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: the petitioner’s attorney did not even object to the introduction of the hearsay. 11 . The New York Court of Appeals may not review a claim that a sentence was excessive. See People v. Miles, 61 N.Y.2d 635, 471 N.Y.S.2d 849, 459 N.E.2d 1286 (1983). 12 . I recognize that the Second Circuit has ruled that “the attorney’s omission of a meritorious claim cannot be excused simply because an intermediate appellate court would have rejected it." Mayo, 13 F.3d at 533-34. My conclusion that appellate counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to raise the hearsay argument is based on my conclusion that, relatively speaking, that argument was weaker than those which were raised. 13 . See, e.g., People v. Lyons, 106 A.D.2d 471, 482 N.Y.S.2d 567, 569 (2d Dep’t 1984) (<HOLDING>); People v. Tucker, 102 A.D.2d 535, 477 Options: A. holding that an arrest to retrieve car keys where ownership of the car was in dispute was not supported by probable cause B. holding that the defendant received an unfair trial in part because the prosecutor elicited testimony about a getaway car that was owned by a suspected accomplice even though there was nothing to link that car to defendant and stating that such a use of irrelevant evidence is not to be condoned especially where it has prejudicial potential C. holding that it was prejudicial error to fail to give such a cautionary instruction even where the defendant did not object at trial to the lack of such an instruction when the accomplice testimony was uncorroborated D. holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search E. holding that there was probable cause for arrest where officers knew defendants had recently been with suspected drug dealer officers saw defendants car being maneuvered so as to indicate that surveillance had been detected and when officers approached car defendant attempted to place package under car and then pulled the package back inside the car and closed and locked the car door

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the defendant received an unfair trial in part because the prosecutor elicited testimony about a getaway car that was owned by a suspected accomplice even though there was nothing to link that car to defendant and stating that such a use of irrelevant evidence is not to be condoned especially where it has prejudicial potential
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: has established sufficient case law on the issues in the instant case. As was in Herman, the disputed issues in this case include: (1) whether the Plan was an ERISA-covered pan, (2) whether Holman was a fiduciary as defined by ERISA, and (3) whether Holman breached his duty under ERISA. The Sixth Circuit has defined when a person is a “fiduciary” under an ERISA plan. See, e.g., Seaway Food Town, Inc. v. Medical Mut. of Ohio, 347 F.3d 610 (6th Cir. 2003) (discussing ERISA fiduciary status); Hamilton v. Carell, 243 F.3d 992, 998 (6th Cir.2001) (same). Similarly, several Sixth Circuit cases have discussed whether a fiduciary has breached his duty to ERISA plan participants. See, e.g., Abbott v. Pipefitters Local Union No. 522 Hosp., Medical, and Life Ben. Plan, 94 F.3d 236 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Berlin v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 858 Options: A. holding that breach of fiduciary duty claim was preempted by fehba B. holding that plaintiffs did not plead fraud where the complaint only alleged a breach of fiduciary duty C. holding that trustees fiduciary duty exists independent of any clause in trust agreement D. holding that trustees did not breach their fiduciary duty by deciding to set independent contribution rates for each local union E. holding that plan trustees do not breach their fiduciary duty by failing to reverse a companys decision to amend an erisa plan

