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: Ark. 142, 60 S.W.3d 464 (2001); Caldwell v. State, 780 A.2d 1037 (Del. 2001); State v. Paul, 62 P.3d 389 (Okla.Crim. App.2003). Many of these states simply cited a case from the federal circuit that covers the state to support their approach to this issue. {33} We disagree with the reasoning of the Seventh and Fifth Circuits and the state courts that follow them because it ignores the scope requirement of the second-prong of the Terry test, which our case law has consistently recognized as appropriate to analyze traffic stops. As we said in Werner, an officer’s actions during the “investigatory detention must be reasonably related to the circumstances that initially justified the stop.” 117 N.M. at 317, 871 P.2d at 973; see, e.g., Taylor, 1999-NMCA-022, ¶ 20, 126 N.M. 569, 973 P.2d 246 (<HOLDING>). We feel the cases relied upon by the Seventh Options: A. holding that police officers are entitled to conduct an investigatory stop of a motorist if they have reasonable suspicion that the motorist has committed a traffic violation B. holding that where police officers had stopped a vehicle because they suspected that the motorist was intoxicated irrespective of whether the deputies were justified in detaining the motorist after he showed no signs of intoxication and even if they had not after approaching the motorist observed conditions raising a reasonable and articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot they were entitled to ask the motorist for permission to search his vehicle C. holding that defendant was unreasonably seized under fourth amendment when officer detained him to ask questions unrelated in scope to the reasons that justified the initial traffic stop D. holding that for purposes of determining whether the roadblock worked a fourth amendment seizure the controlling considerations are whether 1 the motorist was meant to be stopped by the physical obstacle of the roadblock and 2 the motorist was so stopped E. holding that any questions an officer asks of a stopped motorist must be reasonably related to the circumstances which justified his initial stop

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that any questions an officer asks of a stopped motorist must be reasonably related to the circumstances which justified his initial stop
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: 932 So.2d at 540-41—the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held: “To make a genuine issue entitling the [party seeking to avoid arbitration] to a trial by jury [on the arbitrability question], an unequivocal denial that the agreement had been made [is] needed, and some evidence should [be] produced to substantiate the denial.” Chastain, 957 F.2d at 854 (quoting T & R Enters, v. Continental Grain Co., 613 F.2d 1272, 1278 (5th Cir.1980)). Florida cases have not so clearly elucidated a standard, but they all seem to echo Chastain’s reasoning by agreeing that to raise a “substantial issue” requiring an evidentiary hearing, a party must identify factual disputes that, if resolved in its favor, would compel a different result. See Wallshein v. Shugarman, 50 So.3d 89, 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (<HOLDING>); Linden v. Auto Trend, Inc., 923 So.2d 1281, Options: A. holding that the trial court did not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing when the dispute could be resolved as a matter of law B. holding that it was not error for trial court to decline to conduct full evidentiary hearing before trial on outrageous government conduct claim C. holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute D. holding that a trial court need not conduct an evidentiary hearing on a motion to compel or stay arbitration if it can determine the issue as a matter of law after inspecting the relevant documents and affidavits andlistening to argument oh the issues E. holding trial court did not err in failing to conduct a hearing on motion for reinstatement when appellants failed to call to the trial courts attention the need for a hearing

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the trial court did not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing when the dispute could be resolved as a matter of law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: alleged forced sterilization. In re J-S- 24 I. & N. Dec. 520, 523 (A.G. 2008). Instead, in order to establish eligibility for relief on family planning grounds, a partner must demonstrate past persecution based on his own “other resistance” to a coercive population control program or a well founded fear that he will be subject to persecution for such “resistance.” Id. Even assuming that Chen-Xu established that he engaged in other resistance, he failed to challenge on appeal to the BIA the IJ’s finding that he did not demonstrate past persecution. Thus, we decline to review as unexhausted Chen Xu’s argument in his brief to this Court that his two day detention and 12,000 RMB fíne amounted to persecution. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 121-22, 124 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). In any event, the agency reasonably found Options: A. holding that issue exhaustion is mandatory even if not a statutory jurisdictional requirement B. holding that exhaustion of issues is jurisdictional C. holding that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional D. holding that this time requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional E. recognizing that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that issue exhaustion is mandatory even if not a statutory jurisdictional requirement
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: He claims she refused to order an X-ray and infers she lied to him about whether there was a doctor available to see him in the clinic. He also claims she failed to follow the “health service police [sic] and procedure manual for strains and sprains.” He acknowledges Nurse Armfield wrapped his shoulder in an ace bandage and gave him a heating pad to take back to his cell. Taking all of Hafner’s assertions as true, there is nothing in Nurse Armfield’s treatment that amounts to deliberate indifference to Hafner’s serious medical needs. First, because Hafner lied about the manner in which he had been injured, he contributed to Nurse Armfield’s decision not to immediately refer him to a doctor. Accord, Mid-Westem Electric, Inc. v. DeWild Grant Reckert & Assoc., 500 N.W.2d 250 (S.D.1993) (<HOLDING>). Second, Hafner has presented no evidence that Options: A. holding breach of fiduciary duty claim is essentially a negligence or professional malpractice claim B. holding that erisa does not preempt professional malpractice claims C. holding invalid an instruction regarding intervening cause of act of plaintiff as a defense to strict liability in a case when the former contributory negligence may have been a defense D. holding professional malpractice claim not contractual E. recognizing contributory negligence as a defense to professional malpractice claims

