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: is recognized by the United States Department of the Army.... R. at 24 (emphasis added). The above-quoted statement did not inform her that § 3.203(a) allows her to submit certain documents, “such as a DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, or original Certificate of Discharge without verification from the appropriate service department.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.203(a) (emphasis added); see Soria, supra. The above-quoted statement, as well as being incomplete, also may imply that the appellant’s only avenue of showing qualifying service is “a certification from [ARPERCEN]”. Hence, a reasonable person, upon receiving such notice, might well be discouraged from submitting to VA any § 3.203(a)-qualifying documents in their possession. Cf. Mayfield, 19 Vet.App. at 125 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the RO compounded this problem Options: A. holding that the faa controllers fully performed their duty to the plaintiffs based on what they knew and should have known about a planes lack of deicing equipment B. holding that the government must prove actual subjective knowledge and that a defendant may not be convicted on just what he should have known C. holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave D. holding that reasonable person would have known based on ros relatively contemporaneous communications about what evidence was missing in order to substantiate claim E. holding that immunity extends to actions that do not violate norms of which a reasonable person would have known

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that reasonable person would have known based on ros relatively contemporaneous communications about what evidence was missing in order to substantiate 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: particular occasion, and "clothing the opinion in the garb of an interviewing technique does not help." State v. Elnicki, 279 Kan. 47, 105 P.3d 1222, 1229 (2005) (quoting State v. Jones, 117 Wash.App. 89, 68 P.3d 1153, 1155 (2003)). 129 More fundamentally, the majority's holding, though framed as an exception to CRE 608, rewrites that rule. CRE 608 controls the admissibility of character evidence offered to support or attack the credibility of a witness. By its terms, CRE 608 does not permit admission of a witness's opinion about whether another witness was telling the truth on a particular oceasion-such as the interrogations at issue here. CRE 608(a); Liggett, 135 P.3d at 731. Until today, our cases have uniformly held as much. See, e.g., People v. Eppens, 979 P.2d 14, 18 (Colo.1999) (<HOLDING>); People v. Gaffney, 769 P.2d 1081, 1088 Options: A. holding that plaintiffs own testimony and hearsay testimony constituted weak and insubstantial evidence B. holding harmless the improper admission of a social workers hearsay testimony concerning a childs report of sexual abuse where the credibility of the childs testimony was supported by other witnesses C. holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive D. holding that a social workers testimony that a child was sincere constituted impermissible character testimony E. holding that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to exclude testimony of a witness for an alleged sequestration violation where no impermissible harmonization of testimony could be inferred from the witnesss reading of the newspaper in the absence of any evidence that this testimony was based on what he read

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a social workers testimony that a child was sincere constituted impermissible character testimony
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 Loan and Security Agreement and any and all other documents executed in connection with the Loan and Security Agreement, including, without limitation, any Amendments thereto, shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as the "Loan Documents". Capitalized terms used herein and in the recitals hereto, but not defined herein or therein, shall have the meaning given them in the Loan Documents.

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: Bank shall notify Borrower within 10 Business Days whether or not it agrees to increase the Revolving Line and, if so, by what amount it agrees to do so and shall determine the effective date of such increase (the “ Increase Effective Date ”); provided that if Bank does not respond within 10 Business Days it shall be deemed to have declined to increase the Revolving Line.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower owns, or is licensed to use, all trademarks, tradenames, copyrights, patents and other intellectual property material to its business, and the use thereof by the Borrower does not infringe upon the rights of any other Person, except for any such infringements that, individually or in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: hindrocket.com in a web browser, and end up at Purdy’s web page, entitled “Official John Hinderaker Site,” which features Hinderaker’s photograph, the rocket graphic, and the inclusion of an altered biography of Hinderaker, all of which contribute to the impression that Hinderaker sponsored or is affiliated with the page. Purdy’s actions are a deliberate attempt to take advantage of Hinderaker’s goodwill, reputation, and prestige in order to divert traffic to Purdy’s web page and to generate publicity. Purdy argues that “hindrocket” is not a mark owned or used by Faegre and that he cannot be liable for appropriating a pseudonym. As long as a pseudonym clearly identifies the plaintiff, it is protected from appropriation. See, e.g., McFarland v. Miller, 14 F.3d 912, 922 (3d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Ackerman v. Ferry, No. B143751, 2002 WL Options: A. holding new jersey law prohibits appropriation of a celebritys nickname B. recognizing new jerseys interest in deterrence of tortious misconduct as a relevant factor in choice of law decisions applicable where two of defendants were new jersey residents from whom damages were sought for their negligent acts in new jersey C. recognizing that pennsylvania had no interest in denying its residents the greater damages available under new jersey consumer fraud statutes for claims against a new jersey seller D. holding that a writ of execution under new jersey law is not an action against the consumer E. recognizing israel had no interest in denying its citizens the substantive advantages of new jersey defamation law in new jersey residents claims for defamation published in new jersey

