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: entitled to a “continuing violation” instruction — that is, that the jury could conclude that, as long as one act fell within the limitations period (i.e., after July 9, 1999), other related acts that took place outside the limitations period were actionable as part of a continuing violation. See Pl.’s Mem. 7-9; Pl.’s Reply at 8-10. In response, defendant argues that the Supreme Court in National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002), foreclosed application of the “continuing violation” doctrine in c 1343 (D.Kan.2006) (reasoning that, under Morgan, “rejection of an employee’s proposed accommodation is a discrete act” that begins the ADA limitations period); Lipka v. Potter, No. 03CV381A, 2006 WL 839421, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Mar.28, 2006) (<HOLDING>); see also Elmenayer v. ABF Freight Sys., 318 Options: A. recognizing hostile work environment discrimination in ada context B. holding that claim for reasonable accommodation under the ada was timebarred the continuing violation doctrine applies only to cases of alleged hostile work environment or other claims which involve a series of acts necessary to comprise the alleged discriminatory act C. recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983 D. holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive E. recognizing that the elements of title vii sexually hostile work environment claims apply to icra sexually hostile work environment claims

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that claim for reasonable accommodation under the ada was timebarred the continuing violation doctrine applies only to cases of alleged hostile work environment or other claims which involve a series of acts necessary to comprise the alleged discriminatory act
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: After giving effect to the Loan, the fair saleable value of Borrower’s assets exceeds and will, immediately following the making of the Loan, exceed Borrower’s total liabilities, including subordinated, unliquidated, disputed and contingent liabilities. Borrower’s assets do not and, immediately following the making of the Loan, will not constitute unreasonably small capital to carry out its business as conducted or as proposed to be conducted. Borrower does not intend to, nor believes that it will, incur Debts and liabilities (including contingent liabilities and other commitments) beyond its ability to pay such Debts as they mature (taking into account the timing and amounts of cash to be received by Borrower and the amounts to be payable on or in respect of obligations of Borrower). Except as expressly disclosed to Administrative Agent in writing, no petition in bankruptcy has been filed against any Borrower Party in the last seven (7) years, and no Borrower Party in the last seven (7) years has ever made an assignment for the benefit of creditors or taken advantage of any insolvency act for the benefit of debtors. No Borrower Party is contemplating either the filing of a petition by it under state or federal bankruptcy or insolvency laws or the liquidation of all or a major portion of its assets or property, and no Borrower Party has knowledge of any Person contemplating the filing of any such petition against it.

assistant: Solvency
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: prosecution for interfering with judicial proceedings under 17 N.N.C. § 477. See 9 N.N.C. §§ i65t(A)(i); 1663(A). As the respondent is charged under r7 N.N.C.§ 477, the district court must follow the Criminal Code’s sentencing provisions for that offense, even in DAPA situations. Nothing in DAPA allows the district court the additional authority to reach beyond the sentencing restrictions in Section 477 merely because the offense arose out of the violation of a protection order. Even if we were to accept the prosecutor’s construction, we must interpret DAPA consistent with Dipin NohookááDiné’éBi Beehaz’áanii (Navajo Common Law). See Fort Defiance Housing Corp. v. Lowe, 8 Nav. R. 463, 473 (Nav. Sup. Ct. 2004); Navajo Nation Council Resolution No. CN-69-02, § 6(B) (November 13,2002) (<HOLDING>). Fundamental notions of fairness in our Common Options: A. holding that in interpreting a contract we look to the conflict of laws rules of the forum state to determine which states laws will be controlling B. recognizing the fundamental laws of the dine and requiring that the written laws be interpreted in harmony with dine common law C. holding that in the event that parties are from different states and the subject matter is national in scope and where the contract states it shall be deemed to be made under the laws of the state of new york and for all purposes construed in accordance with laws of said state new york law applies as the parties choice of law D. holding that under separation of powers the legislative department makes the laws the executive department carries the laws into effect and the judicial department interprets and declares the laws E. recognizing a cause of action for conspiracy to deprive a class of persons of their fundamental rights under the laws of the united states