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing contributory negligence as a defense to professional malpractice claims
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Corp., 1991 WL 222071 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 23, 1991), the court noted [d]efenses which the defendants could raise against the named plaintiff individually, such as reliance or damages, but not against the class will not defeat typicality. [Eisenberg, 766 F.2d at 786]. Where the named plaintiffs right to recover may ultimately be affected by a unique defense but it will not affect his ability to present the case on the liability of the defendants to the plaintiff class, his claim is not atypical____ Basically, this issue or [sic] reliance or lack thereof is a question of fact which is not appropriately resolved at this stage. It is a defense and can be raised when it is proper to raise a defense. Id. at *4; see also Zeffiro v. First Pa. Banking and Trust Co., 96 F.R.D. 567, 570 (E.D.Pa.1983) (<HOLDING>). After Eisenberg, however, which was decided Options: A. recognizing that where representative plaintiff and other members of class share an interest in prevailing on similar legal claims particular differences in amount of damages claimed or of availability of certain defenses against class representative may not render his or her claims atypical B. recognizing that authorized representative may be general or only for a certain claim C. holding that the claims of the class representative and class members must be based on the same legal or remedial theory D. holding that a a representative plaintiff acts as fiduciary for the others requiring the representative to act in the best interest of class E. holding that in class action the claim or defense of the representative party must be typical of the claim or defense of each member of the class

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that where representative plaintiff and other members of class share an interest in prevailing on similar legal claims particular differences in amount of damages claimed or of availability of certain defenses against class representative may not render his or her claims atypical
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: we conclude that it was fleeting when viewed in the context of the entire closing argument. See Commonwealth v. May, 587 Pa. 184, 898 A.2d 559, 567-68 (2006) (finding no prejudice resulted from testimony that was fleeting when viewed in the context of a trial that consisted of more than one-thousand pages of testimony). The prosecutor’s remark, if prejudicial at all, was not “so severe as to prejudice the jury to the point that it could not render a true and fair verdict.” Id.See also Commonwealth v. Robinson, 583 Pa. 358, 877 A.2d 433, 443-44 (2005) (finding that the appellant was not prejudiced by the prosecutor’s reference to the victim’s religion because the comment was so brief it did not affect the jury’s decision); Commonwealth v. Freeman, 573 Pa. 532, 827 A.2d 385, 414 (2003) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Rollins, 558 Pa. 532, 738 Options: A. holding that admission of evidence showing murder victim was pregnant though prejudicial did not render sentencing fundamentally unfair B. holding that brief nonspecific testimony that prior to her murder the victim was peaceful and nice was so fleeting and general it was not prejudicial C. holding that the victims prior videotaped testimony from a preliminary hearing was admissible as testimony at trial where the victim was unavailable to testify D. holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive E. holding that statements were admissible because the sixyearold victim was old enough to understand the nature of the medical examination and the reason therefor her statement to the physician and her trial testimony were consistent in all pertinent respects she was examined immediately after the allegations and nearly four years prior to trial and there was no indication that the victim was motivated to be untruthful

