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: intend for their privilege argument, addressed above in the discussion of Plaintiffs’ inducement-of-breach claim, to apply to the tortious-interference claim as well. Defendants have not, however, cited to any Tennessee case law supporting the application of the parent-subsidiary privilege in the tortious-interference context as opposed to the inducement-of-breach context. Moreover, because the “improper means or motive” element of a tortious-interference claim itself requires the same type of conduct that would be sufficient to nullify the privilege in the inducement context, the Court finds it unnecessary to consider the question of whether Tennessee courts would apply the privilege for purposes of a tortious interference claim. See Waste Conversion Systems, 33 S.W.3d at 784 Options: A. recognizing wrongful adoption cause of action grounded in fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation B. recognizing tort of wrongful discharge C. holding that im proper means may be wrongful by reason of a statute or other regulation or a recognized rule of common law or perhaps an established standard of a trade or profession D. holding that the parentsubsidiary privilege could be lost by using wrongful means including fraud misrepresentation threats violence defamation trespass restraint of trade intimidation molestation or any other wrongful act recognized by statute or common law E. holding that plaintiffs failure to prove decedents death was caused by the wrongful acts of the defendant precludes any recovery of wrongful death damages under mississippis wrongful death statute

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the parentsubsidiary privilege could be lost by using wrongful means including fraud misrepresentation threats violence defamation trespass restraint of trade intimidation molestation or any other wrongful act recognized by statute or common 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: 52” in order to capture decisions at law recognizing that unpreserved charging errors warrant appellate review only in “exceptional circumstances”). Plaintiff here fails to satisfy these requirements. a. No Clear or Obvious Error (1) Gamer and O’Bert Do Not Clearly Establish a Charging Requirement for Deadly Force Cases Plaintiff cannot satisfy the first two requirements of plain error because no controlling precedent clearly mandates that a district court charge a jury that a precondition to the use of “force highly likely to have deadly effects is ... probable cause to believe that the suspect posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to others.” Ante at 334; see Henderson v. United States, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 1121, 1127, 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Youngs, 687 F.3d 56, 59 (2d Options: A. recognizing plain or fundamental error B. holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error C. holding that omission was not plain error D. holding that defendants who do not object to jury instructions at trial are subject to a plain error standard of review on appeal E. recognizing plain error to require authoritative legal decision on subject

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing plain error to require authoritative legal decision on subject
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: seek to advance in this lawsuit. The Court could not square a different result with fundamental requirement that a 60-day notice must “be sufficiently specific to inform the alleged violator about what it is doing wrong, so that it will know what corrective actions will avert a lawsuit.” Atlantic States, 116 F.3d at 819. Not having given Defendants notice of the violations alleged in this lawsuit, but only for violations that had already been addressed by the end of the 60-day notice period and that were therefore “wholly past” by the time Plaintiffs would have been permitted to sue for properly noticed ongoing violations, Plaintiffs’ Clean Water Act claims must be dismissed. See, e.g., Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., 629 F.3d 387, 399-403 (4th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); ONRC Action v. Columbia Plywood, Inc., 286 Options: A. holding rookerfeldman inapplicable where the district court could and did find that the plaintiffs constitutional claims had merit without also finding that the state court erred B. holding that the district court erred in finding violations that were not alleged specifically in the plaintiffs notice letter and no penalties could be imposed for those violations C. holding that the trial court improperly relied on evidence of new violations in determining the appropriate adult sentence to be imposed for the original offenses since defendant denied committing the new violations he could not be penalized merely for being arrested and charged D. holding that although that the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs lacked standing the appellate court may nonetheless proceed to consider the district courts determination that plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted E. holding that alleged violations of a state statute did not give rise to federal constitutional claims

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the district court erred in finding violations that were not alleged specifically in the plaintiffs notice letter and no penalties could be imposed for those violations
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 Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns permitted hereby, except that no Borrower may assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the Administrative Agent, the Collateral Agent, the Issuing Bank, the Swingline Lender and each Lender and no Lender may assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights or obligations hereunder except (i) to an Eligible Assignee in accordance with the provisions of Section 10.04(b) , (ii) by way of participation in accordance with the provisions of Section 10.04(d) or (iii) by way of pledge or assignment of a security interest subject to the restrictions of Section 10.04(f) (and any other attempted assignment or transfer by any Borrower or any Lender shall be null and void). Nothing in this Agreement, expressed or implied, shall be construed to confer upon any Person (other than the parties hereto, their respective successors and assigns permitted hereby, Participants to the extent provided in Section 10.04(d) and, to the extent expressly contemplated hereby, the other Indemnitees) any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Agreement.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you hereby grant to masquerade , facebook , and our other affiliates a worldwide , irrevocable , perpetual , royalty-free , fully paid , sub-licensable , transferable license to use , reproduce , modify , make derivative works of , distribute , publicly display or perform your content in connection with the services , including our services ' integrations with facebook companies or third-party services , or otherwise with your consent .

