flwrlabs/fed-legal huggingface dataset:
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices and other communications hereunder shall be sufficient if in writing and sent (a) by facsimile transmission (providing confirmation of transmission) or e-mail of a pdf attachment (provided that any notice received by facsimile or e-mail transmission or otherwise at the addressee’s location on any business day after 5:00 p.m. (New York City time) shall be deemed to have been received at 9:00 a.m. (New York City time) on the next business day), or (b) by reliable overnight delivery service (with proof of service), hand delivery or certified or registered mail (return receipt requested and first-class postage prepaid). Notices to the Initial Purchasers shall be directed to Barclays Capital Inc., 745 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York 10019, Attention: Syndicate Registration, Facsimile: (646) 834-8133, E-mail: barclaysprospectus@broadridge.com; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, 50 Rockefeller Plaza NY1-050-12-01, New York, NY 10020, Attention: High Graded Debt Capital Markets Transaction Management/Legal, Facsimile: (212) 901-7897; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, 383 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10179; Attention: Investment Grade Syndicate Desk — 3rd Floor, Facsimile: (212) 834-6081, Wells Fargo Securities LLC, 550 South Tryon Street, 5th Floor, Charlotte, NC 28202, Attention: Transaction Management; and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., 388 Greenwich Street, New York, NY 10013, Attention: General Counsel, Facsimile: (646) 291-1469, in each case, with a copy to Goodwin Procter LLP, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York 10018, Attention: Mark Schonberger, Facsimile: (212) 355-3333, E-mail: mschonberger@goodwinprocter.com; and notices to the CCP Entities shall be directed to CCP at 353 N. Clark Street, Suite 2900, Chicago, Illinois 60654, Attention: General Counsel, Facsimile: (312) 881-4798, E-mail: kbenson@carecapitalproperties.com, with a copy to Sidley Austin LLP, 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York 10019, Attention: J. Gerard Cummins, Facsimile: (212) 839-5599, E-mail: jcummins@sidley.com.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Titles and headings to Sections hereof are for the purpose of reference only and shall in no way limit, define or otherwise affect the provisions hereof. The word “or” as used herein is not exclusive and is deemed to have the meaning “and/or.” The words “herein”, “hereof”, “hereunder” and other compounds of the word “here” shall refer to the entire Agreement (including all Exhibits) and not to any particular provision hereof. The use herein of the word “including” following any general statement, term or matter shall not be construed to limit such statement, term or matter to the specific items or matters set forth immediately following such word or to similar items or matters, whether or not non-limiting language (such as “without limitation”, “but not limited to”, or words of similar import) is used with reference thereto, but rather shall be deemed to refer to all other items or matters that could reasonably fall within the broadest possible scope of such general statement, term or matter. Neither this Agreement nor any uncertainty or ambiguity herein shall be construed or resolved against any Party, whether under any rule of construction or otherwise. On the contrary, this Agreement has been reviewed by each of the Parties hereto and shall be construed and interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the words used so as to fairly accomplish the purposes and intentions of the Parties.

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 parties agree that irreparable damage would occur if any provision of this Agreement were not performed in accordance with the terms hereof and that the parties shall be entitled to specific performance of the terms hereof, in addition to any other remedy to which they are entitled at law or in equity. Each party hereby waives any requirement for the securing or posting of any bond in connection with such remedy.

assistant: Specific Performance
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: circumstances, she has put forth nothing that would be sufficient to show that the defendants’ proffered explanation (dissatisfaction with her performance) was mere pretext for racial discrimination. Indeed, after her employment ended, she was in fact replaced with another African-American. See Teneyck v. Omni Shoreham Hotel, 365 F.3d 1139, 1150 (D.C.Cir.2004) (“The employer’s hiring of a person of the same race ... as the plaintiff might be relevant in assessing the merits of a plaintiffs claim.”). To be sure, replacement of an African-American with another African-American will not, conclusively, defeat an African-American’s claim of racially discriminatory firing or failure to renew employment contract. Cf. Howard v. Roadway Exp., Inc., 726 F.2d 1529, 1534-35 (11th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). But, as stated, such evidence is relevant, Options: A. holding that the burden is on the plaintiff B. holding that a plaintiff had established a primafacie failuretohire case notwithstanding evidence that the position sought by the plaintiff was ultimately filled with a person of the same race as the plaintiff C. holding that the plaintiff established a right to a slogan based on evidence of public recognition of its use by the plaintiff D. holding that where an express contract was in place between plaintiff and defendant that governed the compensation sought by plaintiff plaintiff may not recover under a theory of unjust enrichment E. holding plaintiff failed to raise inference of discrimination where only evidence plaintiff adduced was fact that decisionmaker was different race