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that trustees did not breach their fiduciary duty by deciding to set independent contribution rates for each local union
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 HEREBY WAIVES ITS RIGHTS TO A JURY TRIAL OF ANY CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON OR ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT OR THE SUBJECT MATTER HEREOF. THE SCOPE OF THIS WAIVER IS INTENDED TO BE ALL-ENCOMPASSING OF ANY AND ALL DISPUTES THAT MAY BE FILED IN ANY COURT AND THAT RELATE TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING CONTRACT CLAIMS, TORT CLAIMS (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), AND ALL OTHER COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY CLAIMS.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: By signing below, each Subsidiary Guarantor (a) acknowledges, consents and agrees to this Amendment, (b) acknowledges and agrees to any amendment to its obligations in respect of the Subsidiary Guaranty Agreement made pursuant to this Amendment, (c) acknowledges and agrees that its obligations in respect of the Subsidiary Guaranty Agreement and the Security Agreement are not released, diminished, waived, modified, impaired or affected in any manner by this Amendment or any of the provisions contemplated herein, (d) ratifies and confirms its obligations under the Subsidiary Guaranty Agreement and the Security Agreement, and (e) acknowledges and agrees that it has no claims or offsets against, or defenses or counterclaims to, the Subsidiary Guaranty Agreement, the Security Agreement or any other Loan Documents or Obligations.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Your medical, dental and vision insurance coverage in effect immediately before the date of your Separation from Service will continue to be available to you under the group health plan continuation coverage laws (“COBRA”), for a period of 18 months following the date of your Separation from Service (the “COBRA Period”). If you elect COBRA coverage, it will be available to you for the 12-month COBRA Period at the same cost your insurance coverage is available to active employees (and the portion of the cost of coverage paid by the Company that does not constitute “COBRA Premium Subsidy” under the SPP shall be reflected in an IRS Form 1099 as imputed income to you). Your short-term and long-term disability, group life insurance and accidental death and dismemberment insurance, Supplemental Executive Life Insurance and Supplemental Executive Disability Insurance end on the date of your Separation from Service; provided, however, that nothing in this sentence is intended to limit your rights to elect any conversion or continuation rights that may be provided under any of the preceding insurance policies or plans.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: it provides that agreements executed thereunder are “subject to any constitutional or legislative restriction imposed upon any of the contracting public agencies.” Id. § 11-1-2(B). We conclude that the Joint Powers Agreement Act does not provide authority for the compacts and revenue-sharing agreements at issue. Likewise, the Mutual Aid Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 29-8-1 to -3 (Repl. Pamp.1994), does not provide authority for the compacts and revenue-sharing agreements. to gaming compacts an IGRA, sought to invest state governors with powers in excess of those that the governors, possess under state law. Moreover, we are confident that the United States Supreme Court would reject any such attempt by Congress to enlarge state gubernatorial power. Cf. Gregory, 501 U.S. at 460, 111 S.Ct. at 2400 (<HOLDING>); New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 176, Options: A. recognizing that through the structure of its government a state defines itself as a sovereign B. holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity C. holding agencies of state government are part of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity D. recognizing the structure of our nation as a union of states each possessing equal sovereign powers E. holding that the alien tort statute itself is not a waiver of sovereign immunity

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that through the structure of its government a state defines itself as a sovereign
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: Plaintiffs, a reasonable jury could find that Deskovic’s confession was coerced: (1) Deskovic was young, inexperienced with the law, and emotionally troubled; (2) Deskovic was interrogated in an isolated situation without counsel for an entire day; (3) Deskovic was interrogated for seven to nine hours (five to seven hours of Stephens’ interrogation, and two hours of McIntyre’s interrogation), was repeatedly asked the same question, did not have anything to eat, was promised leniency, and was told that he had inculpated himself with what the officers arguably knew was an inaccurate polygraph test; and (4) McIntyre threatened Deskovic that the other officers would harm Deskovic if he did not confess. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 286-88, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (<HOLDING>); United States ex rel. Lewis v. Henderson, 520 Options: A. holding that confession was coerced because it was prompted by a credible threat of physical violence where official told defendant that defendant was in danger of physical harm at hands of other inmates and offered to protect defendant in exchange for a confession B. holding that question of whether a confession was coerced was not to be resolved by considering the truth or falsity of the confession C. holding that a confession was voluntary despite the fact that an officer falsely told the defendant that physical evidence connected him to the crime D. holding that the district courts finding that an allegedly coercive threat did not specifically motivate the defendants confession where 1 there was no evidence that the threat was repeated at the police station 2 defendant offered no admissible evidence that the threat was the crucial factor motivating his confession and 3 he confessed immediately after the officer threatened to administer a gun residue test as opposed to confessing immediately after the allegedly coercive threat was made thus the gunresidue test was just as plausible a motivating factor for the confession as was the threat E. holding introduction of actually coerced confession constitutes reversible error even where confession was cumulative in nature