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, the Note, and the other Loan Documents integrate all the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto and supersede all oral representations and negotiations and prior writings with respect to the subject matter hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to recover. There is ample authority for the position we have taken.... At [2 Harper & James, Torts § 27.5.] page 1455, note 57 [it is said]: The question of the child’s contributory negligence is a separate problem which must be carefully distinguished from that of the land occupier’s duty.... Unfortunately the issues are often confused. Where contributory negligence bars recovery anyway, the confusion does not affect the result. But in cases in which the plaintiff may not be contributorily negligent, it would be important to keep the issues distinct. [Pocholec v. Giustina, 224 Or. 245, 355 P.2d 1104, 1108-09 (Or.1960) (quoting 2 Harper & James, Torts, § 27.5, at 1455 n.57 (1956)).] See also Colls v. City of Chicago, 212 Ill.App.3d 904, 156 Ill.Dec. 971, 571 N.E.2d 951, 978 (1991) (<HOLDING>). A court instructing a jury should explain Options: A. holding state is not a proper defendant under 1983 B. holding that denial of remand was proper where plaintiff failed to raise the proper objection C. holding that to charge compara tive negligence in trespassingchild case is proper D. holding in a similar case that certiorari was the proper vehicle for review E. holding venue proper where proper when the action was commenced

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that to charge compara tive negligence in trespassingchild case is proper
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: it considered the proposed density urban. 35 The principal cases cited by the parties are Patzkowsky v. Klamath Cty, 8 Or LUBA 64, 71 (1983) (requiring county to discuss whether subdivision into one-acre lots in area 14 miles from UGB and two miles from nearest unincorporated community would comply with Goal 14); 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas County, 3 Or LUBA 316, 327, 330 (1981) (to designate one-, two- and five-acre residential zones without addressing their impact on UGBs violates Goal 14); Medford v. Jackson Cty, supra, n 19, 2 Or LUBA at 389-91 (describing as “quasi-urban” a 2,600-acre area between Medford and Eagle Point containing 4,300 residents and the largest concentration of industry in the county); Metropolitan Serv. Dist. v. Clackamas Cty, 2 Or LUBA 300, 307 (1981) (<HOLDING>); In the Matter of Linn County’s Comprehensive Options: A. holding that even when a defendant moves under rule 50 at the close of plaintiffs evidence and autocentro did not even do that if a defendant wishes to renew a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the posttrial stage with a view to having denial of that motion considered by the court of appeals the defendant is required to have moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence B. holding that indigents have a right to a transcript on appeal as announced in griffin v illinois 351 us 12 76 sct 585 100 led 891 to be retroactive C. holding that a foreclosure advertisements property description that included two unavailable subdivision lots was not defective as a matter of law D. holding that although 13 lots on 31 acres 1 12 miles from ugb and 12 lots on 28 acres 12 mile from ugb are not necessarily urban as a matter of law close proximity to ugb requires county to consider whether ugb would be affected by the approval of these subdivisions E. holding that the trial court abused its discretion in giving virtually no consideration to the mothers historical role as primary caregiver in a custodyrelocation order regarding a twelve 12 yearold child

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that although 13 lots on 31 acres 1 12 miles from ugb and 12 lots on 28 acres 12 mile from ugb are not necessarily urban as a matter of law close proximity to ugb requires county to consider whether ugb would be affected by the approval of these subdivisions
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 or its affiliates, as applicable, may withhold from any amounts payable or benefits provided under this Agreement such federal, state, local, foreign or other taxes as will be required to be withheld pursuant to any applicable law or regulation (or require Executive to make arrangements satisfactory to the Company for the payment of such required withholding taxes).

