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: has abandoned its reasoning in Billman or adopted the restrictive reading of these forfeiture provisions favored in other jurisdictions. To the contrary, the Fourth Circuit recently invoked a similarly broad interpretation of § 853 in United States v. McHan. See 345 F.3d 262 (applying 853(c)'s relation-back principle to § 853(p) substitute property in order "to effectuate its remedial purpose (3d Cir.2000) (collecting cases); In re John Doe, Inc., 13 F.3d 633, 636 (2d Cir.1994) ("[W]here an in camera submission is the only way to resolve an issue without compromising a legitimate need to preserve the secrecy of the grand jury, it is an appropriate procedure.”) (citing In re John Doe Corp., 675 F.2d 482, 490 (2d Cir.1982)). But see In re Taylor, 567 F.2d 1183, 1188 (2d Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). 35 . The Fourth Circuit held in United States Options: A. recognizing the importance of grand jury secrecy B. holding that governments weak interest in preserving grand jury secrecy did not warrant in camera submission where party seeking access to submission would learn of submission contents as soon as he was called as a grand jury witness C. holding that right was available in grand jury proceedings D. holding the presence of counsel for a witness did not violate grand jury secrecy E. holding that where government does not intend to disclose grand jury materials in camera proceedings are appropriate to protect govern ments interest in secrecy

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that governments weak interest in preserving grand jury secrecy did not warrant in camera submission where party seeking access to submission would learn of submission contents as soon as he was called as a grand jury witness
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 Grantor hereby covenants and agrees that it shall notify the Term Collateral Agent of any default under any Pledged Debt that has caused or could reasonably be expected to cause, either in any individual case or in the aggregate, a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: have known that the risks of waiting included possible denial of their motions to intervene as untimely. See State of Oregon, 913 F.2d at 589 (finding intervention untimely because applicants had notice of the proceeding and were aware that their interests would be discussed in settlement negotiations); Air California, 799 F.2d at 538 (requiring applicant to intervene before settlement when the applicant was aware that the parties were attempting to reach a negotiated settlement and might look to the applicant for help towards the settlement, even though the applicant did not know the terms of the settlement). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cities’ motion to intervene as untimely. See United States v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 25 F.3d 66, 69-74 (2nd Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Further, because Cities are not parties to Options: A. recognizing objective standard applicable under 42 usc 1983 and suits under united states constitution B. recognizing absolute immunity to suits under 42 usc 1988 C. recognizing right of prisoners to seek relief under 42 usc 1983 for denial of access to the courts D. holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc 1983 E. recognizing that an untimely motion prevents intervention under cercla 113i 42 usc 9613i intervention of right under fedrcivp 24a and permissive intervention under fedrcivp 24b

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that an untimely motion prevents intervention under cercla 113i 42 usc 9613i intervention of right under fedrcivp 24a and permissive intervention under fedrcivp 24b
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: Pursuant to the 1953 decree, the decreed wells have been operated under the rules governing nontributary wells—ie., they have operated free from the requirements placed on tributary wells that downstream flows be augmented to compensate for out-of-priority diversions. The operators of these decreed nontributary wells are not now free to seek partial tributary status for these wells under circumstances where non-tributary status is no longer advantageous. Although the trial court does not purport to overturn the 1953 decree, its holding essentially amounts to a collateral attack on the initial nontributary determination. Such an attack, even on an erroneous decision, is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. See State Eng’r v. Smith Cattle, Inc., 780 P.2d 546 (Colo.1989) (<HOLDING>). The wells adjudicated nontributary in the Options: A. holding that res judicata prevents relitigation of a claim that was previously the subject of a valid and final decision of this court B. holding that because relitigation of issue was barred by collateral estoppel res judicata determination of finality of judgment dismissed for lack of standing was not relevant C. holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings D. holding that the doctrine of res judicata barred successive lawsuits by siblings asserting the same claims because the doctrine of res judicata bars both parties and their privies from relitigating an issue already decided E. holding that the doctrine of res judicata barred relitigation of an allegedly erroneous court determination that certain waters were not tributary to the arkansas river