assistant: The best answer is A. holding new jersey law prohibits appropriation of a celebritys nickname
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: move the admission of the photographs from fair humanization of Victim to unfair and prejudicial inflammation such that the court’s admission of the photographs constituted an abuse of discretion. Cf. State v. Webb, 81 N.M. 508, 510, 469 P.2d 153, 155 (Ct.App.1970) (“The question of admissibility of photographic evidence, objected to as being inflammatory of the passions and prejudices of the jury, is largely one of discretion to be exercised by the trial court. Ordinarily, the trial court’s discretion thereon will not be disturbed on appeal.” (citations omitted)). Further, even if the admission of the photographs of Victim with his children was an abuse of discretion, we conclude that the error was harmless. See State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 312, 756 P.2d 1204, 1207 (Ct. App.1988) (<HOLDING>). The photographic evidence is minuscule in Options: A. holding that admission of evidence is harmless if it is cumulative to other legitimately admitted evidence that establishes a defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt B. holding error in admission of evidence is harmless when it was merely cumulative to other evidence in the record C. holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt D. holding admission of challenged evidence is harmless error where the record contains other properly admitted evidence that independently establishes guilt E. holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt

assistant: The best answer is D. holding admission of challenged evidence is harmless error where the record contains other properly admitted evidence that independently establishes guilt
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: prohibit the Browns from mentioning the fact that there was a building on the property originally. However, the order prohibited the Browns from offering evidence regarding the value of the building or the expenses associated with moving the building. ¶ 23. MDOT contends that witnesses for the Browns several times made the jury aware that there was a building on the property which was being used as an antique store. ¶ 24. The Browns cite no authority in support of the above contentions. As a result, We refuse to consider these issues for failure to support the already sparse argument without any authority. Cook v. Mardi Gras Casino Corp., 697 So.2d 378, 382 (Miss.1997); Brown v. State, 534 So.2d 1019, 1023 (Miss.1988); Sumrall v. Mississippi Power Co., 693 So.2d 359, 368 (Miss.1997) (<HOLDING>). V. THE COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO ORDER THE Options: A. holding that a debtor bears the burden of persuasion under 1325a B. holding that court will not consider issue raised for first time on appeal C. holding that appellant bears burden of persuasion on appeal and that appellate courts will not consider issues on appeal for which no supporting authority has been cited D. holding that an appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error on appeal E. holding that plaintiff bears burden of production as well as persuasion