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a plaintiff had established a primafacie failuretohire case notwithstanding evidence that the position sought by the plaintiff was ultimately filled with a person of the same race as the plaintiff
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: To the Knowledge of Buyer, no representation or warranty in this Agreement contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state any statement necessary to make the representations and warranties made herein not misleading in light of the circumstances under which they were made.

assistant: Disclosures
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 notice to the Corporation contemplated by this Award Certificate shall be in writing and be addressed to it in care of its Corporate Secretary; and any notice to the Participant shall be addressed to him at the address on file with the Corporation on the date hereof or at such other address as he may hereafter designate in writing.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Initial Bonds shall be subject to redemption as set forth in the Approval Certificate. The Daily Rate Bonds shall be subject to redemption as set forth in Exhibit B , the form of Daily Rate Bond. The Commercial Paper Rate Bonds shall be subject to redemption as set forth in Exhibit C , the form of Commercial Paper Rate Bond. The Fixed Rate Bonds shall be subject to redemption as set forth in Exhibit D , the form of Fixed Rate Bond. The Weekly Rate Bonds shall be subject to redemption as set forth in Exhibit E , the form of Weekly Rate Bond.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: by using such applications , you acknowledge and agree to the following : ( i ) if you use an application to share information , you are consenting to information about your profile on the service being shared ; ( ii ) your use of an application may cause personally identifying information to be publicly disclosed and/or associated with you , even if instagram has not itself provided such information ; and ( iii ) your use of an application is at your own option and risk , and you will hold the instagram parties ( defined below ) harmless for activity related to the application .

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you acknowledge that linden lab is not liable for the acts or omissions of such third parties , which are not the partner or representative of linden lab or endorsed or controlled by linden lab .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: conviction for attempted possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. In Pennell, the defendant asserted that he could not be convicted of attempt to possess with intent to distribute cocaine because the substance he attempted to purchase from the undercover agents, in fact, was “sham” cocaine. As this Court explained, Pennell’s defense is essentially one of impossibility that Congress intended to eliminate in cases prosecuted under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Id. at 525. The Court held that “the purchase of a noncontrolled substance that the defendant subjectively believes to be a controlled substance can constitute an attempt to possess with intent to distribute under § 846.” Id. The authority in this Circuit for this proposition is firm. Pennyman, 889 F.2d at 107 (<HOLDING>); Bilderbeck, 163 F.3d at 976 (“[A] a purchase Options: A. holding that defendant who was a passenger in a car had joint constructive possession of drugs found next to the defendants luggage in truck of car even where she disclaimed ownership of the drugs B. holding that uncharged amounts of drugs may be included as relevant conduct even if the defendant never actually possessed or distributed the drugs C. holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense of supplying contraband to a jail because the defendant was not in possession of the drugs when he was taken to jail where the arresting officer entered the jail with the drugs D. holding evidence insufficient to establish defendant had physical or constructive possession of heroin when no drugs were found on his person and the only drugs discovered on the premises which he shared with the codefendant were secreted out of plain view E. holding that a defendant may be found to have taken a substantial step for the purpose of an attempt offense even though he or she has failed to gain possession of drugs or sham drugs