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that brief nonspecific testimony that prior to her murder the victim was peaceful and nice was so fleeting and general it was not prejudicial
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 Participant has reviewed with the Participant’s own tax advisors the Federal, state, local and foreign tax consequences of the transactions contemplated by this Restricted Share Agreement. The Participant is relying solely on such advisors and not on any statements or representations of the Company or any of its agents. The Participant understands that he or she (and not the Company) shall be responsible for any tax liability that may arise as a result of the transactions contemplated by this Restricted Share 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: “necessarily determines the lawfulness of the officers’ actions throughout the whole course of the defendant’s conduct,” so that a subsequent section 1983 excessive force action brought by the defendant “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction.” Id. at 1045 (internal quotation marks omitted). Since Beets, at least two judges in this district have held that a section 148(a)(1) conviction obtained by jury verdict barred a subsequent section 1983 action for excessive force. See Lozano v. City of San Pablo, No. 14-cv-00898-KAW, 2014 WL 4386151, at *6 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 4, 2014) (“The jury verdict in the state court proceedings brings this case squarely in line with Beets.”)', Tarantino v. City of Concord, No. 12-cv-00579-JCS, 2013 WL 3722476, at *3 (N.D.Cal. July 12, 2013) (<HOLDING>). Defendants are wrong that the instant case is Options: A. holding that when selfdefense is carried out with excessive force a defendant would be guilty of manslaughter B. holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim C. holding that excessive force claims are not subject to exhaustion requirement D. holding that plaintiffs convictions at trial for assault on a peace officer and violation of section 148a1 barred plaintiffs excessive force claims where the jury made special findings that plaintiff initiated a physical altercation with the officers and did not act in selfdefense E. holding that where the plaintiffs evidence supported a finding that the defendants had applied force to restrain him the jury must determine not only whether the officers were justified in using force at all but if so whether the degree of force actually used was reasonable

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that plaintiffs convictions at trial for assault on a peace officer and violation of section 148a1 barred plaintiffs excessive force claims where the jury made special findings that plaintiff initiated a physical altercation with the officers and did not act in selfdefense
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: Notices to Partners or to the Partnership shall be deemed to have been given when personally delivered or mailed, by prepaid registered or certified mail, addressed as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, unless a notice of change of address has previously been given in writing by the addressee to the addressor, in which case such notice shall be addressed to the address set forth in such notice of change of address.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During your term of Service and afterward, you shall not, directly or indirectly, criticize, make any negative comments about or otherwise disparage the Company, its Affiliates or any persons or entities associated with any of them, whether orally, in writing, electronically or otherwise, directly or by implication, to any person or entity, including Company customers or agents; provided, however, that nothing in this Section 8(c) is intended to prohibit you from (i) making any disclosures or statements in good faith in the normal course of performing your duties or responsibilities for the Company during your Service; (ii) making any disclosures as may be required or compelled by law or legal process; or (iii) making any disclosures or providing any information to a governmental agency or entity, including without limitation in connection with a complaint by you against the Company or the investigation of any complaint against the Company.

assistant: Non-Disparagement
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: labor or material, and its lien was properly recorded on June 2, 2009. See MCL 570.1111(1). Therefore, we agree with the trial court’s determination that RCG perfected its hen. However, if a lien claim has not been adjudicated when a dispositive ruling on the underlying contract claim is made, and questions regarding the validity of a plaintiffs lien remain, they can be resolved in conjunction with a motion to award attorney fees. The plaintiff then would still have the burden to prove the validity of the lien. See Skyhook Lift-Slab Corp v Huron Towers, Inc, 369 Mich 36, 39; 118 NW2d 961 (1963) (stating that the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating compliance with the statutory requirements necessary for a lien claim); In re Eddy Estate, 354 Mich 334, 348; 92 NW2d 458 (1958) (<HOLDING>). 23 MCL 570.1105(2). The fact that RCG was not Options: A. holding that a plaintiff in an erisa denial of benefits case bears the burden of proving her entitlement to contractual benefits B. holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving outside contact with the jury C. holding that the party seeking to pierce the corporate veil bears the burden of proving that grounds for this action exist D. recognizing that the party seeking attorney fees bears the burden of proving entitlement to those fees E. holding that chanenge to the amount of attorney fees was not preserved for appeal where appellants objection challenged only the entitlement to fees