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that appellant bears burden of persuasion on appeal and that appellate courts will not consider issues on appeal for which no supporting authority has been cited
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 Restricted Person will enter into or engage in any transaction with any Affiliate of a Restricted Person (other than other Restricted Persons) unless such transaction is in the ordinary course of business of such Restricted Person and upon fair and reasonable terms no less favorable to it than it would obtain in a comparable arm’s length transaction with a Person not an Affiliate. The restrictions set forth in this Section shall not apply to (a) the execution and delivery of any Loan Document, (b) compensation to, and the terms of any employment contracts with, individuals who are officers, managers or directors of Restricted Persons (or a related management company), provided that, to the extent such approval is required, such compensation is approved by such Restricted Person’s board of directors or provided for in such Restricted Person’s Organizational Documents, (c) Distributions permitted pursuant to Section 7.6 , (d) Permitted Investments, (e) consolidations permitted by Section 7.4 , (f) usual and customary indemnification agreements with respect to directors, officers and managers of the Restricted Persons and their Affiliates, (g) the issuance and sale of Equity in Borrower (other than Disqualified Capital Stock) or the amendment of the terms of any Equity issued by Borrower (other than amendments relating to Disqualified Capital Stock), and (h) the Services Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the Restatement Effective Date, each Loan Party has, with respect to its properties and business, insurance covering the risks, in the amounts, with deductibles or other retention amounts, and with the carriers listed in the Disclosure Letter, which insurance meets the requirements of Section 7.5 hereof as of the Restatement Effective Date.

assistant: Insurances
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 consent of MTM Ventures and the existing financing and security interests in favor of MTM Ventures, NuLeaf Cultivation is authorized to execute, deliver and perform under the Loan Documents, and is authorized to perform all obligations necessary for the Conversion (subject to Lender suitability and all regulatory approvals). Those documents are valid and binding obligations of NuLeaf Cultivation, where neither the execution, delivery, or performance of the Loan Documents will directly or indirectly contravene, conflict with, or violate any organization document of NuLeaf Cultivation, or have any material adverse effect or result on NuLeaf Cultivation, not contemplated by the Loan Documents.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: actions with regard to the sewer category upgrade that it acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to issue a category three permit. The evidence, if believed by the trier of fact, may well support a finding that the County’s sole purpose in denying appellant, for a period of three years or more through its denial of a sewer upgrade permit, any opportunity to commence construction permitted by the existing commercial zoning was to consummate a downzoning that would effectively prohibit the use planned by appellant. This appears especially evident, and may be made virtually undebatable, by the appellee’s contemptuous actions in neither appealing nor obeying the trial court’s order to issue the sewer permit. The record clearly supports S.Ct. 1563, 1568, 4 L.Ed.2d 1554 (1960) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, Options: A. holding that a termination of a government contract does not constitute a taking of the plaintiffs property without just compensation or without due process of law B. holding that plaintiff was entitled to compensation for governments taking of option to renew a lease C. holding that where necessary to enforce the california constitutions requirement of just compensation for a taking courts can disregard statutory eminent domain requirements D. holding that californias mandatory iota program does not involve a taking of property without just compensation as prohibited by the fifth amendment to the united states constitution E. holding that the confiscation of boats encumbered by material mens liens was a taking requiring just compensation

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the confiscation of boats encumbered by material mens liens was a taking requiring just compensation
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: Moreover, defendants convicted of conspiracy to commit murder in California are “punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as” defendants convicted of murder. CaLPenal Code § 182(a); see also id. (“[I]n the case of conspiracy to commit murder, ... the punishment shall be that prescribed for murder in the first degree.”). Thus, the state of California clearly considers the culpability of individuals who conspire to commit murder on a par with that of individuals who actually carry out the deed themselves. Given the close relationship between these two offenses, Governor Davis’s review of parole decisions involving a person convicted of conspiracy to commit murder was not clearly outside the scope of his jurisdiction. See Crooks v. Maynard, 913 F.2d 699, 701 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Although Governor Davis’s review of Miller’s Options: A. holding that a judge did not act in clear absence of all jurisdiction where he had colorable authority to take the action in question B. holding that the question of whether police had a reasonable basis for finding that a third party had authority to consent to search is a question of law C. holding that a judge who misinterpreted a statute and erroneously exercised jurisdiction did not act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction D. holding that similar argument did not raise a colorable question of law for purposes of jurisdiction E. holding appeal improper where trial judge did not rule upon question

