a demonstration that the witnesses actually committed perjury B. holding that hospitalization of witnesss wife and his desire to be by her side was not a substantial basis for admitting witnesss testimony from first trial C. holding that uncorroborated testimony of one witness is sufficient by itself to sustain a conviction D. holding that a trial witnesss testimony as to the credibility of another witness was prejudicial error E. holding that fact that one witnesss testimony is at odds with testimony of another witness does not supply a sufficient basis for allegations of perjury

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that fact that one witnesss testimony is at odds with testimony of another witness does not supply a sufficient basis for allegations of perjury
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 Agreement shall become effective on the Effective Date with the Commencement Date occurring as provided in Section 2.3 above. This Agreement, subject to Section 3.2 , shall continue for a period ending at 11:59:59 p.m., EST on June 30, 2020 (the “ Term ”; the last day of such Term being herein referred to as the “ Expiration Date ,” except as provided in Section 3.2 below).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: A base salary (the "Base Salary"), at the initial annual rate of not less than [Dollar Amount] ($[_______]) will be paid to the Executive in regular installments in accordance with the Company's designated payroll schedule.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, the Company, by written notice to the Executive, shall at all times have the right to terminate this Agreement and the Executive’s employment hereunder if the Executive shall, as the result of mental or physical incapacity, illness, or disability, fail to perform her duties and responsibilities provided for herein for a period of more than 90 consecutive days in any 12-month period. Upon any termination pursuant to this Section 3.2 , the Executive shall be entitled to be paid her Base Salary through the date of termination within ten days after such termination (or on such earlier date as may be required by applicable law) and the Company shall have no further liability hereunder (other than for reimbursement for reasonable business expenses incurred prior to the date of termination and any rights the Executive and/or the Executive’s family may have under the terms of the welfare benefit plans described in Section 2.5 ).

assistant: Disability
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: Without limiting the other provisions of this Agreement, if at any time during the period between the date of this Agreement and the Effective Time, any change in the capital stock of DSKX shall occur solely by reason of any reclassification, recapitalization, stock split (including any reverse stock split) or combination, exchange or readjustment of shares, or any stock dividend or distribution paid in stock, the DSKX Merger Shares and any other amounts payable pursuant to this Agreement shall be appropriately adjusted to reflect such change.

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: On rehearing, the panel certified an issue related to its holding as one of exceptional importance that should be addressed by the supreme court, and also noted a possible conflict with Winter v. State, 781 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), disapproved on other grounds, Carbajal v. State, 75 So.3d 258, 260 (Fla.2011). The supreme court ultimately dismissed review of King as improvidently granted (by unpublished order). King v. State, 820 So.2d 941 (Fla.2002). 5 . We note that if the facts supporting OSP's authority are disputed, a pretrial evidentiary hearing may be required. Although the Flori da Rules of Criminal Procedure do not expressly provide for evidentiary hearings on motions to dismiss, the supreme court has authorized the procedure. See Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456 (Fla.2010) (<HOLDING>). SAWAYA, J., concurring in part, dissenting in Options: A. holding that a hearing officer may not quash a subpoena for a fact witness pursuant to section 32226152 florida statutes and rule 15a60135 florida administrative code and the defense has the absolute right to subpoena other witnesses to testify as to whether or not the defendant exhibited any signs of impairment at or near the time of arrest B. holding a trial court commits fundamental error by failing to follow florida rule of juvenile procedure 8150 the juvenile rule equivalent of florida rule of criminal procedure 3830 C. holding that a defendant claiming immunity pursuant to section 7760321 florida statutes must file a motion to dismiss pursuant to florida rule of criminal procedure 3190b and requiring trial court to address the motion at a pretrial evidentiary hearing D. holding that pursuant to florida rule of criminal procedure 3050 the court may extend the sixtyday time limit for a motion to mitigate sentence as long as the motion to mitigate is resolved within a reasonable time E. holding that argument was not preserved where defendant did not file a pretrial motion to suppress and did not object or make a motion to exclude the evidence until his motion to dismiss at the close of all of the evidence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a defendant claiming immunity pursuant to section 7760321 florida statutes must file a motion to dismiss pursuant to florida rule of criminal procedure 3190b and requiring trial court to address the motion at a pretrial evidentiary hearing
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: police tactics that may burden the public — for all suspects (even the guilty ones) may protect themselves fully by declining to answer. Nor do the questions forcibly invade any privacy interest or extract information without the suspects’ consent. United States v. Childs, 277 F.3d 947, 954 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 829, 123 S.Ct. 126, 154 L.Ed.2d 43 (2002). In this case, after Burton gave Officer Davidson a valid driver’s license, he was asked only a handful of questions, including whether he would consent to a search of the automobile. The record pro vides no reason to suspect either that these questions were unusually intrusive or that asking them made this traffic stop any more coercive than a typical traffic stop. Robinette, 519 U.S. at 39, 117 S.Ct. 417 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Erwin, 155 F.3d 818, 822-23 Options: A. holding defendant gave a valid and knowing consent to a search of his dwelling and automobile when he agreed to the terms of probation B. holding that a reasonable investigation of a traffic stop typically includes asking for a license and registration asking the driver to sit in the patrol car and asking about destination and purpose of travel C. holding that a detained defendants consent to search his car was voluntary even though the police did not tell him he was free to leave D. holding that except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his drivers license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the fourth amendment E. holding that asking a detained motorist whether he would consent to a search of his automobile for contraband even after he had produced a valid drivers license did not necessarily make the traffic stop unreasonable in scope or duration