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that the party seeking attorney fees bears the burden of proving entitlement to those fees
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: made by the individual officers, and not a superior officer. At various times when addressing the issue, the trial judge expressed the view that there was nothing he could do regarding defendant’s complaint. Although the judge correctly stated he could not compel witnesses to speak to the defense against their will, he did not lack any authority to remedy the situation in the event he found the allegations to be true. In State v. Boiardo, 172 N.J.Super. 528, 412 A.2d 1084 (Law Div.1980), the trial judge required that a government witness be produced for personal interview by defense counsel, but fully informed “he has an absolute and personal right to either grant or deny the interview” and terminate it at will. Id. at 532, 412 A.2d 1084; see also Carrigan, supra, 804 F.2d at 601, 603 (<HOLDING>); but see R. 3:13-2(a) (limiting circumstances Options: A. holding that waiver by attorney was binding upon the accused when before the state introduced the evidence complained of on appeal counsel for the state in the presence of the accused and his counsel stated the agreement and the evidence of the witness was then read to the jury in the presence of the accused and his counsel without objection B. holding that under the extraordinary circumstances found by the district court it was not an abuse of discretion to order that defendants be permitted to take depositions of the witnesses in the presence of their attorney and the governments counsel C. holding that it is an abuse of discretion to dismiss a complaint merely because of the presence of superfluous matter D. holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife E. holding that abuse of discretion is the correct standard in reviewing a district court order disqualifying the district attorney for an appearance of impropriety

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that under the extraordinary circumstances found by the district court it was not an abuse of discretion to order that defendants be permitted to take depositions of the witnesses in the presence of their attorney and the governments counsel
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: malicious, or fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Id. In this consolidated appeal, Reberger disputes the validity of two of the three strikes relied upon by the district court, as well as the conclusion that he has not satisfactorily alleged that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm. 1. The district court properly counted Reberger v. Offender Management Division, No. 3:12-cv-00293 as a strike, notwithstanding the fact that Reberger’s appeal of Offender Management was still pending at the time the district court denied him IFP status. See Coleman v. Tollefson, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1769, 1763, 191 L.Ed.2d 803 (2015) (<HOLDING>). 2. The district court properly counted Options: A. holding that in considering dismissal of an appeal the court should exercise discretion to determine whether dismissal is appropriate in the circumstances presented by the case B. holding that a prior dismissal on one of 1915gs enumerated grounds counts as a strike even if the dismissal is the subject of an ongoing appeal C. holding district court dismissal of plaintiffs present action did not constitute prior action and thus did not count as third strike D. holding that plaintiffs were entitled to vacate final order of dismissal as void when they did not receive the motion for dismissal or notice of the hearing on the order until after the dismissal was entered E. holding that a prior dismissal on a statutorily enumerated ground counts as a strike even if the dismissal is the subject of an appeal

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a prior dismissal on a statutorily enumerated ground counts as a strike even if the dismissal is the subject of an appeal
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: by the special rules which have developed in that field. 234 N.W.2d at 793. Likewise, the Eighth Circuit has held, with respect to defamation and tortious interference claims brought under Minnesota law in the context of a labor dispute, that the malice standard required for “actionable defamation claims ... must equally be met for a tortious interference claim based on the same conduct or statements.” Beverly Hills Foodland, Inc. v. United Food & Comm’l Workers Union, 39 F.3d 191, 196 (8th Cir.1994) (footnote omitted). Indeed, the court held that “a plaintiff may not avoid the protection afforded by the Constitution and federal labor law merely by the use of creative pleading.” Id.; accord Johnson v. CBS, Inc., No. Civ-3-95624, slip op. at 5, 1996 WL 907735 (D.Minn. Sept. 4, 1996) (<HOLDING>). A decision of the Seventh Circuit (applying Options: A. holding that where both defamation and tortious interference claims are pled and are based on same facts minnesota law requires the application of the actual malice standard to tortious interference claims B. holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims C. holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for tortious interference D. recognizing action for tortious interference with prospective advantage E. holding that sovereign immunity applies to claims alleging tortious interference with business relations because the tort requires proof of malice