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a defendant may be found to have taken a substantial step for the purpose of an attempt offense even though he or she has failed to gain possession of drugs or sham drugs
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: evidence because polygraph results would have been inadmissible at trial, even for impeachment purposes). The Government responds that the value of Del Rosario’s later statement inculpating Zoletta (and thereby exculpating Perez) would have been undercut by the fact that Del Rosario’s initial statement regarding Perez was fully and powerfully corroborated by Perez’s passport and travel itinerary as well as the testimony of Uy and Almiranez. Del Rosario’s statement is therefore neither essential to Perez’s defense nor material evidence warranting a new trial. We agree. See United States v. Messerlian, 832 F.2d 778, 795 (3d Cir.1987) (finding no Brady violation for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence that was not credible); see also Buehl v. Vaughn, 166 F.3d 163, 181 (3d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Landano v. Rafferty, 856 F.2d 569, 572 (3d Options: A. holding that indictment for murder in the first degree charges murder by whatever means it may have been committed regardless of the theory of murder presented to the grand jury B. holding the death penalty proportionate where the nineteenyearold defendant failed to establish that he was immature at the time of the murder and the record established that he was the mastermind behind the murder C. holding that fingerprint evidence was insufficient to support a murder conviction in a case in which the prosecution depended upon a showing that defendants fingerprints were left on the murder weapon during the commission of the crime D. holding undisclosed statement that someone other than the defendant possessed the murder weapon three weeks after the murder was not material exculpatory evidence in light of this overwhelming evidence that buehl had the murder weapon at the time of the killings and that he was the murderer E. holding that the protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest in front of his house on suspicion of murder was not justified because the evidence that an accomplice was involved in the murder did not equate to evidence that someone would be hiding out in the defendants house a month after the crime occurred and at the time of the arrest the officers were not chasing the defendant from a crime scene

assistant: The best answer is D. holding undisclosed statement that someone other than the defendant possessed the murder weapon three weeks after the murder was not material exculpatory evidence in light of this overwhelming evidence that buehl had the murder weapon at the time of the killings and that he was the murderer
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: action against the plaintiff shareholder as an individual, since the shareholder brings the action in a representative capacity rather than an individual capacity. Tryforos v. Icarian Dev. Co., 49 F.R.D. 1, 3 (N.D.Ill.1970); Higgins v. Shenango Pottery Co., 99 F.Supp. 522, 524 (W.D.Pa.1951). But this rule is qualified in actions involving closely held corporations because in these cases the action effectively determines the rights of individuals who have a personal interest in the recovery. See Burg v. Horn, 37 F.R.D. 562 (E.D.N.Y.1965) (recognizing that the general principal is hardly without exceptions). Further, a shareholder in a closely held corporation is an “opposing party” for purposes of a counterclaim. See Berger v. Reynolds Metals Co., 39 F.R.D. 313, 315 (E.D.Pa.1966) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, Enfission is a closely Options: A. recognizing that in a derivative action the corporation for whose benefit suit is brought is a necessary party to the action B. holding improper counsels argument that opposing counsel knew why plaintiff delayed in bringing action where opposing counsels knowledge was not in evidence C. holding that a plaintiff bringing a stockholders derivative suit is an opposing party where he is only one of three major stockholders D. holding a shareholders derivative action even where the only relief allowed is a recovery of damages is nevertheless a suit in equity and not an action at law E. holding res judicata barred plaintiffs derivative suit because of a final judgment in a prior derivative lawsuit

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a plaintiff bringing a stockholders derivative suit is an opposing party where he is only one of three major stockholders
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 Loan Document is a legal, valid and binding obligation of each Obligor party thereto, enforceable in accordance with its terms, except as enforceability may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, fraudulent conveyance, fraudulent transfer, reorganization, moratorium or similar laws affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights generally and by general equitable principles (whether enforcement is sought by proceedings in equity or at law).

assistant: Enforceability
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 right of Licensee or Licensor to terminate this Agreement, as herein above provided, shall not be affected in any way by Licensee’s or Licensor’s respective waiver or failure to take action with respect to any prior default or breach.