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a judge did not act in clear absence of all jurisdiction where he had colorable authority to take the action in question
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: there is objective evidence which supports Dr. Crow’s medical opinion. “It is the ALJ’s function to resolve conflicts among the various treating physicians.” Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d 722, 725 (8th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). The opinions and findings of the claimant’s treating physician are entitled to considerable weight. Indeed, if they are not controverted by substantial medical or other evidence, they are binding. Cunningham v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 496, 502 (8th Cir.2000). Nonetheless, while the opinion of the treating physician should be given great weight, this is true only if the treating physician’s opinion is based on sufficient medical data. Chamberlain v. Shalala, 47 F.3d 1489, 1494 (8th Cir.1995) (citing Matthews v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 422, 424 (8th Cir.1989)) (<HOLDING>). When diagnoses of treating doctors are not Options: A. holding that nontreating physicians opinions are entitled to little weight when contradictory to treating physicians opinions and will not constitute substantial evidence standing alone B. holding that the alj erred by rejecting a treating physicians opinion in favor of opinions issued by nontreating doctors without providing a sufficient rationale C. holding that a treating physicians medical opinion must be given controlling weight only when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record D. holding that opinions of treating doctors are not conclusive in determining disability status and must be supported by medically acceptable clinical and diagnostic data E. holding that trial courts resolution of disputed facts are conclusive on appeal when supported by substantial evidence

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that opinions of treating doctors are not conclusive in determining disability status and must be supported by medically acceptable clinical and diagnostic data
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 8 C.F.R. § 1241.8, which apply to returnee aliens, with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2, which applies to aliens with final removal orders who have not yet left the United States, and argues that the differential treatment accorded these two classes of aliens denies due process and equal protection in violation of the Fifth Amendment. According to Wang, the rights to withholding of removal and to be free from persecution are fundamental; thus, the differential treatment of returnee aliens, versus aliens subject to deportation who have not yet left, is subject to strict scrutiny. First, to the extent that Wang argues that the BIA erred in refusing to sua sponte reopen her case, we lack jurisdiction to review its decision. See Lenis v. U.S. Att’y Gen. 525 F.3d 1291, 1293-94 (11th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). However, we retain jurisdiction to consider Options: A. holding that the bias denial of a motion to reopen based on the merits of the underlying application for adjustment of status was a discretionary decision under the adjustment of status statute and this court therefore did not have jurisdiction over an appeal of the bias ruling B. holding that a petitioners failure to address the bias denial of a motion to reopen in the argument portion of his opening brief on appeal waived the issue C. holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims not raised below by the alien even when the bia reviews the claim sua sponte D. holding that we lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the bias denial of a motion to reopen based on its sua sponte authority E. holding that a decision of the bia whether to reopen a case sua sponte under 8 cfr 10032a is entirely discretionary and therefore beyond the courts review ie the court lacks jurisdiction to review the bias decision not to reopen

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that we lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the bias denial of a motion to reopen based on its sua sponte authority
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: rules aim to deter lawless conduct by police and prosecution and often operate at the expense of placing probative evidence before juries for the purpose of arriving at truthful decisions about guilt or innocence); Thompson v. State, 123 S.W.3d 781, 784-85 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d) (unlike a criminal trial, a Chapter 64 proceeding is an independent, collateral inquiry into the validity of the conviction). 26 . Prible v. State, 245 S.W.3d 466, 469 (Tex.Crim.App.2008). See, e.g., Ex parte Mines, 26 S.W.3d 910, 914 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (criminal defendant enjoys a presumption of innocence and a constitutional right to be present at a pretrial or trial hearing; applicant for post-conviction writ of habeas corpus enjoys neither); Dix & Dawson, supra, note 9, § 45.181 (<HOLDING>). 27 . Rivera v. State, 89 S.W.3d 55, 58-59 Options: A. recognizing that this court in prible made it clear that a convicted persons effort to secure testing to show that another person was involved in the offense involved no constitutional considerations B. holding that a sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in departing from the guidelines range when the record supported the courts conclusion that the defendant was a danger to the community because he had been convicted of a crime that involved a threat against another person C. holding that the application of the enhancement for using a firearm in connection with another felony offense is proper only if there is a clear connection between the firearm that was used in the other offense and the one that was used in the offense of conviction D. holding that a statute imposing a one dollar court cost for law enforcement on every person convicted of a crime was not a violation of the separation of powers doctrine because it is reasonable that one convicted of a crime should be made to share in the improvement of agencies that society has had to employ in defense against the very acts for which he has been convicted E. holding that congress intent in 841b was to ramp up the punishment based on the type and amount of drug involved in the offense