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that where both defamation and tortious interference claims are pled and are based on same facts minnesota law requires the application of the actual malice standard to tortious interference claims
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If Participant’s Service as an Employee or Director terminates for any reason, all unvested RSUs will be forfeited to Redfin immediately, and all rights of Participant to such RSUs automatically terminate without payment of any consideration to Participant, unless the Committee otherwise determines. Participant’s Service as an Employee or Director will be considered terminated as of the date Participant is no longer providing services as an Employee or Director (regardless of the reason for such termination and whether or not later found to be invalid or in breach of employment laws in the jurisdiction where Participant is employed or the terms of Participant’s employment agreement, if any) and will not, subject to the laws applicable to Participant’s Award, be extended by any notice period mandated under local laws (e.g., Service would not include a period of “garden leave” or similar period). Participant acknowledges and agrees that the Vesting Schedule may change prospectively in the event Participant’s service status changes between full- and part-time status and/or in the event Participant is on an approved leave of absence in accordance with Redfin’s policies relating to work schedules and vesting of awards or as determined by the Committee. Participant acknowledges that the vesting of the Shares pursuant to the Notice and this Agreement is subject to Participant’s continued Service as an Employee or Director, unless the Committee otherwise determines. In case of any dispute as to whether termination of Service as an Employee or Director has occurred, the Committee will have sole discretion to determine whether such termination of Service as an Employee or Director has occurred and the effective date of such termination (including whether Participant may still be considered to be providing services while on an approved leave of absence).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company and any of its subsidiaries shall have the right to deduct from any payment to be made to you the required Federal, state, local and other taxes required to be withheld. You shall be solely responsible for any and all tax liability incurred in connection with the Refinancing Bonus.

assistant: Withholdings
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: that the appellant might speak untruthfully in response. Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238, 254 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 837, 114 S.Ct. 116, 126 L.Ed.2d 82 (1993). In our review, we look to whether the circumstances of the promise would reasonably induce a defendant to admit to a crime he did not commit. Sossamon v. State, 816 S.W.2d 340, 345 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), abrogated on other grounds by Graham v. State, 994 S.W.2d 651 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). 2. Analysis Appellant argues that the condition of his d mination of credibility and demeanor, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding the conditions of Appellant’s detention did not render his videotaped statement involuntary. See Bell v. State, 169 S.W.3d 384, 391-92 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, pet. refd) (<HOLDING>). Appellant also argues that his oral Options: A. holding eight hours of questioning while in handcuffs and leg shackles did not render confession involuntary where appellant never indicated he did not want to answer any more questions or wanted to speak to attorney and never requested food water or bathroom breaks B. holding that the court did not err in concluding that a defendant was not in custody where he made statements to law enforcement officers in his own home was not physically restrained during the conversation never manifested an intent to terminate the interaction and the officers never indicated to the defendant that they had probable cause to arrest him C. holding that defendants request to speak to his parents was not an invocation of the right to remain silent because defendant never gave the police any indication that he wanted to stop talking only indicating he wanted to take a break from the interrogation to speak with his parents D. holding officers failure to obtain a written waiver from defendant did not render his oral waiver or subsequent confession involuntary E. holding suspects contradictory answers on miranda waiver form that he would answer questions without an attorney and that he wanted to talk to a lawyer to be ambiguous

assistant: The best answer is A. holding eight hours of questioning while in handcuffs and leg shackles did not render confession involuntary where appellant never indicated he did not want to answer any more questions or wanted to speak to attorney and never requested food water or bathroom breaks
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 binding upon you, your legal representatives, heirs, legatees and distributees, and upon the Company, its successors and assigns, including, but not limited to, any successor entity resultin g from a Change in Control.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Party acknowledges that the remedy at law for any breach of this Section 9 may be inadequate, and the full amount of damages that may result from such breach may not readily susceptible to being measured in monetary terms. Accordingly, in the event of a breach or threatened breach by either Party of this Section 9 , the other Party will be entitled to seek immediate injunctive relief and specific performance. Such remedies will be in addition to any other remedies that may be available in law or equity.

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: From and after the date of this Agreement, neither the Company, nor any of its affiliates will, and the Company shall use its reasonable best efforts to ensure that no Person acting on their behalf will, directly or indirectly, make any offers or sales of any security or solicit any offers to buy any security, under circumstances that would (i) require registration of the offer and sale of any of the Securities under the Securities Act, or (ii) cause this offering of the Securities to be integrated with other offerings by the Company in a manner that would require stockholder approval pursuant to the rules of the Principal Market on which any of the securities of the Company are listed or designated, unless in the case of this clause (ii), stockholder approval is obtained before the closing of such subsequent transaction in accordance with the rules of such Principal Market.