assistant: No Waivers
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: ¶ 54. The transfer of rights to property of debtor Think3 (like the alleged transfer of Think3’s rights in the Toyota receivable through the Mandatory Prepayment Agreement) and granting of security interests may plausibly constitute “transfers” of Think3’s property that are avoidable preferences. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(54) (defining “transfer” broadly as creating a lien, or directly or indirectly disposing or parting with the debtor’s property or an interest in the debtor’s property); Cullen Center Bank & Trust v. Hensley (In re Criswell), 102 F.3d 1411, 1415 (5th Cir.1997) (definition of “transfer” for purposes of § 547 is comprehensive, broad, and includes every conceivable mode of alienating property); Cadle Co. v. Sumrall (In re Sumrall), 9 F.3d 1547 (5th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Braunstein v. Karger (In re Melon Produce, Options: A. holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property B. holding that the trustee could not avoid a security interest under section 549 when that security interest was authorized by the bankruptcy court C. recognizing that water rights constitute a real property interest D. recognizing that granting of a security interest in real property is a preference under 547 of the bankruptcy code E. holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that granting of a security interest in real property is a preference under 547 of the bankruptcy code
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 agrees to employ Executive pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, and Executive agrees to be so employed, for a term of three (3) years and five (5) months (the “ Initial Term ”) commencing as of the Effective Date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Executive’s employment hereunder may be earlier terminated in accordance with Section 9 hereof, subject to Section 10 hereof. Terms used herein with initial capitalization not otherwise defined are defined in Section 25 . The period of time between the Effective Date and the termination of Executive’s employment hereunder shall be referred to as the “ Employment Period .” Unless the Company gives Executive written notice at least ninety (90) days prior to the end of the Initial Term or any Renewal Term (as defined below), as the case may be, of its intent that this Agreement shall expire at the end of such Initial Term or Renewal Term, this Agreement shall automatically and without further action by the Company or Executive renew for another term of one (1) year on the same terms and conditions, including this sentence, except that such renewal term and any succeeding renewal term shall be the “Renewal Term” and “Renewal Term” shall replace (Initial Term”.

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: During the term hereof, the Executive’s annual rate of vacation accrual, including Paid Time Off (PTO), shall be four (4) weeks per year or as otherwise agreed by the Executive and the Board; provided that such vacation shall accrue and be subject to the Corporation’s vacation policies for senior executives as in effect from time to time. The Executive shall also be eligible for all other holiday and leave pay generally available to other executives of the Corporation.

assistant: Vacations
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: TPHX has been and is in compliance with, and has not received any notice of any violation of any, applicable law, order, ordinance, regulation or rule of any kind whatsoever, including without limitation the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, the applicable rules and regulations of the SEC or the applicable securities laws and rules and regulations of any state.

assistant: Compliance With 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: In the event of a Participant’s Separation from Service because of death, Disability or Retirement during the Performance Period, Participant shall receive a pro rata payment based on the number of full months’ service during the Performance Period but taking into account the achievement of performance goals during the entire Performance Period. Payment, if any, under this Agreement shall be made after completion of the Performance Period at the time any such payment would have been made under the Plan and this Agreement had the Participant not experienced a Separation from Service. The pro rata payment shall be calculated by multiplying the number of Performance Shares to which the Participant would have received pursuant to this Agreement and the Plan had he or she not experienced a Separation from Service by a fraction the denominator of which is 36 and numerator of which is the number of full months during the Performance Period prior to the Separation from Service.

assistant: Death
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: judicial review; and (3) the entry of the order must have been fundamentally unfair. We review a collateral attack to a removal order de novo. United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 629 F.3d 894, 896 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). The entry of the removal order is fundamentally unfair if “(1) [the immigrant’s] due process rights were violated by defects in his underlying deportation proceeding, and (2) he suffered prejudice as a result of the defects.” United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir.2004) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Ponce fails to meet the third requirement of § 1326(d). Ponce’s due process rights were violated by the IJ’s failure to obtain a valid waiver of his right to counsel. See Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1103-05 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). The IJ failed to get a knowing waiver because Options: A. recognizing that courts will enforce waiver of appeal rights when waiver is knowing and voluntary B. holding waiver of right to counsel not voluntary and knowing when defendant terminated counsel and requested another attorney but the trial court would allow delay and appointment only upon waiver of speedy trial right C. holding that under the sixth amendment a criminal defendant may waive his right to counsel if that waiver is knowing intelligent and voluntary D. holding a waiver of a substantial constitutional right must be a voluntary knowing and intelligent act E. holding that an ijs failure to obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel from a pro se petitioner is a due process violation