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the doctrine of res judicata barred relitigation of an allegedly erroneous court determination that certain waters were not tributary to the arkansas river
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: Neither Holdings, any Borrower nor any Subsidiary is in default under or with respect to, or a party to, any Contractual Obligation that could, either individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: No Defaults
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 its actual knowledge after due inquiry, NuLeaf Cultivation has complied with any and all laws and regulations concerning its organization, existence and the transaction of its business. Subject to Section 3.4, NuLeaf Cultivation has the right and power to own, construct and operate the MME Cultivation Facility and to perform any act necessary in furtherance of the foregoing.

assistant: 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: error in servicing the K-rim assembly was dangerously small and it might explosively separate with seemingly little provocation; that when explosions did occur, serious bodily injury or death usually resulted; and, therefore, that great care was required in the handling and servicing of K-rims. Further, Goodyear has continued over the years in the tire rim business, and, although all K-rim production was discontinued by 1969, Goodyear continued to advertise its K-rims as late as 1977, and has continued to sell tires and tubes for use with used K-rims. Final , 1528 (D.Minn.1989) (recognizing a post-sale duty to warn of, and corresponding duty to test for alleged dangers associated with an intrauterine contraceptive device); Niccum v. Hydra Tool Corp., 438 N.W.2d 96, 100-01 (Minn.1989) (<HOLDING>). Several factors discussed in Hodder are Options: A. holding that successor liability is not a tort it is an equitable tool used to transfer liability from a predecessor to a successor quotation omitted B. holding that a cause of action on the theory of strict liability may be properly pled by alleging 1 the manufacturers relationship to the product in question 2 the unreasonably dangerous condition of the product and 3 the existence of a proximate causal connection between the condition of the product and the plaintiffs injury C. holding that in a negligence claim there is no postsale duty to warn or remedy when the product was nondefective under standards existing at the time of manufacture D. holding a successor corporation does not have a postsale duty to warn of product defects where the successor never succeeded to any service contracts was not aware of the products defects and did not know the location of the product at the time of plaintiffs injury E. recognizing cercla successor liability

assistant: The best answer is D. holding a successor corporation does not have a postsale duty to warn of product defects where the successor never succeeded to any service contracts was not aware of the products defects and did not know the location of the product at the time of plaintiffs injury
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: if you breach any of these terms , academia.edu will have the right to suspend or disable your account or terminate these terms , at its sole discretion and without prior notice to you .

assistant: Unilateral termination
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 Employee to receive or to retain Severance Benefits shall be in consideration for, and subject to, (1) execution of and delivery to the Company of a release of claims substantially in the form attached as Exhibit C to this Agreement, amended as necessary to comply with applicable law (the “ Release ”) and lapse of the period for revocation, if any, of the Release without the Release having been revoked no later than 60 days after the Termination Date, and (2) Employee’s continued compliance with the covenants hereof. In the event that Employee breaches any of the Covenants, Company shall have the right to (a) terminate any further provision of Severance Benefits not yet paid or provided, (b) seek reimbursement from Employee for any and all such Severance Benefits previously paid or provided to Employee, (c) recover from Employee all shares of stock of Company the vesting of which, or the option to purchase, was accelerated by reason of the Severance Benefits (or the proceeds therefrom, reduced by any exercise or purchase price paid to acquire such shares), and (d) to immediately cancel all equity awards the vesting of which was accelerated by reason of the Severance Benefits. No Severance Benefits shall be paid until the 60th day following the Termination Date, subject to Section 24(b) hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: commenced by filing a complaint with the court.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 3. Plaintiffs rely heavily on statements made by the United States Supreme Court and our Court of Appeals to support their position that filing a complaint alone is sufficient for statute of limitations purposes. Pis’. Mem. in Opp’n to Mot. for Partial Dismissal; see, e.g., Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 657 n. 2, 116 S.Ct. 1638, 134 L.Ed.2d 880 (1996) (“In a suit on a right created by federal law, filing a complaint suffices to satisfy the statute of limitations.”); Pis.’ Mem. in Opp’n to Mot. for Partial Dismissal. While it is true that federal and District of Columbia law do not require service to be effected within the statute of limitations period, see Iran Air v. Kugelman, 996 F.2d 1253, 1257 (D.C.Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Varela v. Hi-Lo Powered Stirrups, 424 A.2d Options: A. holding that it is proper to consider prelimitations period conduct in determining whether conduct within the limitations period violated the antitrust laws B. holding that the property appraiser was estopped from asserting the statute of limitations where the failure to bring the action within the limitations period was the direct result of the property appraisers failure to timely perform a related duty owed to plaintiff C. holding that the charge was timely when filed within the statute of limitations period even though served after the period D. holding that in computing time to determine whether an act was performed within a specified period of time under the statute of limitations the first day is excluded and the last day of the period is included E. holding that the plaintiff filed suit within the statute of limitations even though he could not prove the time at which he mailed his petition