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that this court in prible made it clear that a convicted persons effort to secure testing to show that another person was involved in the offense involved no constitutional considerations
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 data upon which the experts based their opinion do not have to be admissible in evidence in order for their opinion or inference to be admitted, if they are the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject. See Fed. R.Evid. 703. Rio Mar argues that the experts can rely on Mr. Santiago’s hearsay statement because expert witnesses can rely on witness interviews and witness’ sworn testimony in developing their ultimate opinions. Although undisputed that an expert may base his or her testimony on inadmissible facts or data, Rule 703 “does not allow the data itself.” Bado-Santana v. Ford Motor Co., 364 F.Supp.2d 79, 91-92 (D.P.R.2005) (citing Engebretsen v. Fairchild Aircraft Corp., 21 F.3d 721, 728-729 (6th Cir.1994)) (<HOLDING>) In other words, the rule simply permits an Options: A. holding that a court may rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence including hearsay evidence at the preliminary injunction stage B. holding that experts may rely on inadmissible material in forming the basis of opinions but inadmissible material may not be admitted for truth of the matter asserted C. holding that the trial court may consider documents submitted by the defendant on a motion to dismiss solely for a nonhearsay purpose and therefore may not rely on factual assertions in the documents for the truth of the matter asserted D. holding that experts may rely in part on internet research E. holding that an expert opinion on a question of law is inadmissible

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that experts may rely on inadmissible material in forming the basis of opinions but inadmissible material may not be admitted for truth of the matter asserted
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: "Confidential Information" of a disclosing party ("Discloser") means the following, regardless of its form and including copies made by the receiving party ("Recipient"), whether the Recipient becomes aware of it before or after the date of this Agreement:  disclosed by the Discloser to the Recipient or of which the Recipient becomes aware, including but not limited to, the information specified in Schedule 1; Neither party may make any public announcement or press release concerning the purpose or this agreement without the prior written consent of the other party.  the fact that the parties are discussing a Project or Opportunity;  the status of the Project or Opportunity; and  the fact that the parties have made information available to each other and are inspecting or evaluating that information;

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH OF BORROWER AND STATE FARM HEREBY COVENANTS AND AGREES THAT, IN CONNECTION WITH ANY DISPUTE ARISING UNDER THIS AGREEMENT OR UNDER ANY OF THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS, IT SHALL NOT ELECT A TRIAL BY JURY OF ANY ISSUE TRIABLE OF RIGHT BY A JURY AND HEREBY WAIVES ANY RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY FULLY TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY SUCH RIGHT SHALL NOW OR HEREAFTER EXIST. THIS WAIVER OF RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IS SEPARATELY GIVEN, KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY, BY BORROWER AND STATE FARM, AND THIS WAIVER IS INTENDED TO ENCOMPASS INDIVIDUALLY EACH INSTANCE AND EACH ISSUE AS TO WHICH THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL WOULD OTHERWISE ACCRUE. EACH OF BORROWER AND STATE FARM IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED AND REQUESTED TO SUBMIT THIS AGREEMENT TO ANY COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER AND THE PARTIES HERETO, SO AS TO SERVE AS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF THE FOREGOING WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL. FURTHER, BORROWER HEREBY CERTIFIES THAT NO REPRESENTATIVE OR AGENT OF STATE FARM, INCLUDING STATE FARM'S COUNSEL, HAS REPRESENTED, EXPRESSLY OR OTHERWISE, TO ANY OF THE UNDERSIGNED THAT STATE FARM WILL NOT SEEK TO ENFORCE THIS WAIVER OF RIGHT OF JURY TRIAL PROVISION.