assistant: Integration
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: aside the order of the circuit court. The sole issue in this appeal centers upon whether Waterman’s petition of nomination for the Office of Judge of the 30th Judicial Circuit, 9th Division, is fatally defective under KRS 118A.060(2) and (3). A thorough analysis of the applicable statute is thus required. Subsection (2) of KRS 118A.060 states in part: at least two registered voters to sign the petition and also intended that the failure to do so would be fatal. The reasoning behind such a mandatory provision is to ensure that the voters who sign a petition are eligible to vote for that candidate. However, we believe the provision requiring the voters to be sworn before an officer authorized to administer an oath to be merely directory. See Skaggs v. Fyffe, 266 Ky. 337, 98 S.W.2d 884 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, such provision of subsection (2) was Options: A. recognizing the rule of statutory interpretation that laws are to be liberally construed so as to reach a substantially correct result and the court should to every reasonable extent interpret such provisions as directory rather than mandatory B. holding that pleadings under the rico act are to be liberally construed C. holding that coas should be construed liberally D. holding that the workers compensation act is to be liberally construed and reasonable doubts as to construction are to be resolved in favor of coverage E. holding that only if provisions in an insurance contract are open to more than one interpretation should it be construed strictly against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing the rule of statutory interpretation that laws are to be liberally construed so as to reach a substantially correct result and the court should to every reasonable extent interpret such provisions as directory rather than mandatory
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company has not issued any capital stock since its most recently filed SEC Document (as defined below) under the Exchange Act, other than (a) pursuant to the exercise of stock options, restricted stock units or other similar awards under the Company’s stock option plans, (b) to consultants, employees and other service providers of the Company in transactions approved by the Company’s Board of Directors, or (c) as disclosed in the most recently filed SEC Document under the Exchange Act. No Person has any right of first refusal, preemptive right, right of participation, or any similar right to participate in the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents. Other than as disclosed in the SEC Documents, there are no stockholders agreements, voting agreements or other similar agreements with respect to the Company’s capital stock to which the Company is a party or, to the knowledge of the Company, between or among any of the Company’s stockholders.

assistant: Capitalization
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 comply with the strict procedural requirement of Rule 11(c)(1)(A).”); see also Gordon v. Unifund CCR Partners, 345 F.3d 1028, 1030 (8th Cir.2003) (denying Rule 11 sanctions because the defendant sent informal letters to the plaintiff instead of a copy of the motion for sanctions). 26 . Cadle cites an unpublished circuit court decision and several district court decisions, none of which are persuasive. Compare Barker v. Bank One, 156 F.3d 1228, 1998 WL 466437, at *2 (6th Cir.1998) (unpublished) (technical noncompliance allowed because defendants did serve plaintiff motion for sanctions twenty-one days prior to filing with the court and sent the plaintiff warning letters prior to the final judgment in the case) with Ridder v. City of Springfield, 109 F.3d 288, 297 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Compare Cardillo v. Cardillo, 360 F.Supp.2d Options: A. holding that sanctions under rule 11 are unavailable unless the motion for sanctions is served on the opposing party for the full twentyone day safe harbor period before it is filed with or presented to the court B. holding that a motion for rule 37 sanctions is dispositive C. holding under third circuit law that denial of rule 11 sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion D. holding that rule 11 sanctions are not appropriate when a motion is filed in part for a legitimate purpose even when the motion includes certain evidence which is assertedly presented for an improper purpose E. holding that a motion for rule 11 sanctions is dispositive

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that sanctions under rule 11 are unavailable unless the motion for sanctions is served on the opposing party for the full twentyone day safe harbor period before it is filed with or presented to the court
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All covenants, agreements, representations and warranties made in this Guaranty shall survive the execution and delivery of this Guaranty, and shall continue in full force and effect so long as any Lender has any Commitment or any Secured Obligations remain unsatisfied.

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: that Defendant suggests that the proceedings on remand constituted a separate case, we reject the argument. See State v. Belgarde, 62 Wash. App. 684, 815 P.2d 812, 816-17 (1991) (observing that a defendant’s retrial, following reversal of an earlier conviction, constituted further proceedings in the same case as opposed to new proceedings or a new case). {18} Our reported decisions indicate that, in cases such as this where a new trial is conducted on remand, “whether the original judge would reasonably be expected ... to have substantial difficulty in putting out of his or her mind previously-expressed views or findings,” is to be taken into consideration. State v. Ricky G., 110 N.M. 646, 649, 798 P.2d 596, 599 (Ct.App.1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); In re S.G., 91 P.3d 443, 447 Options: A. holding that it was not reversible error to fail to answer the jurys question where the trial judge was presiding over closing arguments in a codefendants case when the question was asked and the jury reached a result before the judge could confer with the parties B. holding that the judges stated belief that the defendant was guilty did not disqualify the judge from presiding on remand C. holding that judge presiding at trial may not testify in that trial as witness D. holding that trial judge was not required to rule on motion to disqualify which was never served on judge as required by florida rule of judicial administration 2330c E. holding that the test for good faith is the actual belief of the party and not the reasonableness of that belief