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the charge was timely when filed within the statute of limitations period even though served after the period
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: if you have a dispute with another player , you release zynga and its officers , directors , agents , subsidiaries , joint ventures , and employees , and all zynga affiliates from responsibility , claims , demands and/or damages ( actual or consequential ) of every kind and nature , whether known or unknown , resulting from that dispute or connected to that dispute .

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: 701, which states: If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. Pa.R.E. 701. A. Dr. McClellan According to- Appellants, Dr. McClellan rendered an expert opinion on causation even though he was not identified as an expert. See Appellants’ Br. at 10-12 (citing in support Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5 (requiring pre-trial disclosure of experts and expert reports “acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial”); Sindler v. Goldman, 309 Pa.Super. 7, 454 A.2d 1054, 1057 (1982) (<HOLDING>)). Dr. McClellan is a physician specializing in Options: A. recognizing rule B. recognizing that compliance with rule 40035 is critical to prevent unfair surprise C. holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient D. holding that strict compliance is not required E. holding that compliance with rule 4a5 is essential to appellate jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that compliance with rule 40035 is critical to prevent unfair surprise
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: passage of interstate commerce of either people of goods.” United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273, 288-89 (3d Cir.1996) (Alito, J., dissenting). The Lessor Defendants argue that Congress appropriately invoked this authority because strict vicarious liability lawsuits against lessors of motor vehicles typically arise following an automobile accident that occurs on roads, streets, intrastate or interstate highways, all of which are channels of commerce. See, e.g. Pierce County, Washington v. Guillen, 537 U.S. 129, 147, 123 S.Ct. 720, 154 L.Ed.2d 610 (2003) (upholding legislation aimed at improving safety in the “channel of commerce,” including streets, roads and federal highways); State of Oklahoma ex rel. Phillips v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 313 U.S. 508, 61 S.Ct. 1050, 85 L.Ed. 1487 (1941) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218, Options: A. holding that state ownership of submerged lands remains subject to congress paramount power over navigable waters under the commerce clause B. holding that commerce clause authorizes congress to punish any particular criminal action even without proof of a relation to interstate commerce when the activity is part of a class of activities determined by congress to affect interstate commerce C. holding action equivalent to quiet title over navigable waters regulated and controlled by state is form of prohibited relief D. recognizing that navigable waters railroads and highways are channels of commerce which can be regulated under congress commerce powers E. holding that wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are included in the term territorial waters