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: provided for significantly broadened access to public records.”); Levy v. Senate of Pa., 619 Pa. 586, 618, 65 A.3d 361, 381 (2013) (“[T]he enactment of the RTKL in 2008 was a dramatic expansion of the public’s access to government documents.”). According to Requesters, “[i]t is .-impossible to square the Commonwealth Court’s discarding of Lukes with the conclusion of SWB Yankees that the RTKL expands access to public records and with [SWB Yankees’] favorable treatment of Lukes.” Brief, for Appellants at 20. Requesters also depict the majority decision of the Commonwealth Court as a departure from a long line of decisions of this Court, such as Sapp Roofing Co. v. Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local Union No. 12, 552 Pa. 105, 109, 713 A.2d 627, 629 (1998) (plurality) (<HOLDING>). Requesters note that, in other geographic Options: A. holding that records relating to a student court were not education records B. recognizing that intent of public records act is to provide all citizens with access to the records of all public governmental bodies C. holding that municipal court records were admissible under official records or public documents exception D. holding that payroll records of a private roofing contractor in the custody of a local agency were public records because they evidenced a disbursement by a governmental unit E. holding that records in the possession of a party with whom an agency has contracted to perform a governmental function on behalf of the agency are presumptively public records subject to public access so long as the record a directly relates to the governmental function and b is not exempt under the rtkl

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that payroll records of a private roofing contractor in the custody of a local agency were public records because they evidenced a disbursement by a governmental unit
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: Investors shall have all rights and remedies set forth in the Transaction Documents and all rights and remedies which Investors have been granted at any time under any other agreement or contract and all of the rights which Investors has under any law. The Company recognizes that in the event that it fails to perform, observe or discharge any or all of its obligations under the Transaction Documents, any remedy at law may prove to be inadequate relief to the Investors. The Company therefore agrees that the Investors shall be entitled to seek specific performance and/or temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive or other equitable relief from any court of competent jurisdiction in any such case without the necessity of proving actual damages and without posting a bond or other security.

assistant: Remedies
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 notices required by the provisions of this Certificate of Designation to be given to the holders of shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock shall be deemed given if sent by facsimile or overnight courier to the address appearing on the books of the Corporation, and shall be conclusively deemed given at the time of delivery if made during normal business hours, otherwise notice shall be deemed given on the next business day.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 394 U.S. 847 89 S.Ct. 1622 23 L.Ed.2d 30 William H. ROBINSON et al.v.Gwendolyn JOHNSON et al. No. 67. Supreme Court of the United States May 5, 1969 William G. Clark, Atty. Gen. of Illinois, Thomas E. Brannigan, Asst. Atty. Gen., John J. Stamos and Daniel P. Coman, for appellants. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is affirmed. 2 Mr. Justice BLACK dissents for the reasons given in the dissenting opinion of The Chief Justice in Shapior v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600. 3 Mr. Justice HARLAN dissents for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in Shapiro v. Thompso, 394 U.S. 655, 89 S.Ct. 1342.

assistant: 2
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: Inc., 863 So.2d 201, 208 (Fla.2003); see also Merkle, 737 So.2d at 542 n. 6 (explaining that after the expiration of a repose period, “the cause of action is extinguished”); Carr v. Broward Cty., 505 So.2d 568, 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (“At the end of the [repose] period the cause of action ceases to exist.”). Although both statutes of repose and limitations operate to bar suits and claims in relation to specified time periods, they accomplish" different purposes in doing so, A statute of limitations serves to require that a plaintiff with a known cause of action prosecute that claim diligently and within a predictable time that will allow for finality of claims prior to the-potential loss of available evidence over time. - See Statute of limitations, Black’s Law Dictio kr.D.Mass.1997) (<HOLDING>); see also First Sw. Fin. Servs., v. Pulliam, Options: A. holding that provision is a statute of repose and noting that the word extinguished is emphasized because of its substantive effect B. holding that provision is a statute of repose because by its own terms the provision does not just procedurally bar an untimely claim it substantively extinguishes the cause of action C. holding that statute of repose was not subject to toiling provision applicable to statute of limitations because among other reasons it would ignore fundamental distinctions between ordinary statutes of limitations and statutes of repose D. holding that provision has the characteristics of a statute of repose E. holding that statute was one of repose because it embodies the most distinctive characteristic of a statute of repose the barring of the right to bring an action rather than the remedy prescribed