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: case, such as we have here, makes intent a material issue and opens the door to admission of prior drug-related offenses as highly probative, and not overly prejudicial, evidence ola defendant’s intent.”) In applying the second prong of the Chavez test, the evidence of defendant’s prior 1998 convictions must be sufficient to support a finding that he actually committed the acts in question. As to the Cannabis conviction, the evidence consisted of a transcript of the plea, conviction and sentence. Certainly, the conviction itself is sufficient proof that he committed the pri- or act. “The fact that the conviction was based on a guilty plea is inconsequential. See United States v. Edwards, 696 F.2d 1277, 1280 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 909, 103 S.Ct. 1884, 76 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983) (<HOLDING>)” Calderon, 127 F.3d at 1332. The evidence as Options: A. holding that proponent of 404b evidence must identify a proper 404b purpose for admission that is at issue in the case B. holding appellate argument that statement violated rule 404b was improper because it was the defendant who elicited the statement at trial C. holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper D. holding that rule 404b evidence is admissible in rebuttal E. holding that appellants own statement admitting act even if mere puffery is sufficient to justify a jury finding that he committed the act for purposes of rule 404b

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that appellants own statement admitting act even if mere puffery is sufficient to justify a jury finding that he committed the act for purposes of rule 404b
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 Medical Services is equitably estopped from arguing that the arbitration provision does not apply. First, we note that the Standard Form of Agreement specifically names Waldheim as the “architect.” The definition of “architect” found in section 4.1.1 of the general-conditions document includes the architect’s “authorized representative,” and paragraph 4.6.4 of the general-conditions document prohibits the arbitration of claims against both the architect and the “Architect’s employees or consultants.” Medical Services argues that Watkins provided architectural services; however, there is no evidence in the record indicating that Watkins was Waldheim’s “authorized representative” or his employee or consultant. See Providian Nat’l Bank v. Conner, 898 So.2d 714, 719 (Ala.2004) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, Medical Services did not meet its Options: A. holding that statements in motions and briefs are not evidence to be considered in ruling on a motion to compel arbitration B. recognizing that in reviewing ruling on motion to compel arbitration we first determine whether party seeking arbitration established existence of arbitration agreement C. holding that issues not clearly raised in initial briefs are considered abandoned D. holding that trial court did not err in ruling on appellees motion for summary judgment before appellees complied with appellants discovery request when the record reflected that appellant filed a motion to compel three days before the hearing and the record did not reveal any effort on the part of appellant to secure a ruling from the trial court on its motion to compel or object at the trial court hearing the motion for summary judgment prior to ruling on the motion to compel E. holding that erroneously admitted evidence may be considered when ruling on a motion to dismiss

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that statements in motions and briefs are not evidence to be considered in ruling on a motion to compel arbitration
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: are based on substantially the same operative facts, regardless of the relief sought in each suit.” Tohono, 131 S.Ct. at 1731 (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit recently explained: After Tohono, it is clear that we must: (1) not view § 1500 narrowly; (2) focus only on whether two claims share the same operative facts and not on the relief requested; and (3) determine whether two suits share substantially the same operative facts by applying the test developed in Keene Corp. It is clear, moreover, that our analysis should consider the principles of res judicata to which the Supreme Court pointed. Trusted, 659 F.3d at 1164. Determining whether two suits are based on “substantially the same operative facts” is necessarily a fact-intensive inquiry. See, e.g., Tohono, 131 S.Ct. at 1731 (<HOLDING>); Trusted, 659 F.3d at 1167 (focusing on Options: A. holding that transfer would be appropriate when two identical cases were pending in the separate districts of the same state B. holding that the trustee did not breach its fiduciary duty when its actions were consistent with the trust instrument C. holding that even if the standard for waiver is clear the standard was not met D. holding that trial judge is legally correct in dismissing declaratory action when two actions are substantially the same issues were identical and the identical action was still pending E. holding that the standard was met when two actions were related to the same assets and were based upon almost identical breaches of fiduciary duty