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that navigable waters railroads and highways are channels of commerce which can be regulated under congress commerce powers
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: Notice of termination for Cause or for Good Reason shall be given in accordance with this Section, and shall indicate the specific termination provision under the Plan relied upon, the relevant facts and circumstances and the effective date of termination. For the purpose of this Plan, any notice and all other communication provided for in this Plan shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given when received at the respective addresses set forth below, or to such other address as the Company or the Eligible Employee may have furnished to the other in writing in accordance herewith.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 604, 617, 538 P.2d 702 (1975). The conditions under which a court may grant relief when an agency action is challenged are defined by K.S.A. 77-621(c). Dillard’s sought relief in the district court under K.S.A. 77-621(c)(4), which authorizes judicial relief if “the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law,” and K.S.A. 77-621(c)(7), which authorizes relief if “the agency action is based on a determination of fact, made or implied by the agency, that is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the record as a whole.” The only pertinent issue of fact that is disputed is whether Cook was terminated for cause. The burden of proving cause logically falls on Dillard’s. See Farmland Foods, Inc. v. Abendroth, 225 Kan. 742, Syl. ¶ 1, 594 P.2d 184 (1979) (<HOLDING>). In proceedings before KDHR, Dillard’s stated Options: A. holding that defendants bear the burden of proving contributory negligence by a preponderance of the evidence B. holding that burden is upon employer to demonstrate by preponderance of evidence that claimant committed act in question C. holding employer has burden of proving employee misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence when disputing a claim for unemployment compensation D. holding that the burden of proving that the employee did not make reasonable efforts is on the defendant E. holding at trial a criminal defendant has the burden to prove his insanity by a preponderance of the evidence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding employer has burden of proving employee misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence when disputing a claim for unemployment 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No failure or delay on the part of the Administrative Agent or any Lender in exercising any right, power or privilege hereunder or under any other Credit Document and no course of dealing between any Credit Party and the Administrative Agent or any Lender shall operate as a waiver thereof; nor shall any single or partial exercise of any right, power or privilege hereunder or under any other Credit Document preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, power or privilege hereunder or thereunder. The rights and remedies herein expressly provided are cumulative and not exclusive of any rights or remedies which the Administrative Agent or any Lender would otherwise have. No notice to or demand on any Credit Party in any case shall entitle any Credit Party to any other or further notice or demand in similar or other circumstances or constitute a waiver of the rights of the Administrative Agent or the Lenders to any other or further action in any circumstances without notice or demand.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If the Participant is resident or employed outside of the United States, the Participant may be required to repatriate all payments attributable to the Shares and/or cash acquired under the Plan (including, but not limited to, dividends and any proceeds derived from the sale of the Shares acquired pursuant to the PRSUs) in accordance with local foreign exchange rules and regulations in the Participant’s country of residence (and country of employment, if different). It is the Participant’s responsibility to comply with all foreign exchange rules and all other local compliance requirements that he or she may be subject to with respect to his or her participation in the Plan. In addition, the Participant is required to take any and all actions, and consent to any and all actions taken by the Company and its Subsidiaries, as may be necessary to allow the Company and its Subsidiaries to comply with local laws, rules and regulations in the Participant’s country of residence (and country of employment, if different). The Participant is also required to take any and all actions as may be necessary to comply with the Participant’s personal legal and tax obligations under local laws, rules and regulations in the Participant’s country of residence (and country of employment, if different).

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: A ll of the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of each Subsidiary are , where applicable, validly issued , fully paid, non-assessable and free of preemptive and similar rights to subscribe for or purchase securities. Other than the Subsidiaries and as otherwise set forth on Schedule 3.1(e) , the Company does not currently own or control, directly or indirectly, any interest in any other corporation, partnership, trust, joint venture, limited liability company, association, or other business entity. Except as disclosed in the SEC Reports, the Company is not a participant in any material joint venture, partnership or similar arrangement.

assistant: Subsidiaries
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: above, there is some risk that the jury, relying solely upon the definition of practice or custom in Model Instruction 9.4, would have thought it improper to consider such evidence at all. Consequently, we cannot conclude that it is more probable than not that the instructional error was harmless. Ill We hold that the District Court prejudicially erred in refusing to instruct the jury that, for purposes of proving a Monell claim, a custom or practice can be supported by evidence of repeated constitutional violations which went uninvestigated and for which the errant municipal officers went unpunished. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand for a new trial. VACATED AND REMANDED. 1 . See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (<HOLDING>). 2 . The numbers for these instructions Options: A. holding that a municipality may be sued as a person under 42 usc 1983 when the municipalitys policy or custom whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy inflicts a constitutional injury B. holding that a municipality may not assert the defense of qualified immunity but may be held liable under 1983 only for a constitutional deprivation inflicted by the execution of a governments policy or custom whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy C. holding that a defendant can only be sued in his official capacity under 1983 if he acted pursuant to an official policy or custom in causing the constitutional injury D. holding that a local government may be held liable for its employees constitutional violation only when the employee is executing the governments policy or custom whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may be fairly said to represent official policy E. holding that a municipality may only be held liable under 1983 for a policy practice or custom