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an ijs failure to obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel from a pro se petitioner is a due process violation
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: she vaguely asserts a right to vindicate the denial of the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel and claims that due process requires a hearing on the merits of her constitutional claim. She argues, essentially, that because she has a claim of constitutional magnitude (ineffective assistance of trial counsel), she cannot be denied an opportunity to be heard through the confluence of Section 9543(a)(l)(i) and this Court’s decision in Grant. The Commonwealth, however, makes a persuasive argument that Petitioner has no protected liberty interest in collateral review at this juncture because she is no longer subject to a state sentence and, therefore, there is no restraint on her liberty. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418, (1995) (<HOLDING>). We agree with the Commonwealth that due Options: A. holding that liberty interests that are protected by procedural due process are generally limited to freedom from restraint B. holding that inmates protected liberty interests will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the due process clause of its own force nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life C. holding that the due process clause protects only those liberty interests created by the state D. holding that a prisoner cannot be deprived of a protected liberty interest in goodtime credits without procedural due process E. holding that liberty interests implicating the due process clause are generally limited to freedom from restraint which imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that liberty interests that are protected by procedural due process are generally limited to freedom from restraint
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: 41(e) provides a remedy for alleged victims of unlawful warrantless seizures of property. Paka was seized as part of a criminal investigation into suspected animal cruelty and, as such, the Hegartys could have requested a V.R.Cr.P. 41(e) hearing to contest the warrantless seizure and to obtain a judicial determination of whether they were entitled to possession of the horse pending the conclusion of the prosecutorial process. See V.R.Cr.P. 41(e). This remedy was available to the Hegartys at any time during the twelve-day criminal investigation, and the fact that no criminal charges were filed did not preclude them from filing a Rule 41(e) motion and thereby obtaining the due process they insist they were denied. See State v. Kornell, 169 Vt. 637, 638, 741 A.2d 290, 291 (1999) (mem.) (<HOLDING>). ¶21. Here, where the circumstances required Options: A. holding that a district court has jurisdiction to entertain a rule 41e motion for the return of property before a criminal prosecution has begun believing such a motion to be in effect a civil action B. holding that rule 41e motion for return of seized property is treated as a civil equitable proceeding when criminal proceedings against moving party are not yet pending C. holding that a district court has jurisdiction to consider a rule 41e motion filed after criminal proceedings had been completed D. holding federal rule of civil procedure 11 motion in abeyance pending resolution of a bankruptcy proceeding E. holding that rule 4as timing requirements apply to an appeal from an order granting or denying a criminal defendants motion for the return of property under fedrcrimp 41e

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that rule 41e motion for return of seized property is treated as a civil equitable proceeding when criminal proceedings against moving party are not yet pending
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: full amount stated in the Proof of Loss. Fuller contends the offer to settle was not for the entire breach of contract claim; rather, it was merely an offer to settle the undisputed portion of the coverage claim, i.e., the plumbing damage. As to the sworn statement and check, Fuller argues these documents merely raise a fact issue and, therefore, mandamus is inappropriate. Thus, to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, we must W.2d 665, 673 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1996, no writ) (rejecting insurer’s argument that proof of loss formed contract between insurer and insured and prevented insured from taking inconsistent position between “contract” and later assertions); Tompkins v. Southern Lloyds Ins. Co., 515 S.W.2d 395, 396 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>). It follows, therefore, that mere mistakes or Options: A. holding the defendant responsible for the greater of the actual or intended loss B. holding that the insured could not maintain a lawsuit for additional federal benefits because he had not submitted a sworn proof of loss C. holding that loss of an arm includes loss of the hand D. holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss E. holding that the loss of a contract failed to constitute ascertainable loss under cutpa

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss
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 (including any Action or controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement) shall be governed by the Law of the State of Delaware without regard to conflict of law principles that would result in the application of any Law other than the Laws of the State of Delaware.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and remanded for resentencing on his remaining convictions. See United States v. Argento, No. 95-50337, 1996 WL 471358 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 1996) (unpublished memorandum disposition). Subsequently, Argento filed this § 2255 motion, contending that he received constitutionally deficient counsel at re-sentencing because counsel failed to request a downward departure based on his post-sentence rehabilitation. It appears that despite United States v. Gomez-Padilla, 972 F.2d 284 (9th Cir.1992), post-offense rehabilitation could arguably have formed a permissible basis for a downward departure at the time of Argento’s re-sentencing in April 1997 because it was not a prohibited factor under the Sentencing Guidelines. See Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996) (<HOLDING>). On the record before us, therefore, we are Options: A. holding that despite the defendants status as the sole supporter of his wife and three children the district court erred when it gave a downward departure for familial obligations because departure downward in sentencing is not justified for family reasons except in unusual circumstances B. holding same rule applied and required resentencing within the guidelines when trial judge failed to supply written reasons for downward departure C. holding that only factors specifically prohibited by the sentencing guidelines cannot form the basis for a downward departure D. holding that a district courts statement that there was no basis for a downward departure did not indicate that it believed it lacked authority E. holding that defendants diminished capacity while grounds for departure from the guidelines sentencing range is not grounds for departure below the minimum sentence set by congress