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the standard was met when two actions were related to the same assets and were based upon almost identical breaches of fiduciary duty
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: Executive agrees that at all times following the Date of Termination, Executive shall not, without the prior written consent of the Company, disclose to any person, firm or corporation any confidential information of the Company or its subsidiaries that is now known to Executive or that hereafter may become known to Executive as a result of Executive’s employment or association with the Company or its subsidiaries, unless such disclosure is required under the terms of a valid and effective subpoena or order issued by a court or governmental body; provided , however , that the foregoing shall not apply to confidential information that becomes publicly disseminated by means other than a breach of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event a Participant dies while employed by the Company or any of its Affiliates, a number of Performance Shares equal to the target number of Performance Shares awarded (as set forth in the Certificate) shall immediately vest in the estate of such Participant or in any person who acquired such Performance Shares by bequest or inheritance, or by the Permitted Assignee. References in this Agreement to a Participant shall include any person who acquired Performance Shares from such Participant by bequest or inheritance.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: S.W.2d 355, 360 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1990, pet. ref'd); Parker v. State, 792 S.W.2d 795, 798-99 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, pet. ref'd). We review the trial court’s ruling on an objection to a hypothetical used in voir dire for abuse of discretion. Id. at 798. As a general rule, a witness may not recommend a particular punishment to the factfinder. Johnson v. State, 987 S.W.2d 79, 87 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd); see Sattiewhite v. State, 786 S.W.2d 271, 290 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) (involving expert testimony). For this reason, the Corpus Christi court of appeals has concluded that a voir dire hypothetical implying that punishment recommendations are admissible is improper. See Taylor v. State, 74 S.W.3d 457, 463-64 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, pet. granted) (<HOLDING>). It does not appear that the State intended Options: A. holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire B. holding that trial court erred in denying defendants request to allow standby counsel to conduct voir dire where there was no indication that the trial court considered the koehler factors or that granting the request would have disrupted or delayed the trial C. holding trial court erred in overruling defendants objection on same ground as asserted here to trial courts voir dire hypothetical that was similarly worded to states hypothetical here D. holding that to establish ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object during trial appellant must show trial court would have committed error in overruling objection E. holding that the legislature intended the trial court to be more involved in the voir dire procedure in capital felony cases

assistant: The best answer is C. holding trial court erred in overruling defendants objection on same ground as asserted here to trial courts voir dire hypothetical that was similarly worded to states hypothetical here
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a petition — waited the full ninety days after the denial of rehearing permitted by the Supreme Court rules, see Sup.Ct. R. 13, should not change the timing of the government’s obligation to file an indictment under the STA. The government has no control over the defendant’s choice in this regard. Under these circumstances, it would make little sense to require — as opposed to allow — the government to proceed against a defendant within thirty days after the mandate issues even though the defendant has said he will file a petition for writ of certiorari (which he has ninety days after judgment or the denial of rehearing to file), only to pause the criminal proceedings once a timely cer-tiorari petition is actually filed to await the Supreme Court’s decision. Cf. Tyler, 878 F.2d at 759 (<HOLDING>). We conclude, instead, that the least awkward Options: A. holding that a trial judges denial of a recusal motion can be challenged on appeal or in a petition for a writ of mandamus B. recognizing in the context of a petition for a writ of mandamus that although the district court retained jurisdiction over the case following the governments mandamus petition the district court justifiably could defer trial until resolution of the appellate proceedings had the government prevailed on the merits of the mandamus petition the trial strategies of the government as well as the defense would surely have been altered C. holding that district court error was not clear error in denying petition for mandamus D. holding that a petition for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate mechanism for challenging a trial courts grant of leave to amend a complaint E. holding that when a respondent fails to challenge factual allegations contained in a petition for the writ of mandamus the appellate court accepts as true the factual statements in the petition

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing in the context of a petition for a writ of mandamus that although the district court retained jurisdiction over the case following the governments mandamus petition the district court justifiably could defer trial until resolution of the appellate proceedings had the government prevailed on the merits of the mandamus petition the trial strategies of the government as well as the defense would surely have been altered
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: of contra proferentem to resolve the ambiguities in the insurance contract. E.g., Lee v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Ala., 10 F.3d 1547, 1551 (11th Cir.1994). “Application of this rule requires us to construe ambiguities against the drafter.... ” Id. In doing so, we must conclude that Billings’s organically based OCD does not fall within the policy’s mental illness limitation. See Mongeluzo v. Baxter Travenol Long Term Disability Benefit Plan, 46 F.3d 938, 943 (9th Cir.1995) (explaining that “[b]ecause of the rule that ambiguities are to be resolved in favor of the insured, if either a cause or a symptom of the disease were physical and caused the disability in whole or in part, then” the disease does not fall within the mental illness limitation); Phillips, 978 F.2d at 310-11, 314 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s Options: A. holding that a mental illness limitation containing the exact language at issue in this case is ambiguous because it does not specify whether a disability is to be classified as mental by looking to the cause of the disability or to its symptoms and thus construed in favor of the insured does not encompass organically based illnesses B. recognizing attorneys mental illness as grounds for relief under rule 60b6 C. holding that upon applying the doctrine of contra proferentem the insureds organically based illness does not fall within the mental illness limitation as a matter of law D. holding that attorneys mental illness may justify equitable tolling E. holding that a mental illness limitation limiting the maximum payment for care of mental illness or care of nervous conditions of any type or cause is ambiguous because the plan contains no definition or explanation of the term mental illness and thus construed against the insurance company does not include physically based illnesses