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that provision has the characteristics of a statute of repose
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: Exporter agrees to fully and unconditionally indemnify and hold AmericaTowne, and its agents, representatives, contractors, attorneys and employees harmless against any claims, damages, penalties, losses or any expenses howsoever incurred as a result of or in connection with (i) any breach or alleged breach of representation, warranty or undertaking given by the exporter herein; (ii) any infringement or alleged infringement of intellectual property rights, including but not limited to patents, registered designs, copyrights or trade mark infringement arising as a result of the insertion of any material by Exporter or any agent of Exporter in AmericaTowne’s website and/or AmericaTowne Platform; (iii) any claim that the material involves false or deceptive advertising or sale practices; (iv) any claim arising or in connection with proof of quality and/or (v) any third party claims whatsoever arising in or derived from or as a result of the insertion or providing any material by Exporter.

assistant: Indemnity
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: a violation of this Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. He maintains that DNA is testimonial because it could reveal personal information and therefore come within the ambit of the Fifth Amendment. The district court rejected the claim, citing numerous federal court decisions holding that DNA samples are not testimonial in nature. On appeal, Wilson has failed to identify a single contrary authority. Most recently, the Ninth Circuit confirmed the unanimous view: “The extraction of DNA doesn’t implicate the privilege against self-incrimination because DNA samples are ‘physical’ evidence, not ‘testimonial’ evidence.” United States v. Zimmerman, 514 F.3d 851, 853 (9th Cir.2007) (citing Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 765, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) (<HOLDING>)). See also Bean, 214 Fed.Appx. at 571 (same); Options: A. holding that evidence is not required to support an an assertion relating to discovery when evidence is unnecessary to decide the matter B. holding that blood test evidence although an incriminating product of compulsion is neither testimony nor evidence relating to some communicative act or writing and is therefore not protected by the fifth amendment C. holding that consent to search obtained after defendant invoked right to remain silent is not a selfincriminating statement because it is neither testimonial nor communicative D. holding that the nexus between an asbestos product and plaintiff may be established by direct and circumstantial evidence and that testimony by someone with knowledge relating to the plaintiffs workplace exposure to an asbestoscontaining product is admissible E. holding that dna act violates neither substantive nor procedural due process under the fifth amendment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that blood test evidence although an incriminating product of compulsion is neither testimony nor evidence relating to some communicative act or writing and is therefore not protected by the fifth amendment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Code where the General Assembly has prohibited conduct with statutes that rely on individualized assessments by those enforcing the laws, including: (1) Va. Code § 18.2-60.3 (stalking); (2) Va. Code § 18.2-153 (obstructing canal or ther states have held that their respective “following too closely” statutes, with almost identical language to the Virginia statute, are not unconstitutionally vague. See, e.g., State v. Maga, 2008-Ohio-423, P48-P55, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 375, at *13-16 (Ct. App. Ohio 2008) (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4511.34); Tennessee v. Harton, 108 S.W.3d 253, 258-60 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) (Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-124(a)); State v. Shapiro, 751 So. 2d 337, 341-42 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1999) (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 32:81). 2 See Wilson v. State, 262 S.E.2d 810, 812-13 (Ga. 1980) Options: A. holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague B. holding that georgias reckless driving statute now ga code ann 406390 which is similar in substance to the virginia statute is not unconstitutionally vague C. holding va code 182460a is not unconstitutionally vague D. holding flag contempt statute unconstitutionally vague E. holding that indianas public intoxication statute ind code 71513 which is similar in substance to the virginia statute is not unconstitutionally vague