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that only factors specifically prohibited by the sentencing guidelines cannot form the basis for a downward departure
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: Interest and principal hereunder shall be due and payable on the first calendar day of each quarter during the term hereof as provided in Schedule . Borrower authorize DPW, at its option, to charge such interest, all DPW Expenses, and all Periodic Payments against the Non-Revolving Line, in which case those amounts shall thereafter accrue interest at the rate then applicable hereunder.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement embodies the entire agreement and understanding of the parties hereto in respect of the subject matter contained herein. There are no restrictions, promises, representations, warranties, covenants or undertakings, other than those expressly set forth or referred to herein. Subject to Section 10.4, this Agreement supersedes all prior agreements and understandings between the parties with respect to such subject matter.

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: or defect or the effects of intoxication”; and 3) a “catch-all” factor, which required the jury to consider: Any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime and any other sympathetic or other aspect of the defendant’s character or record [that the defendant offers] as a basis for a sentence less than death, whether or not related to the offense for which he is on trial. You must disregard any jury instruction given to you in the guilt or innocence phase of this trial which conflicts with this principle]. Thus, it became crucial to have an expert corroborate Cunningham’s own testimony that he suffered from a traumatic childhood and some type of mental illness. See Thomas v. Chappell, 678 F.3d 1086, 1105 (9th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Dr. Vicary noted that as a result of Options: A. holding that defense counsel may call attention to the states failure to produce evidence B. holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case C. holding that the failure of defense counsel to call a corroborating witness resulted in prejudice to the defendant D. holding that trial court has discretion to permit defendant to call accused witness to stand and permit witness to invoke fifth amendment privilege in front of jury where entire defense was centered on witness commission of crime E. holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to call a witness where the defendant never provided the witnesss name to counsel and no evidence existed that counsel had any notice of the witnesss identity

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the failure of defense counsel to call a corroborating witness resulted in prejudice to the defendant
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: v. Masonite Corp., 109 Ill.2d 1, 92 Ill.Dec. 501, 485 N.E.2d 312 (1985); Veazey v. LaSalle Telecomm. 2d at 517-18 (affirming Illinois trial court’s dismissal based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over claims brought under U.S. Const. amend. XIV and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 (1988) because the claims are covered by the IHRA), cited in Cooper, 265 Ill.Dec. 358, 772 N.E.2d at 399-100; Brewer v. Bd. of Trustees, 339 Ill.App.3d 1074, 274 Ill.Dec. 565, 791 N.E.2d 657 (2003) (expressly holding that Illinois circuit courts do not have original jurisdiction due to the IHRA exclusivity provision to hear claims of discrimination arising under federal statutes) (cert, petition pending); Cahoon v. Alton Packaging Corp., 148 Ill.App.3d 480, 101 Ill.Dec. 934, 499 N.E.2d 522, 524 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Garcia argues that since the greater weight Options: A. holding that the dismissal of a civil action in state court does not preclude a restitution order on the same claim B. holding that the burden is upon the state under the applicable federal rules of evidence C. holding a pleading will not be sufficient to state a claim under the civil rights act if the allegations are mere conclusions D. holding the federal and state tests to be the same E. holding that a federal civil rights claim must be prosecuted under the same procedure applicable to a state civilrights claim