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that confession was coerced because it was prompted by a credible threat of physical violence where official told defendant that defendant was in danger of physical harm at hands of other inmates and offered to protect defendant in exchange for a confession
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any Chairman Retention RSUs that are not vested pursuant to Section 4 of this Award Agreement shall be forfeited on each applicable Vesting Date. Subject to any provision to the contrary in the Letter Agreement (including Section 7 thereof), and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Plan, in the event the Participant’s service as chairman of the Board terminates for any reason at a time when any outstanding Chairman Retention RSUs are unvested, such Chairman Retention RSUs shall be immediately forfeited, unless otherwise determined by the Company in its sole discretion.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: has held that a sentence is not a final judgment until the entry of the final mandate of an appellate court. See, State v. Warner, 192 Neb. 438, 222 N.W.2d 292 (1974); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2301 (Cum. Supp. 1992) (providing that “the execution of the sentence or judgment shall be suspended until such time as the appeal has been determined”). See, also, State v. Schall, 234 Neb. 101, 449 N.W.2d 225 (1989) (stating that a defendant has no expectation of finality in his sentence until the appeal is concluded or the time to appeal has expired). Therefore, the determination of parole eligibility and tentative release dates for the sentence imposed is dependent upon the entry of a final judgment, or sentence, against the defendant. See Moscone v. Manson, 185 Conn. 124, 440 A.2d 848 (1981) (<HOLDING>). The law in effect when both of these Options: A. holding that where the law is unsettled at the time of trial but settled by the time of appeal the plainness of the error should be judged by the law at the time of appeal B. holding that clearly established federal law as determined by the supreme court under aedpa is the law at the time of the statecourt adjudication on the merits not at the time the conviction becomes final C. holding that statutory good time credits must be calculated under the law in effect at the time of resentencing after an appeal of the sentence is determined D. holding that a defendants sentence is controlled by the law in effect at the time he committed the offense E. holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that statutory good time credits must be calculated under the law in effect at the time of resentencing after an appeal of the sentence is determined
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: we have no control over the contents of those sites or resources and accept no responsibility for them or for any loss or damage that may arise from your use of them .

assistant: Limitation of liability
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 opposite] approach permits a court to deny effect to an arbitration provision in a contract that the court later finds to be perfectly enforceable.’ ” Id. (quoting Buckeye, 546 U.S. at 448-49, 126 S.Ct. 1204). This' dilemma is resolved by allocating such decisions to arbitration in accordance with the liberal policy favoring arbitration. Id., K-Stemcell and Biostar have not raised a challenge to the agreement to arbitrate that is “specific to the arbitration clause itself’. Because Biostar’s and K-Stemcell’s challenge to the motion to compel attacks the enforceability of the entire Agreement, the trial court did not err in submitting the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator. See TMI, Inc. v. Brooks, 225 S.W.3d 783, 793 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, we overrule Biostar’s Options: A. recognizing exception to general rule that disputes arising under contract with valid arbitration clause are referred to arbitrator B. recognizing the existence of antagonistic defenses does not require severance unless defenses are actually irreconcilable C. holding defenses concerning the contract as a whole must be referred to ah arbitrator while defenses to the arbitration provision itself are considered by the court D. holding that whether in federal or state court a challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole and not specifically to the arbitration clause within it must go to the arbitrator and not the court E. holding under both florida law and faa that factual affirmative defenses are properly decided by the arbitrator rather than the court