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that upon applying the doctrine of contra proferentem the insureds organically based illness does not fall within the mental illness limitation 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: Election Agreement. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Exhibit D. Plaintiff also contends that “there exists a federal basis for recovery when a party breaches [a Stipulated Election Agreement] entered into for purposes of furthering [the] federal policy” of supporting free and fair representation elections. Plaintiff’s Objections at 5. As the Report explains, a union and an employer may enter into a Stipulated Election Agreement as part of the representation election process. Report at 14. Because the Stipulated Election Agreement is part of the election process, disputes regarding the Agreement implicate representational issues and therefore fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board. Report at 13-14; see NLRB v. Paper Manufacturers Co., 786 F.2d 163, 167 (3d Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff cites no authority for the Options: A. holding that it may be decided as a matter of law B. holding that constitutional questions will not be decided if case can be decided on other grounds C. holding that representation issues are matters relegated to the board representation issues may not be decided by contract and thus may not be decided by an arbitrator D. recognizing in a takings case that issues of statutory interpretation and other matters of law may be decided on motion for summary judgment E. holding that issues decided by an intervening supreme court case need not be identical to be controlling

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that representation issues are matters relegated to the board representation issues may not be decided by contract and thus may not be decided by an arbitrator
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: population. Cf. Shryock, 342 F.3d at 986 (“[T]he district court need not define common terms that are readily understandable to the jury.”). Even accepting the debatable proposition that “ad hoc” is beyond the understanding of the average juror, we conclude that the jury would have been able to understand what type of structure a RICO enterprise must have (i.e., one that provides “a mechanism for controlling and directing the affairs of the entity on an on-going continuous basis”) from the remainder of the instruction. Moreover, we have previously held that a district court is not required to define terms that would normally be beyond the general knowledge of jurors if the terms have been covered extensively during the trial. United States v. Sarno, 73 F.3d 1470, 1486 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the structure of the alleged Options: A. holding that the district courts failure to instruct the jury on quantity was harmless in part because the testimony regarding quantity was extensive detailed and uncontroverted B. recognizing that the term expense may be used to define disbursements even though the term is used in accrual accounting C. holding that an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it D. holding that a district court properly denied the defendants request for a mistrial following a witness statement that the defendant had an extensive criminal record because the remark was isolated and the district court gave an immediate curative instruction E. holding that the district court was not required to define pro forma because of extensive discussions regarding the term at trial

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the district court was not required to define pro forma because of extensive discussions regarding the term at trial
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: of The Colony v. North Texas Mun. Water Dist., 272 S.W.3d 699, 731 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008); Van Duzer v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 995 F.Supp.2d 673, 698-99 (S.D.Tex.2014). An exception to this rule arises when overpayment is made under a valid contract. Id. and id., citing Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 966 S.W.2d 467, 469-70 (Tex.1998) (“in some circumstances overpayments under a valid contract may give rise to a claim for restitution or unjust enrichment”), in turn citing the following inter alia: Bowers v. Missouri, Kan. & Tex. Ry. Co., 241 S.W. 509, 510-11 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1922, no writ) (allowing restitution for freight charges paid in excess of rates specified in shipping contract); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Lone Star Producing Co., 322 F.2d 28, 31-33 (5th Cir.1963) (<HOLDING>); Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Harrington, 246 Options: A. holding that plaintiff could recover money mistakenly paid in excess of contract price B. holding that a contract must entitle the plaintiff to money damages in the event of the governments breach of that contract C. holding that attorneys could not recover fees in excess of amount billed D. holding that plaintiff could recover medical fees not actually paid by the insurance company pursuant to an insurance contract E. holding contract for sale of water which did not specify price was unenforceable because price of water was essence of contract