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the judges stated belief that the defendant was guilty did not disqualify the judge from presiding on remand
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 one or more provisions of this Agreement should be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained herein shall not in any way be affected, impaired, prejudiced or disturbed thereby, and any provision hereunder found partially unenforceable shall be interpreted to be enforceable to the fullest extent possible.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the Lenders and the Issuing Bank may continue to make loans or extend credit to the Borrowers based on this Loan Guaranty until five (5) days after it receives written notice of termination from any Loan Guarantor . Notwithstanding receipt of any such notice, each Loan Guarantor will continue to be liable to the Lenders for any Guaranteed Obligations created, assumed or committed to prior to the fifth day after receipt of the notice, and all subsequent renewals, extensions, modifications and amendments with respect to, or substitutions for, all or any part of such Guaranteed Obligations . Nothing in this Section 10.08 shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of, or eliminate, limit, reduce or otherwise impair any rights or remedies the Administrative Agent or any Lender may have in respect of, any Default or Event of Default that shall exist under Article VII hereof as a result of any such notice of termination.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The RSUs subject to the Award shall vest in accordance with the Vesting Schedule set forth in Exhibit B to the Grant Notice. Unless and until the RSUs have vested in accordance with the Vesting Schedule set forth in the Grant Notice, Participant will have no right to any distribution with respect to such RSUs. Unless otherwise provided in Exhibit B to the Grant Notice, in the event of Participant’s termination of Continuous Service prior to the vesting of all of the RSUs, any unvested RSUs will terminate automatically without any further action by the Company and be forfeited without further notice and at no cost to the Company.

assistant: Vesting
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: factual findings by the state courts are subject to a presumption of correctness, rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence.” Cook v. McKune, 323 F.3d 825, 831 (10th Cir.2003). Mr. Gutierrez argues that the New Mexico state courts did not address his ineffective assistance of counsel claims because the state courts summarily denied them without discussion. In Aycox v. Lytle, 196 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir.1999), however, we pointed out that even where the state court had issued a summary order of dismissal which faded to discuss the federal law governing a claim, the claim was adjudicated on the merits because “the decision was reached on substantive rather than procedural grounds.” Id. at 1177; see also Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8, 123 S.Ct. 362, 154 L.Ed.2d 263 (2002) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we apply the AEDPA standard. To prevail Options: A. holding that failure to cite federal law does not mean that state court decision was contrary to established federal law state court need not even be aware of supreme court precedents so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the statecourt decision contradicts them B. holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law C. holding that state courts failure to discuss or even to be aware of federal precedent does not in itself render the decision contrary to federal law D. holding that a federal courts dismissal of state claims without prejudice is not res judicata as to adjudication in either state or federal courts E. holding that the federal habeas courts task is to determine if the state courts decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the supreme court of the united states

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that state courts failure to discuss or even to be aware of federal precedent does not in itself render the decision contrary to federal law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, each Loan Party and each of the Restricted Subsidiaries owns or has the lawful right to use all Intellectual Property used, held for use or otherwise necessary in the conduct of its business, without conflict with any rights of others. No Intellectual Property owned or used by a Loan Party or any Restricted Subsidiary that is material to the operations or business of any Loan Party has been adjudged invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction or applicable intellectual property registry or been cancelled, in whole or in part, except where such judgment, decree, ruling or cancellation could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. There is no pending or, to any Loan Party’s knowledge, threatened Intellectual Property Claim with respect to any Loan Party, any Restricted Subsidiary or any of their property (including any Intellectual Property), and the operation of the businesses of each Loan Party and Restricted Subsidiary does not infringe upon, misappropriate, dilute or otherwise violate the proprietary rights of any third party, except as could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. All material U.S. Intellectual Property owned, used, held for use or licensed by, or otherwise subject to any interests of, any Loan Party or any Restricted Subsidiary on the Closing Amendment No.1 Effective Date is shown on Schedule 5.10 .

assistant: Intellectual Property