assistant: The best answer is C. holding defenses concerning the contract as a whole must be referred to ah arbitrator while defenses to the arbitration provision itself are considered by 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the United States for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected.” Essentially, the State seeks a tax refund. The federal government argues that the contributions imposed under the Transitional Reinsurance Program do not constitute an “internal-revenue tax,” and- thus, do not fall under the jurisdictional grant from 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). The federal government cites a recent case from the Tenth Circuit, where that court held that a “coal reclamation fee” assessed by the Department of the Interior did not constitute an “internal-revenue tax” within the meaning of § 1346(a)(1); thus depriving the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction. Wyodak Res. Dev. Corp. v. United States, 637 F.3d 1127, 1129 (10th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). The Sixth Circuit, however, takes a “broader Options: A. holding that plaintiffs claim properly belonged only in the court of federal claims under 28 usc 1491 B. holding that the plain language of 42 usc 4654c precludes the court from including in its award to the plaintiffs any reimbursement for expenses incurred by the plaintiffs before they decided to file suit in the court of claims under 28 usc 1491 C. holding that the court of federal claims had pendant jurisdiction over a state law contract claim that was part of the same case as a claim over which the court of federal claims had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 usc 1498b D. holding that ijinguistic consistency required that the same arising under test be applied to the jurisdictional statute for patent claims 28 usc 1338a as is used for the general federal jurisdiction statute 28 usc 1331 E. holding that under the fsia personal jurisdiction depends upon the district court finding subject matter jurisdiction under 28 usc 1330a and proper service under 28 usc 1608

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that plaintiffs claim properly belonged only in the court of federal claims under 28 usc 1491
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: in a democratic society.’ ” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3324, 82 L.Ed.2d 556, 569 (1984) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2205, 45 L.Ed.2d 343, 354 (1975)). We have frequently described our test for standing by identifying two elements. A plaintiff “ ‘must (1) have a specific personal or legal interest in the litigation and (2) be injuriously affected.’ ” Alons, 698 N.W.2d at 864 (quoting Citizens for Responsible Choices v. City of Shenandoah, 686 5) (citing federal test for standing with approval). In fact, our doctrine on standing parallels the federal doctrine, even though standing under federal law is fundamentally derived from constitutional strictures not directly found in the Iowa Constitution. See Alons, 698 N.W.2d at 867, 869 (<HOLDING>). Most all jurisdictions around the country Options: A. recognizing the power of federal courts to decide cases is restricted by the cases and controversies clause of article iii B. holding that the eleventh amendment bars con gress from using its power under the indian commerce clause of article i to expand the jurisdiction of the federal courts under article iii C. recognizing that the federal litigant has a personal right subject to exceptions in certain classes of cases to demand article iii adjudication of a civil suit D. recognizing power of district courts to control movement of cases from filing to final disposition E. holding that the requirements of article iii are consistent with the establishment by congress of nonarticle iii courts to enforce federal criminal laws in clause 17 federal enclaves

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing the power of federal courts to decide cases is restricted by the cases and controversies clause of article iii
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: (i) Sell, lease, transfer or otherwise dispose of any shares of common stock of any Significant Subsidiary of such Borrower, whether now owned or hereafter acquired by such Borrower, or permit any Significant Subsidiary of such Borrower to do so, or (ii) sell, lease, transfer or otherwise dispose of (whether in one transaction or a series of transactions) or permit any of its Subsidiaries to sell, lease, transfer or dispose of (whether in one transaction or a series of transactions) assets located in the United States (other than any assets that are purported to be conveyed in connection with a Permitted Securitization but including assets purported to be conveyed pursuant to any sale leaseback transaction) having an aggregate book value (determined as of the date of such transaction for all such transactions since the date hereof) that is greater than 20% of the book value of all of the consolidated fixed assets of such Borrower, as reported on the most recent consolidated balance sheet of such Borrower prior to the date of such sale, lease, transfer or disposition to any entity other than such Borrower or any of its wholly owned direct or indirect Subsidiaries; provided , however , that the limitation in this clause (ii) shall not in any way restrict, and shall not apply to, (A) the contribution or transfer of the transmission assets of Penelec and Met-Ed to Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC pursuant to the MAIT FERC Transfer Order, (B) the sale, transfer or other disposition of any equity interests in or assets of any Unregulated Subsidiary, (C) the sale, lease, transfer or other disposition of the Bath County hydroelectric generation facility located in Warm Springs, Virginia, or (D) the sale, lease, transfer or other disposition of a Borrower’s assets to another Borrower, a Subsidiary of another Borrower or a newly-formed Person to which all or substantially all of the assets and liabilities of such Borrowers or their Subsidiaries are being transferred, in each case under this clause (D), pursuant to a transaction permitted under subsection (c) below.