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a municipality may be sued as a person under 42 usc 1983 when the municipalitys policy or custom whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy inflicts a constitutional injury
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 provisions of this Interim Order and any actions taken pursuant hereto shall: (a) survive the Termination Declaration Date and entry of any order: (i) converting any of the Chapter 11 Cases to a case under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code; (ii) substantively consolidating any of the Debtors or their respective estates; or (iii) dismissing or closing any of the Chapter 11 Cases; and (b) shall continue in full force and effect notwithstanding the Termination Declaration Date or entry of any such order described in this paragraph.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to respond to interrogatories and requests for production are substantially similar to the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(F)(3)(B) ("A discovery plan must state the parties' views and proposals on ... when discovery should be completed[.]"); Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A) (allowing parties thirty days to respond to interrogatories and requests for production, respectively). Federal court decisions are consistent with our conclusion. In Thomas v. Pacificorp, 324 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir.2003), the court stated that "requests [for discovery] must be served at least thirty days prior to a completion of discovery deadline." Id. at 1179. Other federal cases have reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., Sofo v. Pan-American Life Ins. Co., 13 F.3d 239, 241-42 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Chevola v. Cellco P'ship, No. Options: A. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting such a temporary injunction B. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion where it determined that plaintiffs failed to show good cause to amend complaint after dispositive motion deadline C. holding that court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendants a protective order where plaintiff failed to request discovery until nine days before the deadline D. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to amend the complaint by the deadline imposed by the court E. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it modified a protective order after settlement to permit public access to pretrial materials in spite of a protective order to the contrary which it viewed as having had been initially justified

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendants a protective order where plaintiff failed to request discovery until nine days before the deadline
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: Apprendi”). Indeed, “while we may label a fact as the ‘functional equivalent of an element’ for purposes of Apprendi, that does not trans form the fact into an offense ‘element’ for purposes of Winship.” Id. Thus, even where due process requires that a drug quantity allegation be pleaded in the indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, a defendant can plead guilty to the elements of the offense without admitting the drug quantity allegation. Had this case gone to trial, the government would have been required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas possessed at least 50 grams of cocaine base in order for the penalties in § 841(b)(1)(A) to apply. This jury determination, however, would have been relevant to sentencing, not to guilt. See Buckland, 289 F.3d at 568 (<HOLDING>); id. at 566 (noting that a penalty enhancement Options: A. holding that extrinsic offense evidence was admissible to prove intent where the prosecutor stated that she anticipated the defendant would deny his intent to be involved in the charged offense and defense counsel did not even mention that he would refrain from contesting the intent issue B. holding that congress intent in 841b was to ramp up the punishment based on the type and amount of drug involved in the offense C. holding that 841b does not contain a mens rea requirement and noting the language of 841 clearly conveys congresss intent to subject drug dealers to the enhancements provided in 841b regardless of their awareness of drug type and quantity D. holding prior use of one type of drug is not relevant to establish use of another type of drug on a different occasion E. holding that up to the amount of the deductible there was no other insurance

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that congress intent in 841b was to ramp up the punishment based on the type and amount of drug involved in the offense
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: the updated terms will be effective as of the time of posting , or such later date as may be specified in the updated terms , and will apply to your use of the service from that point forward .

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO ANY CONFLICTS OF LAW PRINCIPLES THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICABILITY OF ANY LAW OTHER THAN THE LAW 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: Determination T3 Mother argues that the juvenile court "implicit[ly]" and exclusively relied on its finding of grounds for termination to support its best interests determination and failed to consider "unrefuted evidence of the loving and beneficial developed relationship between [her] and the [Children]." We review Mother's challenge to the juvenile court's best interests determination for an abuse of discretion. See In re Adoption of T.H., 2007 UT App 841, 19, 171 P.3d 480. T4 Mother is correct that her parental rights cannot be terminated solely upon the juvenile court's finding of grounds for termination and that a finding of grounds does not necessarily diminish the import of "a positive and strong parent-child bond." Cf. In re D.R.A., 2011 UT App 897, ¶¶ 18, 21, 266 P.3d 844 (<HOLDING>). However, we conclude that, on its own, this Options: A. holding that evidence was sufficient to support trial courts best interest finding where mother allowed child to be in contact with individual who had physically abused her mother was not capable of caring for child on her own mother admitted at trial she had not found stable employment and child was doing well in her current placement B. holding that the recommendations of the childrens caseworker and guardian ad litem coupled with evidence of the mothers extensive drug history her incompletion of courtordered services and testimony that the children were happy and doing well in their foster homes were sufficient for the trial court to determine that termination of parental rights was in the childrens best interest C. recognizing that the department is required to present clear and convincing evidence to support termination of a parents parental rights D. holding that evidence did not support termination of parental rights to two children despite mothers prior conviction for killing her stepchild E. holding that though the mother admitted that there were grounds to support termination of her parental rights the benefits of allowing the mothers relationship with her teenage daughter to continue were too palpable and the benefits of severing it too speculative for us to agree that the state had shown by clear and convineing evidence that termination was in the best interest of the child