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that plaintiff could recover money mistakenly paid in excess of contract price
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: de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim. Guzman v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 679 F.3d 425, 429 (6th Cir.2012). Sefa’s claims against the Cabinet are barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Eleventh Amendment “bars all suits, whether for injunctive, declaratory or monetary relief, against the state and its departments.” Thiokol Corp. v. Dep’t of Treasury, State of Mich., Revenue Div., 987 F.2d 376, 381 (6th Cir.1993). Because Kentucky has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity and Congress has not abrogated state sovereign immunity under sections 1981 and 1983 or any other federal statute cited by Sefa, his claims against the Cabinet cannot proceed. See Hafford v. Seidner, 183 F.3d 506, 512 (6th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Whittington v. Milby, 928 F.2d 188, 193-94 Options: A. holding california school district a state agency for purposes of the eleventh amendment B. holding that the eleventh amendment applies in 1981 litigation C. holding that the department of corrections was entitled to eleventh amendment immunity from suit under section 1981 D. holding that the eleventh amendment bars blyshrl and nychrl claims against a state agency in federal court E. recognizing that section 1981 claims against a state agency are barred by the eleventh amendment

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that section 1981 claims against a state agency are barred by the eleventh amendment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: those claims. We reverse that portion of the trial court’s order concerning Perry’s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to object to the prosecutor’s improper closing argument, and we remand for further proceedings. In his motion, Perry argued that counsel’s inaction at closing prejudiced him because the failure to timely object to the prosecutor’s remarks, including the phrase that the defense witnesses were all a pack of liars, waived appellate review of the issue. In its order, the trial court found that this allegation should have been raised in Perry’s direct appeal. Additionally, the court found that the remarks were proper comments on the evidence. We disagree with both findings. See Henderson v. State, 727 So.2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>). A claim that counsel was ineffective for Options: A. holding ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to object to prosecutors comments cognizable in postconviction motion since court unable to review on appeal because trial counsel failed to preserve error B. holding that the defendant failed properly to preserve assignment of error for appellate review because the trial court had no opportunity to consider the defendants contention as presented on appeal C. holding that appellant failed to preserve error because it did not present appellate complaint to trial court D. holding that the prosecutors improper remarks referring to the defendants exercise of his constitutional right to a trial by jury was not plain error requiring reversal E. holding that a prosecutors remarks referring to defense witnesses as a pack of liars were improper but not fundamental error court unable to review on appeal because trial counsel failed to preserve error

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a prosecutors remarks referring to defense witnesses as a pack of liars were improper but not fundamental error court unable to review on appeal because trial counsel failed to preserve error
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event the Participant’s active employment or other active service-providing relationship with the Company or an Eligible Subsidiary terminates for any reason (other than death, Early Retirement or Normal Retirement) whether or not in breach of applicable labor laws, all RSUs that are unvested as of termination shall automatically terminate as of the date of termination and Participant’s right to receive further RSUs under the Plan shall also terminate as of the date of termination. The Committee shall have discretion to determine whether the Participant has ceased to be actively employed by (or, if the Participant is a consultant or director, has ceased actively providing services to) the Company or Eligible Subsidiary, and the effective date on which such active employment (or active service-providing relationship) terminated. The Participant’s active employer-employee or other active service-providing relationship will not be extended by any notice period mandated under applicable law ( e.g., active employment shall not include a period of “garden leave”, paid administrative leave or similar period pursuant to applicable law). Unless the Committee provides otherwise (1) termination of the Participant’s employment will include instances in which Participant is terminated and immediately rehired as an independent contractor, and (2) the spin‑off, sale, or disposition of the Participant’s employer from the Company or an Eligible Subsidiary (whether by transfer of shares, assets or otherwise) such that the Participant’s employer no longer constitutes an Eligible Subsidiary will constitute a termination of employment or service.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Borrower shall use proceeds of the Loan to (a) make initial deposits of the Reserve Funds, (b) make distributions to Equity Owner, (c) pay costs and expenses incurred in connection with the closing of the Loan and any related Securitization, and (d) to the extent any proceeds remain after satisfying clauses (a) through (c) above, for such lawful purpose as Borrower shall designate.