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that georgias reckless driving statute now ga code ann 406390 which is similar in substance to the virginia statute is not unconstitutionally vague
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: 271 A.2d 94 (1970); Todd v. Malafronte, 3 Conn. App. 16, 23, 484 A.2d 463 (1984). “Simply stated, the collateral source rule will not allow a tortfeasor to reduce his damage liability resulting from harm caused to another by benefits the injured person received from sources other than the tortfeasor himself or one acting on the tortfeasor’s behalf. In essence, the collateral source rule is both a rule of damages and a rule of evidence. Its operation prevents a tort defendant from introducing evidence to prove that the plaintiff incurred no medical expenses because the plaintiffs insurer paid them, or no wage loss because a kind employer continued wages during the disability. “The end result of the operation of the collateral source rule is that in some cases the tort plainti 0 (1977) (<HOLDING>); Gorham v. Farmington Motor Inn, Inc., supra, Options: A. holding that free special education services provided by state to plaintiffs child in order to cope with needs caused by personal injuries are collateral source and that defendants could not reduce personal injury damages because of such benefits B. holding that the eha established right to public education for students with disabilities that consists of educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from the instruction C. holding that warranty actions for personal injury damages or tortious injury to personal property are governed by general nonucc limitations periods D. holding contract for personal services is not assignable E. holding that personal representative may amend personal injury suit to state wrongful death claim following plaintiffs death

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that free special education services provided by state to plaintiffs child in order to cope with needs caused by personal injuries are collateral source and that defendants could not reduce personal injury damages because of such benefits
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: woman ingests a controlled substance that continues to affect the child postpartum; specifically, the child tests positive for a controlled substance following birth. The offense of endangerment of a child under N.D.C.C. § 19-03.1-22.2(2) states: “a person who knowingly or intentionally causes or permits a child or vulnerable adult to be exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with a controlled substance, chemical substance, or drug paraphernalia ... is guilty of a class C felony.” The State conceded in oral argument that none of the Defendants committed any act exposing her child postpartum, but rather argued the prenatal act of each defendant continued to affect her child postpartum. The State argues that a child is still “exposed” to the controlled substanc 0 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Collins v. State, 890 S.W.2d 893 Options: A. recognizing the unique relationship between mother and child during pregnancy and birth and permitting mothers claim for emotional distress where the mothers emotional wellbeing and the birth of the child are inextricably intertwined B. holding child abuse statute clearly did not apply to fetuses and therefore did not apply to a mother who ingested cocaine during pregnancy C. holding ohios child endangerment statute does not apply to mothers who abuse drugs during pregnancy D. holding a criminal charge of endangerment of a child does not apply to a pregnant woman who ingests an illegal substance that results in the transmission of drugs to her child through the umbilical cord E. holding an unborn viable fetus is not a human being under the new mexico child abuse statute and the mothers use of cocaine during pregnancy was not child abuse

assistant: The best answer is C. holding ohios child endangerment statute does not apply to mothers who abuse drugs during pregnancy
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 hereby represents and warrants that (a) the Subject Transfer has been approved by the Requisite Commitment Parties; (b) the Transferee is not a portfolio company of the Transferor or the Transferor’s Affiliates and (c) the Subject Transfer does not violate any of the provisions contained in Section 2.6(e) of the Agreement.

assistant: Representations
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: Notwithstandin g any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the Company is authorized to amend this Agreement, to void or amend any election made by the Participant under this Agreement and/or to delay the payment of any monies and/or provision of any benefit s in such manner as may be determined by the Company, in its discretion, to be necessary or appropriate to comply with the Section 409A Regulations without prior notice to or consent of the Participant. The Participant hereby releases and holds harmless t he Company, its directors, officers and stockholders from any and all claims that may arise from or relate to any tax liability, penalties, interest, costs, fees or other liability incurred by the Participant in connection with the Award, including as a re sult of the application of Section 409A.

assistant: Indemnifications
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 Restated Agreement, or part thereof, is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, each and every other provision, or part thereof, shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect.

assistant: Severability