assistant: Sales
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: the clear and unambiguous language of the statute barred his claims for adverse possession, regardless of when the claim may have accrued. Assuming for argument that a plaintiff may base a quiet title claim on a claim of adverse possession that has ripened into title prior to the United States claiming an interest in the property, there are no facts to support such a claim in this case. Admittedly, the district court did not reach this conclusion in its decision because it found that plaintiffs adverse possession claims were barred. Nonetheless, we may “affirm a grant of summary judgment on grounds other than those relied on by the district court when the record contains an adequate and independent basis for that result.” Terra Venture, Inc. v. JDN Real Estate Overland Park, L (1960) (<HOLDING>). Beginning in 1977, plaintiff claims to have Options: A. holding that k no wing possession can be demonstrated by proof of either actual or constructive possession B. holding that placing of markers on property does not constitute actual possession C. holding that probation does not constitute a sentence D. holding that the phrase possession or custody in 5225b requires actual and not merely constructive possession E. holding that property of a public entity includes having exclusive control and possession of property

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that placing of markers on property does not constitute actual possession
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: Grantee acknowledges and agrees that the covenants set forth in Section 18 hereof are reasonable and valid in time and scope and in all other respects and shall be considered and construed as separate and independent covenants. If any portion of the foregoing provisions is found to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction because its duration, the territory, the definition of activities or the definition of information covered is considered to be invalid or unreasonable in scope, the invalid or unreasonable term shall be redefined, or a new enforceable term provided, such that the intent of the Company and Grantee will not be impaired and the provision in question shall be enforceable to the fullest extent of the applicable laws.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: lawful police power because City’s billboard ordinance is unconstitutionally unreasonable because it does not further public welfare, health, or safety. Lamar’s pleadings (including its summary judgment pleadings) did not challenge the constitutionality of City’s billboard ordinance on this or any other basis. Lamar’s further contention that City never formally declared the Agreement to be adverse to its interests and never officially repudiated the Agreement preserves nothing for our review. Lamar does not explain the legal relevance of this fact, and provides no authority explaining why the fact prevented the trial court from determining that the Agreement was void ab initio pursuant to section 432.070 because it exceeded the scope of City’s powers. Ad Trend, 272 S.W.3d at 206-07 (<HOLDING>). Lamar’s fourth point on appeal next argues Options: A. holding that an appellate court is not required to review an appellants point relied on which appears without citation of applicable or relevant authority B. holding that a claim is waived on appeal when not supported by citation to relevant authority C. holding that issues raised but not supported by argument are deemed abandoned D. holding an issue is deemed abandoned and will not be considered on appeal if the argument is raised in a brief but not supported by authority E. holding that pejorative allegations about questioned actions where the legal significance is not explained nor supported by relevant authority or by an explanation for the lack of relevant authority are deemed abandoned and unpreserved for appellate review

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that pejorative allegations about questioned actions where the legal significance is not explained nor supported by relevant authority or by an explanation for the lack of relevant authority are deemed abandoned and unpreserved for appellate review
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 specifically agrees that the Company shall be entitled to obtain specific performance and may sue in any court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any breach, threatened or actual, of the covenants and promises contained in that Section of this Agreement and shall be entitled; and that, in connection with any such litigation, the Company may also sue to obtain damages for default under or breach of the provision of any of said Section.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); see also Mid-America Tablewares, Inc. v. Mogi Trading Co., 100 F.3d 1353, 1361 (7th Cir.1996). In addition, Quitman representatives physically came into Illinois and visited Brandon as part of the negotiations over the contracts at issue in this case. As the Seventh Circuit has repeatedly recognized, “ ‘a defendant’s participation in substantial negotiations conducted in the forum state leading to the contract at issue is a significant basis for personal jurisdiction.’ ” Mid-America Tablewares, 100 F.3d at 1361; see also NUCOR, 28 F.3d at 581 (finding jurisdiction constitutional because defendant attended one meeting in the forum state out of which the parties’ relationship was formed); Deluxe Ice Cream Co. v. R.C.H. Tool Corp., 726 F.2d 1209, 1215-16 (7th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Neiman v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 619 F.2d 1189, Options: A. holding that discussions in illinois leading to contract created jurisdiction B. holding that foreign corporation was not doing business in illinois and thus personal jurisdiction was lacking even though corporation had some contact with the state and maintained a registered agent here because tjhere is nothing in the illinois code of civil procedure that supports asserting in personam jurisdiction over a corporate defendant simply because the plaintiff served summons upon the defendants illinois registered agent C. holding that under illinois law interpreting the meaning of a contract is a question of law determined by the court D. holding that defendants attendance atlunch meeting in illinois on terms of contract was sufficient to justify jurisdiction E. holding there was no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor of equipment lease although payments were made to illinois bank the guaranty was accepted in illinois and it provided that it would be gov erned by illinois law