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that though the mother admitted that there were grounds to support termination of her parental rights the benefits of allowing the mothers relationship with her teenage daughter to continue were too palpable and the benefits of severing it too speculative for us to agree that the state had shown by clear and convineing evidence that termination was in the best interest of the child
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: paragraph borrows from passages in his work, The Seventeenth-Century Revolution in the English Land Law, 43 Clev. St. L. Rev. 221, 268-72 (1995). 7 . "[T]he validity of a limitation is ... to be determined under the circumstances then existing, and the certainty that it will vest within the permitted period, if at all, must be discernible at that date.” 70 C.J.S. Perpetuities § 16. 8 . The deed also grants the option to Otis’ immediately related heirs and assignees without temporal limitation. This offensive aspect of the optionee class as well is remedied by the holdings of this Opinion. 9 . Pathmark Stores, Del.Ch., 663 A.2d at 1191—92. 10 . Smith Deed at 11. 11 . Del.Ch., C.A. No. 1096-S, mem. op. at 15, Allen, C., 1988 WL 34528 (Apr. 13, 1988). 12 . Id. at 15-18. 13 . Id. at 18-19 (<HOLDING>). Another way of looking at it is to say that Options: A. holding right of first refusal only applied to a voluntary sale and taking of property by condemnation is involuntary therefore right of first refusal not triggered B. holding that when determining the proper amount for a burdened property that was purchased in a package only two methods suggest themselves as arguably appropriate 1 a determination of the fair market value of the property burdened by the right of first refusal or 2 a determination of the portion of the purchase price which based on the percentage of the fair market value of the entire package represented by the property burdened by the right of first refusal should be allocated to the property burdened by the right of first refusal C. holding this type of agreement fixedprice right of first refusal at least in this type of market threatens to act as a complete impediment to the free alienability of land that our law has for centuries sought to encourage D. recognizing the significance of territorial jurisdiction and concluding that a more stringent approach needs to be followed in order to confer this type of authority E. holding prior use of one type of drug is not relevant to establish use of another type of drug on a different occasion

assistant: The best answer is C. holding this type of agreement fixedprice right of first refusal at least in this type of market threatens to act as a complete impediment to the free alienability of land that our law has for centuries sought to encourage
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 hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, reimburse and hold harmless the BANK and each of its affiliates, and all the directors, officers, employees, agents, legal counsel and advisors of the BANK (each, an "INDEMNIFIED PARTY") from and against all claims, actions, proceedings, suits, damages, losses, liabilities, costs and expenses, including the fees and out-of-pocket expenses of one firm of counsel for all such INDEMNIFIED PARTIES, taken as a whole, and, if necessary, of a single firm of local counsel in each appropriate jurisdiction (which may include a single firm of special counsel acting in multiple jurisdictions) for all such INDEMNIFIED PARTIES, taken as a whole (and, in the case of an actual or perceived conflict of interest where the INDEMNIFIED PARTY affected by such conflict informs the BORROWER of such conflict and thereafter retains its own counsel, of another firm of counsel for such affected INDEMNIFIED PARTY and, if necessary, of a single firm of local counsel in each appropriate jurisdiction (which may include a single firm of special counsel acting in multiple jurisdictions) for such affected INDEMNIFIED PARTY), which may be incurred by or asserted against any INDEMNIFIED PARTY in connection with, or arising out of, or relating to any transaction or proposed transaction (whether or not consummated), contemplated by this AGREEMENT or any LOAN DOCUMENT (other than any TAXES); provided that such indemnity shall not, as to any INDEMNIFIED PARTY, be available to the extent that such claim, action, proceeding, suit, damage, loss, liability, cost or expense (a) is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction by final and nonappealable judgment to have resulted from (i) the gross negligence, bad faith or wilful misconduct of such INDEMNIFIED PARTY or (ii) a claim brought by the BORROWER against such INDEMNIFIED PARTY for material breach in bad faith of such INDEMNIFIED PARTY'S obligations hereunder or (b) results from a proceeding that does not involve an act by the BORROWER or any of its AFFILIATES and that is brought by an INDEMNIFIED PARTY against any other INDEMNIFIED PARTY. This SECTION 8.01 shall not apply with respect to taxes other than any taxes that represent losses, claims or damages arising from any non-tax claim.