assistant: Use Of Proceeds
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 HERETO WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT (WHETHER BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT OR ANY OTHER THEORY). EACH PARTY HERETO (A) CERTIFIES THAT NO REPRESENTATIVE, AGENT OR ATTORNEY OF ANY OTHER PARTY HERETO HAS REPRESENTED, EXPRESSLY OR OTHERWISE, THAT SUCH OTHER PARTY WOULD NOT, IN THE EVENT OF LITIGATION, SEEK TO ENFORCE THE FOREGOING WAIVER AND (B) ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT AND THE OTHER PARTIES HERETO HAVE BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATIONS IN THIS SECTION.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and apply it. See Campbell, 144 Idaho at 257-58, 159 P.3d at 894-95 (no good cause when service was late because one attorney accepted in good faith that the other attorney would remind him to serve process); Regjovich v. First Western Investments, Inc., 134 Idaho 154, 157-58, 997 P.2d 615, 618-19 (2000) (denying claim of equitable estoppel because party had readily accessible means to discover the truth, and finding no good cause on other grounds). Cf. Veal v. United States, 84 Fed.Appx. 253, 255-56 (3d Cir.2004) (reliance upon the clerk’s advice did not constitute good cause because clerk’s office has no duty to provide step-by-step guidance). The Naranjos were able to follow other procedural requirements set forth in ITCA (same); Sammis, 130 Idaho at 347, 941 P.2d at 319 (<HOLDING>). 4. Constructive notice The Naranjos next Options: A. holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause B. holding that a timely petition for administrative review stops the running of the statute of limitations C. holding neither a lack of prejudice to the defendant nor the running of the statute of limitations constitutes good cause D. holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense E. holding that the loss of a statute of limitations defense constitutes clear legal prejudice

assistant: The best answer is C. holding neither a lack of prejudice to the defendant nor the running of the statute of limitations constitutes good cause
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 Parental Guarantee Agreement, the Reinsurance Agreement, the Trust Agreement and any other documents delivered pursuant hereto or thereto, constitute the entire agreement among the Parties and their respective Affiliates with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede all prior negotiations, discussions, writings, agreements and understandings, oral and written, among the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and thereof.

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 has been duly executed and delivered by Seller and constitutes the legal, valid and binding obligations of Seller, enforceable against Seller in accordance with its terms, except as enforceability may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, fraudulent conveyance or transfer, moratorium or similar laws affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights generally or by equitable principles relating to enforceability (regardless of whether considered in a proceeding at law or in equity).

assistant: Binding Effects
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 document constitutes the final, complete, and exclusive embodiment of the entire agreement and understanding between the parties related to the subject matter hereof and supersedes and preempts any prior or contemporaneous understandings, agreements, or representations by or between the parties, written or oral. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, except as provided in this Agreement, all understandings and agreements, written or oral, relating to the employment of Executive by the Company or the payment of any compensation or the provision of any benefit in connection therewith or otherwise, are hereby terminated and shall be of no further 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 following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 405 U.S. 318 92 S.Ct. 1257 31 L.Ed.2d 273 Lorenzo WILLIS, etc., petitioner,v.PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA. No. 70-5344. Supreme Court of the United States March 20, 1972 E. Freeman Leverett, Elkerton, Ga., for petitioner. A. Felton Jenkins, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent. On writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. 2 Mr. Justice POWELL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

assistant: 2
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement, and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral, among the parties, or any of them, with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement is not intended to and shall not confer upon any person other than the parties hereto any rights hereunder.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: evidence showing that the defendants used the mark selectively or that they failed to use it pervasively in all their commercial dealings, even if these dealings were low in volume. Furthermore, though the Allard Court granted ownership rights to the defendants based only on oral testimony of various “solicitations” and insubstantial documentary evidence of prior use, the Court noted that there was also good evidence of widespread public recognition of the defendants’ use of the service mark. Evidence of public recognition is only necessary in cases requiring proof of secondary meaning, but such evidence may be probative of a party’s actual use of a mark in cases where secondary meaning is not required. See id.; see also Florida v. Real Juices, Inc., 330 F.Supp. 428, 431 (M.D.Fla.1971) (<HOLDING>). Public recognition is probative of a party’s Options: A. holding that the burden is on the plaintiff B. holding that for the purposes of standing to bring an action to recover on a contract privity is established by proving the defendant was a party to an enforceable contract with either the plaintiff or a party who assigned its cause of action to the plaintiff C. holding that the plaintiff established a right to a slogan based on evidence of public recognition of its use by the plaintiff D. holding that a plaintiff had established a primafacie failuretohire case notwithstanding evidence that the position sought by the plaintiff was ultimately filled with a person of the same race as the plaintiff E. holding that mere use of a road will not make a road a public road even though such use is with the knowledge and consent of the landowner unless the use is accompanied by recognition by public authority or by its maintainance sic

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the plaintiff established a right to a slogan based on evidence of public recognition of its use by the plaintiff