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that discussions in illinois leading to contract created jurisdiction
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: did not, however, request the court to expound on its punitive damages ruling, either at the close of trial or in the post-trial proceedings. After Crown Auto noted its appeal of the district court’s denial of the Rule 50 motions, Adkins filed her cross-appeal on the court’s refusal to submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury. As with Crown Auto’s appeal, we possess jurisdiction over the cross-appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the court’s punitive damages ruling for abuse of discretion. Cf. Anderson v. G.D.C., Inc., 281 F.3d 452, 459 (4th Cir.2002) (reviewing denial of motion for new trial for abuse of discretion, where court had refused to submit issue of punitive damages to jury in non-bifurcated trial); United States v. Abbas, 74 F.3d 506, 513 (4th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). A trial court abuses its discretion in Options: A. holding that denial of joinder motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion B. holding that the dismissal of a frivolous action reviewed for abuse of discretion C. holding that a district courts decision on whether to hold a daubert hearing is reviewed only for abuse of discretion D. recognizing that the decision of whether to give a jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion E. holding that the imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that the decision of whether to give a jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion
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: use a warm compress and massage [AH.'s] tear ducts on a daily basis which they will do if I remind them but other than that they do not do it" and that she has "seen them do it maybe three or four times under [her] instruction only." Id. at 345-346. Based upon our review of the record, we cannot say that the evidence does not support the trial court's findings or that the findings do not support the conclusions in Paragraph 129 of its Order. Given the evidence and testimony presented at the fact-finding hearing, we cannot say that the trial court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment were clearly erroneous. The evidence and findings of fact were sufficient to demonstrate that A.H.'s physical condition was "seriously endangered." See, e.g., Roark, 551 N.E.2d at 869-872 (<HOLDING>); Parker v. Monroe County Dep't of Pub. 533 Options: A. holding merely that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of attorneys fees B. recognizing principle but finding evidence at first trial sufficient C. holding evidence sufficient to support trial courts finding in aggravation that the offense was planned D. holding that the evidence presented at a factfinding hearing was sufficient to support the chins finding E. holding that the state courts factfinding procedure was adequate even though it did not hold an evidentiary hearing because hearing as used in 2254d does not require a trialtype hearing at which live testimony is presented and the accused has the opportunity to crossexamine witnesses

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the evidence presented at a factfinding hearing was sufficient to support the chins finding
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 resist the search. The situation is instinct with coercion-albeit color-ably lawful coercion. Where there is coercion there cannot be consent.” Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 550, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968). Lying about a drug-dog alert could, under some circumstances, including those in this case, convey a message that consent to search is unnecessary. See United States v. Cabrera, 117 F.Supp.2d 1152, 1158 (D.Kan.2000) (finding defendant did not voluntarily consent to a search when an officer lied about a drug dog alerting, noting the officer “relied on a blatant deeeption-the positive dog alert-to further the impression that [the defendant] had no choice but to permit [the] search”); see also United States v. Pena-Saiz, 161 F.3d 1175, 1177-78 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Severe, 29 F.3d 444, 446 Options: A. holding that our use of the subjunctive in mentioning an argument in passing suggests that we knew that we were not addressing and that we could not address that argument B. holding the district courts noconsent finding was not clearly erroneous because the individual felt she was under arrest and had to submit to the patdown search in part based on the officers saying this is what we do we talk to people we search peoples bags we pat search people this is what we do everyday C. holding that we will overturn the factual findings of the district court only where we have a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed D. holding that the nonprevailing party in district court proceedings here is asking that we anticipate the birth of a state law doctrine in the womb of time but whose birth is distant we have been asked to deliver prematurely a new doctrine of pennsylvania tort law and as a federal court we are unwilling to do so E. holding that we could not weigh the prejudice suffered as a result of the exclusion of plaintiffs testimony because we had no way of knowing what the plaintiffs testimony would have been