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: Amendment bars suits against a State by citizens of that same State in federal court,” citing Papasan v. Attain, 478 U.S. 265, 276, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986)). Although the bar of the Eleventh Amendment to suits against the state itself “ ‘exists whether the relief sought is legal or equitable,’ ” Williams, 973 F.2d at 600 (quoting Papasan, 478 U.S. at 276, 106 S.Ct. 2932), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has noted that “[o]f course, legal fictions have also eroded Eleventh Amendment immunity by, among other things, permitting suits against state officials for injunctive and prospective relief.” Thomas, 50 F.3d at 505 (citing Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663-64, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974)); see also Gliek v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 540 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). b. Suit “against” the “state” In Thomas, the Options: A. holding that the question of whether a municipal official is a policymaking official is a matter of state law to be decided by the court B. holding that title ii ada suits and rehabilitation act suits for prospective injunctive relief may be brought under ex parte young against state officers in their official capacities C. holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the state itself and not cognizable under 1983 D. recognizing the exception for suits against state officials for injunctive relief citing pennhurst 465 us at 104 104 sct 900 and ex parte young 209 us 123 28 sct 441 52 led 714 1908 and explaining that this exception was based on the theory that because a state is without power to authorize a state official to act in violation of federal law any state official taking such actions is acting beyond his official authority and is thereby stripped of his official or representative character quoting pennhurst 465 us at 104 104 sct 900 E. holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the officials office

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing the exception for suits against state officials for injunctive relief citing pennhurst 465 us at 104 104 sct 900 and ex parte young 209 us 123 28 sct 441 52 led 714 1908 and explaining that this exception was based on the theory that because a state is without power to authorize a state official to act in violation of federal law any state official taking such actions is acting beyond his official authority and is thereby stripped of his official or representative character quoting pennhurst 465 us at 104 104 sct 900
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 the Exhibits and Schedules attached hereto and the documents delivered pursuant hereto, including the Transaction Documents, set forth all the promises, covenants, agreements, conditions and understandings between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and thereof, and supersede all prior and contemporaneous agreements, understandings, inducements or conditions, expressed or implied, oral or written, except as contained herein and in the Transaction Documents; provided , however , except as explicitly stated herein, nothing contained in this Agreement or any other Transaction Document shall (or shall be deemed to) (i) have any effect on any agreements any Buyer has entered into with, or any instruments any Buyer has received from, the Company prior to the date hereof with respect to any prior investment made by such Buyer in the Company or (ii) waive, alter, modify or amend in any respect any obligations of the Company, or any rights of or benefits to any Buyer or any other Person, in any agreement entered into prior to the date hereof between or among the Company and any Buyer, or any instruments any Buyer received from the Company prior to the date hereof, and all such agreements and instruments shall continue in full force and effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the award of Units and the issuance of shares of Common Stock hereunder are subject to and governed by the provisions of the LTIP. In the event there are any inconsistencies between this Agreement and the LTIP, the provisions of the LTIP shall govern, as it may be amended or interpreted at Deluxe’s discretion, to meet any applicable requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: resulted in a sentence outside of the correct range. Therefore, we vacate his sentence and remand this case to the district court for resentencing consistent with this opinion. SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. 1 . See U.S.S.G. § 4Al.l(b) & cmt. 2; § 4A1.2(d)(2)(A) & cmt. 7. 2 . Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n. 26 (5th Cir.1999) (explaining that we may not consider new evidence furnished for the first time on appeal or facts which were not before the district court at the time of the challenged ruling); United States v. Alford, 142 F.3d 825, 832 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). 3 . See United States v. Hardeman, 933 F.2d Options: A. holding that district court may find facts to support both factors by adopting psr B. holding that arizona rule of civil procedure 52a requires the court to find only the ultimate facts not the evidentiary facts upon which the ultimate facts are based C. holding that defendant adopted facts found in the psr by not objecting D. holding that the district court may adopt facts contained in the psr without further inquiry if the facts have an adequate evidentiary basis and the defendant does not present rebuttal evidence E. holding that where defendant did not offer any rebuttal evidence to refute presentence report district court was free to adopt facts in psi without further inquiry

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the district court may adopt facts contained in the psr without further inquiry if the facts have an adequate evidentiary basis and the defendant does not present rebuttal evidence