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing the fundamental laws of the dine and requiring that the written laws be interpreted in harmony with dine 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: under the remainder aggregate rule, be deemed to have increased the sentence, the total time Weingarten will serve is the same under the new sentence as under the previous one. The district court’s conclusion that its initial aggregate sentence was still appropriate is understandable, given its finding that the factual mosaic and the “central factor[s]” that “[bore] on the imposition o[fj the appropriate sentence remained] the same.” While we can imagine a record that would support a finding of vindictiveness where the district court imposed the same total sentence after the reversal of certain counts reduced the extent of the harm legally attributable to the defendant, this is not that case. Cf. Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 253-54, 128 S.Ct. 2559, 171 L.Ed.2d 399 (2008) (<HOLDING>). As “nothing in the record remotely suggests Options: A. holding that states appeal of trial courts dismissal of first count in a four count indictment under cj 12302cl was not ripe until final judgment on the remaining counts pled in the guilty plea and noting that upon imposition of the sentences on the remaining counts the situation was ripe for the state to appeal or to perfect its earlier attempt to appeal B. recognizing with approval the practice following vacatur of some counts of conviction on appeal of increasing the defendants sentence on remaining counts to yield an aggregate sentence equal to the original aggregate imposed C. holding that forfeiture is an element of the sentence imposed following conviction D. holding that issues underlying all counts were sufficiently intertwined that the separate appeal of the summary judgment counts would complicate the trial of the remaining counts E. holding that to compare severity of sentences the proper procedure is first to disregard the sentence originally imposed on the dismissed count and then compare the total remaining sentence imposed on the remaining counts with the petitioners present position

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing with approval the practice following vacatur of some counts of conviction on appeal of increasing the defendants sentence on remaining counts to yield an aggregate sentence equal to the original aggregate imposed
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: BORROWERS AND THE OTHER CREDIT PARTIES, AGENT, L/C ISSUER AND EACH LENDER HEREBY CONSENT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF CHICAGO, OR OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SITTING IN THE CITY OF CHICAGO AND IRREVOCABLY AGREE THAT, SUBJECT TO AGENT’S ELECTION, ALL ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS SHALL BE LITIGATED IN SUCH COURTS. EACH PARTY HERETO EXPRESSLY SUBMITS AND CONSENTS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AFORESAID COURTS AND WAIVES ANY DEFENSE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS. EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO HEREBY WAIVES PERSONAL SERVICE OF ANY AND ALL PROCESS AND AGREES THAT ALL SUCH SERVICE OF PROCESS MAY BE MADE UPON SUCH PARTY BY CERTIFIED OR REGISTERED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, ADDRESSED TO SUCH PARTY AT THE ADDRESS SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT AND SERVICE SO MADE SHALL BE COMPLETE TEN (10) DAYS AFTER THE SAME HAS BEEN POSTED.

assistant: Consent To 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: matter, even if this count were dismissed, Plaintiffs would simply refile with a new caption, putting the case right back where it started. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(f) (district courts are to construe pleadings so “as to do substantial justice”); Dopp v. HTP, Corp., 947 F.2d 506, 513 (1st Cir.1991) (“Pleadings are liberally to be construed, and for the purposes of determining what relief a claimant has sought, complaints ought not to be read grudgingly or with a hypertechnical eye.”); Torres Ramirez v. Bermudez Garcia, 898 F.2d 224, 226-27 (1st Cir.1990) (“It is not fatal to a complaint that a legal theory has been mischaracterized or that the precise language invoking jurisdiction has not been used.”); Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Universal Ins. Co., 838 F.2d 612, 622 (1st Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Janke Constr. Co., Inc. v. Vulcan Materials Options: A. recognizing authority stating that a plaintiff in a cercla action is allowed to plead alternative theories even if it cannot ultimately seek duplicate recovery B. holding a complaint sufficiently raises a claim even if it points to no legal theory or even if it points to the wrong legal theory as a basis for that claim C. holding that the failure to draw the district courts attention to an applicable legal theory waives pursuit of that theory in this court D. holding that instructing the jury on a legal duty theory when appellant had no legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense was error E. holding that the failure to plead a particular legal theory when the plaintiff pled two related legal theories was not a bar to recovery