assistant: The best answer is B. holding the district courts noconsent finding was not clearly erroneous because the individual felt she was under arrest and had to submit to the patdown search in part based on the officers saying this is what we do we talk to people we search peoples bags we pat search people this is what we do everyday
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 Guaranty may be executed in one or more counterparts, and by facsimile or electronic signature, each of which when so executed, shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the date hereof, the authorized capital stock of the Company is set forth in the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2017. Except as disclosed in the SEC Documents (as defined below), (i) no shares of the Company's capital stock are subject to preemptive rights or any other similar rights or any liens or encumbrances suffered or permitted by the Company, (ii) there are no outstanding debt securities, (iii) there are no outstanding options, warrants, scrip, rights to subscribe to, calls or commitments of any character whatsoever relating to, or securities or rights convertible into, any shares of capital stock of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, or contracts, commitments, understandings or arrangements by which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is or may become bound to issue additional shares of capital stock of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries or options, warrants, scrip, rights to subscribe to, calls or commitments of any character whatsoever relating to, or securities or rights convertible into, any shares of capital stock of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, (iv) there are no agreements or arrangements under which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is obligated to register the sale of any of their securities under the Securities Act (except the Registration Rights Agreement), (v) there are no outstanding securities or instruments of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries which contain any redemption or similar provisions, and there are no contracts, commitments, understandings or arrangements by which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is or may become bound to redeem a security of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, (vi) there are no securities or instruments containing anti-dilution or similar provisions that will be triggered by the issuance of the Securities as described in this Agreement and (vii) the Company does not have any stock appreciation rights or "phantom stock" plans or agreements or any similar plan or agreement. The Company has furnished to the Investor true and correct copies of the Certificate of Incorporation and the Bylaws, each as in effect on the date hereof, and summaries of the terms of all securities convertible into or exercisable for Common Stock, if any, and copies of any documents containing the material rights of the holders thereof in respect thereto.

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: This language creates a mandatory prohibited period — the duration of the district court action for the same claim — during which the Claims Court cannot have jurisdiction over any action initiated by plaintiff for the claim. Keene, 508 U.S. at 209, 113 S.Ct. 2035; UNR Indus., 962 F.2d at 1021 (“By the plain language of section 1500, if the same claim is pending in another court while the plaintiff files his complaint in legislative history leave “no doubt that at least a time-of-fíling rule applie[s]” such that jurisdiction under § 1500 is dependent on the state of things when the action is brought, and cannot be rescued by subsequent action of either party or by resolution of the co-pending litigation. See Keene, 508 U.S. at 207-09, 113 S.Ct. 2035; UNR Indus., 962 F.2d at 1021-22 (<HOLDING>); British Am. Tobacco Co. v. United States, 89 Options: A. holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial the state claims should be dismissed as well B. holding in a patent case that when the plaintiff brought the suit in federal district court it submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court with respect to all the issues embraced in the suit including those pertaining to the counterclaim of the defendants C. holding it readily apparent that any suit filed in the court of claims when the same claim was pending in another court had to be dismissed regardless of intervening actions in the conflicting case emphases added D. holding that after all federal claims had been dismissed if the district court does decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction these state claims shall be remanded to state court rather than dismissed because this case was originally filed in state court and removed to federal court E. holding that the notice of appeal filed after the district court entered judgment as to one defendant but before the court dismissed the claims against the other defendants would have become effective when those defendants were later dismissed