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a federal civil rights claim must be prosecuted under the same procedure applicable to a state civilrights 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: distinct evidence. In addition, Oscar’s alert was not even a factor in Mr. Long’s final conclusion that the fire was caused by arson. ¶ 34 Furthermore, Mr. Long directly testified that the fire investigation guide upon which all new fire investigators are tested directly states that “[a]ny canine alert not confirmed by laboratory analysis should not be considered validated.” Ms. McNair also testified that the laboratory results were negative. Such testimony basically negates the evidentiary value of Oscar’s alert. ¶ 35 The jury easily could have based its decision to convict upon evidence entirely independent of the testimony concerning Oscar’s accelerant detection, such as Mr. Long’s fire investigation results and eyewitness testimony. Cf. Green v. Louder, 2001 UT 62,-¶29, 29 P.3d 638 (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Marji, 158 F.3d 60, Options: A. holding that no one factor is determinative and the weakness of one factor may be overborne by the strength of the others B. holding that the trial court had erred by excluding the expert testimony of a doctor C. holding that no one factor is determinative and the weakness of one factor may be overborne by the strength of the others D. holding that excluding expert testimony was harmless and did not affect the jury verdict because the subject matter of the testimony was only one factor and by no means a determinative one E. holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that excluding expert testimony was harmless and did not affect the jury verdict because the subject matter of the testimony was only one factor and by no means a determinative one
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and this court should not disturb the board’s decision absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In re Forrester, 773 A.2d 219 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001). Here, the board of view viewed the properties in question and held the appropriate hearings. The board considered both of the plans presented and made findings supported by competent evidence to justify its choice of plan. We see no abuse of discretion by the board of view in accepting the plan of Reber’s engineer, which proposes a uniform width of twenty-five feet for the entire road, over that of the Tschudys’ engineer, which also increases the road’s width but utilizes varying boundaries and, at points, involves using land beyond twenty-five feet. See In re Laying Out and Opening a Private Road, 405 Pa.Super. 298, 592 A.2d 343 (1991) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. Senior Options: A. holding that a private right of action exists B. holding that summary judgment is appropriate when no issue of material fact exists and the court is reviewing administrative record for sufficiency of evidence C. holding that when a contract is ambiguous and the parties suggest different interpretations summary judgment is inappropriate because an issue of fact exists D. holding that necessity for a private road exists where a parcel is landlocked notwithstanding objections from affected landowner that a particular route was not necessary and in fact a different route was more appropriate E. holding that no private right of action exists

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that necessity for a private road exists where a parcel is landlocked notwithstanding objections from affected landowner that a particular route was not necessary and in fact a different route was more appropriate
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 shall perform in a professional and business-like manner, and to the best of his ability, the duties described on Schedule 1 to this Agreement and such other duties as are mutually agreed to in writing from time to time by Employee and Employer's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. Subject to the succeeding sentences, Employee's services hereunder shall be rendered at Employer's San Francisco office and its corporate offices in Los Angeles, California, except for travel when and as required in the performance of Employee's duties hereunder. Employee may work remotely from the San Francisco office and during such time, Employee shall make himself readily accessible to Employer by telephone, via the Internet or other remote access, as Employee deems reasonably necessary for the performance of Employee's services hereunder. Employer shall make available to Employee remote computer access in Employer's San Francisco office to Employer's computerized systems and shall provide technical and hardware support.

assistant: Duties
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: Borrower is not a party to any agreement or instrument or subject to any restriction which might adversely affect Borrower or the Property, or Borrower’s business, properties, operations or condition, financial or otherwise. Borrower is not in default in any material respect in the performance, observance or fulfillment of any of the obligations, covenants or conditions contained in any Permitted Encumbrance or any other agreement or instrument to which it is a party or by which it or the Property is bound.

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: Ind. TR. 52(A)). On the other hand, the HDC argues that we should review the trial court's decision using a de novo standard because the trial court misinterpreted the APRA. Appellant's Br. p. 10. HDC alleges that it never "denied" access to the records requested by MceDermott and in fact provided him with all the information he demanded. The HDC argues that since the APRA requires a denial of a request before suit may be brought to compel disclosure-and, according to the HDC, no denial ever took place-the trial court erred by not dismissing McDermott's complaint. Appellant's Br. p. 13. Because we find that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the APRA, we employ a de novo standard. South Bend Tribune v. South Bend Community School Corp., 740 N.E.2d 937, 938 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). II. The Access to Public Records Act In Options: A. holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review B. holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference C. holding that a trial courts statutory interpretation is given no deference on review D. holding that the district courts apa review of a sba size decision was not entitled to deference but that the agencys interpretation and application of its own regulations did merit deference E. holding that agency interpretation which is reasonable is entitled to deference

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a trial courts statutory interpretation is given no deference on review