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that asking a detained motorist whether he would consent to a search of his automobile for contraband even after he had produced a valid drivers license did not necessarily make the traffic stop unreasonable in scope or duration
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: Unless otherwise indicated in this Agreement or any other Credit Document, each term set forth below, when used in this Agreement or any other Credit Document, shall have the respective meaning given to that term below or in the provision of this Agreement or other document, instrument or agreement referenced below.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company may assign any of its rights under this RSU Agreement. This RSU Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the Company. Subject to the restrictions on transfer set forth herein, this RSU Agreement will be binding upon you and your heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors and assigns.

assistant: Miscellaneous
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 Agreement is held to be invalid, void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity or unenforceability of that provision shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement, and all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect.

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: 15, 17, 20-21, 27, 31. As the foregoing passages make clear, West Virginia’s allegations and arguments about political accountability do not pertain only to the merits of its challenge to the Administrative Fix. Rather, those allegations and arguments go to the very heart of its asserted basis for standing, to which the court now turns. B. Injury to Political Accountability as Injury-In-Fact To successfully allege injury-in-fact, a plaintiff must contend that it has suffered “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized ... and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (citation oerced, or even allegedly coerced, by the federal government. See, e.g., New York, 505 U.S. at 161, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (<HOLDING>). Instead, West Virginia’s claimed injury, at Options: A. holding that congress may not direct a state to enact or enforce a particular law or type of law B. holding that states may regulate all professions concerned with health C. recognizing that the states have a cognizableinterest in whether congress may direct or otherwise motivate the states to regulate in a particular field or a particular way D. holding that where concurrent jurisdiction exists claim may be removed unless congress states otherwise E. holding that upon approval by congress a compact between states becomes federal law that binds the states

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that the states have a cognizableinterest in whether congress may direct or otherwise motivate the states to regulate in a particular field or a particular way
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: costs in the trial court on March 27, 2012. Analysis Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code governs inmate litigation when the inmate claims inability to pay costs. In its 2011 session, the Texas Legislature amended Chapter 14. Prior to the amendments, Chapter 14 “applie[d] only to a suit brought by an inmate in a district, county, justice of the peace, or small claims court in which an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs [was] filed by the inmate.” In its pre-amended state, it was clear that “Chapter 14 [did] not apply to appellate courts.” Nabelek v. Garrett, 94 S.W.3d 648, 649 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. dism’d w.o.j.); see Jackson v. Tex. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 178 S.W.3d 272, 277 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). The amendments to Chapter 14 became effective Options: A. holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim alleged to be cause for the procedural default of other claims is itself an independent claim subject to the procedural requirements of exhaustion B. holding that court had no obligation to inform pro se litigant of procedural requirements due to clear evidence in record including inter alia defendants mention of requirements in summary judgment motion that litigant knew requirements C. holding that remand was necessary when the alj failed to adhere to 4041527d2s procedural requirements and noting that a de minimis violation of those procedural requirements may qualify as harmless error D. holding procedural requirements of section 14004 inapplicable to appellate filings E. holding frady inapplicable

assistant: The best answer is D. holding procedural requirements of section 14004 inapplicable to appellate filings
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 obligations imposed by Paragraphs 3-6, above, of this letter agreement are severable and should be construed independently of each other. The invalidity of one such provision shall not affect the validity of any other such provision. If any provision if Paragraphs 3-6 shall be invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, or as applied to any circumstance, under the laws of any jurisdiction which may govern for such purpose, then such provision shall be deemed to be modified or restricted to the extent and in the manner necessary to render the same valid and enforceable, either generally or as applied to such circumstance, or shall be deemed excised from this letter agreement, as the case may require, and this letter agreement shall be construed and enforced to the maximum extent permitted by law, as if such provision had been originally incorporated herein as so modified or restricted, or as if such provision had not been originally incorporated herein, as the case may be.

assistant: Severability