assistant: The best answer is C. holding it readily apparent that any suit filed in the court of claims when the same claim was pending in another court had to be dismissed regardless of intervening actions in the conflicting case emphases added
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: Good Times shall employ the Executive as President and Chief Executive Officer and as a member of the Good Times Board of Directors. During the Term of this Agreement, the Executive shall devote his best efforts to the business and affairs of Good Times and shall devote substantially all of his business time to perform his duties hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with the prior approval of the Board, the Executive may devote a reasonable portion of his time to serve on boards of directors, boards of managers or boards of trustees, or committees thereof, of companies or organizations involving no conflict of interest with the interests of Good Times. The Executive shall further be entitled to have investments in other business enterprises, provided however he shall not have any investment or financial interest in any business enterprise which conducts business activities directly competitive with any business activities conducted by Good Times now or at any time during the Term or Additional Terms of this Agreement (other than an investment of no more than one percent of any class of equity securities of a company which conducts business activities directly competitive with any business activities of Good Times provided that those securities are publicly traded).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the crime at issue, we conclude that to deny Appellant the right to call Ms. Day to the stand effectively denied to him the right to fully present a defense. Weighing the harm of introducing Ms. Day’s potential silence to the jury versus the harm of denying to Appellant any potential benefit from that anticipated silence, compels us to conclude that Appellant was unfairly prejudiced by the trial court’s refusal to call Ms. Day to the stand. As a result of this refusal to permit Appellant the benefit of his right to compel witnesses in his favor, Appellant was wrongly denied the benefit of either Ms. Day’s testimony or any inference from her refusal to testify in light of her complete immunity from prosecution. See State v. Blake, 197 W.Va. 700, 709, 478 S.E.2d 550, 559 (1996) (<HOLDING>); see also Harman, 165 W.Va. at 499, 270 S.E.2d Options: A. holding that exclusionary rule only requires exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights and that exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of statutory rights is not necessarily required B. recognizing that we are obligated to reverse where the improper exclusion of evidence places the underlying fairness of the entire trial in doubt or where the exclusion affects the substantial rights of the defendant C. holding exclusion inapplicable because under the facts alleged in the underlying suit the insured could receive personal profits and be legally entitled to retain them and distinguishing cases where there was sufficient evidence in the underlying complaint to show the profits received were illegal or undeserved within the meaning of the exclusion D. holding second sentence of a nearly identical exclusion did not limit the scope of the exclusion E. holding no abuse of discretion in trial courts exclusion of evidence where evidence was cumulative

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that we are obligated to reverse where the improper exclusion of evidence places the underlying fairness of the entire trial in doubt or where the exclusion affects the substantial rights of the defendant
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991); McDonald v. City of West Branch, Mich., 466 U.S. 284, 290, 104 S.Ct. 1799, 80 L.Ed.2d 302 (1984). 3 . In determining the appellants’ claims here, we need not decide whether Puerto Rico is a state under the Fourteenth Amendment or a federal territory under the Fifth Amendment. See Examining Board of Eng'r, Architects & Surveyors v, Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 600-01, 96 S.Ct 2264, 49 L.Ed.2d 65 (1976). 4 . In their brief, the plaintiffs also appear to complain that the defendants engaged in "illegal detention of Plaintiffs and their employees.” Appellant Br. 1, 4. However, the Complaint itself contains no allegations that the plaintiffs were actually detained. See JA 15. 5 . B & B Trucking, Inc, v, U.S. Postal Serv., 406 F.3d 766, 769 (6th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Hughes Commc'ns Galaxy, Inc, v. United Options: A. holding that if the usps abridged the plaintiffs contract rights the proper recourse would be a breachofcontract claim not a takings claim B. holding breachofcontract claim preempted because the plaintiff tried to enlarge the federal rights that were incorporated into the contract C. holding by texas supreme court that takings claim failed as a matter of law because the state took possession of the property in question under a contract with the plaintiff and therefore with the plaintiffs permission and consent D. holding breachofcontract claim preempted because contract did not explicitly incorporate a federallaw provision E. holding breachofcontract claim was preempted

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that if the usps abridged the plaintiffs contract rights the proper recourse would be a breachofcontract claim not a takings claim