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the failure to plead a particular legal theory when the plaintiff pled two related legal theories was not a bar to recovery
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: individual’s statements to be involuntary. However, if this were true, incriminating statements by individuals suspected of illegal activities would rarely be admissible. The record also demonstrates that the challenged statement given by Mr. Eastom at his house was not obtained as a result of interrogation. Mr. Eastom’s being “confronted with seized contraband” did not involve any questioning. Instead, it appears that this “confrontation” was the police explanation to him of why they were in his home and the possible presence of the seized items in his living room. This is alone insufficient to constitute interrogation. Therefore, Mr. Eastom’s statements were not rendered inadmissible by the Fifth Amendment. Cf. Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324, 326, 89 S.Ct. 1095, 22 L.Ed.2d 311 (1969) (<HOLDING>). B. Exclusion of Rick Murray’s Testimony Mr. Options: A. holding that the fifth amendment as construed in miranda v arizona required the exclusion of state merits given by the defendant while he was questioned on his own bed by four officers B. holding that the fifth amendment did not require the suppression of the physical fruits of a miranda violation where the statement was voluntary C. holding that miranda warnings do not have to be given in the exact form stated in the miranda opinion as long as an effective equivalent is given D. holding that although defendant was a deputy sheriff miranda warnings were required irrespective of defendants knowledge of his fifth amendment rights E. holding that the state courts determination that petitioner was not in custody was not unreasonable under aedpa where the petitioner voluntarily went to the police station was interviewed by three police officers and one polygraph examiner was deceitfully told that another man had implicated him in a murder and was questioned for four hours before being advised of his miranda rights

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the fifth amendment as construed in miranda v arizona required the exclusion of state merits given by the defendant while he was questioned on his own bed by four officers
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: only if that effect can be traced to a discriminatory purpose.” United States v. Clary, 34 F.3d 709, 712 (8th Cir.1994) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Even assuming — without in any way deciding — that the law disproportionately impacts Native Americans, Parshall provides no meaningful evidence that Congress intended to discriminate against Native Americans when it passed 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c). He argues that Congress should have been aware of the law’s likely disproportionate impact on Native Americans, which suggests, according to Parshall, “at least a possibility” of discriminatory intent. Such assertions fall short of establishing the Congressional intent necessary to show a violation of the Fifth Amendment. See id.; United States v. DeMarce, 564 F.3d 989, 1000 (8th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). C. Eighth Amendment Parshall argues that his Options: A. holding that the cap does not violate equal protection B. holding that statute that imposed different requirements to establish parental rights on father than on mother did not violate fathers right to equal protection under the law C. holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection D. holding that a 30year sentence imposed under 18 usc 2241c did not violate a defendantnative americans equal protection rights E. holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a 30year sentence imposed under 18 usc 2241c did not violate a defendantnative americans equal protection rights
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 deemed removable because they were convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude. See INA § 242(a)(2)(C) [8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) ] (precluding jurisdiction where alien is removable pursuant to § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii)). In addition, we lack jurisdiction to review purely discretionary decisions, see INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) [8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) ], such as the “manner in which the BIA balanced the various positive and negative factors which typically inform the exercise of its discretion under” INA § 240A. Cruz-Camey v. Gonzales, 504 F.3d 28, 29 (1st Cir.2007). Despite these jurisdiction-stripping provisions, we may review “constitutional claims and questions of law presented in petitions for review of fin scretion. See Paredes v. Att’y Gen., 528 F.3d 196, 198-99 (3d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, we will grant the Options: A. holding that all convictions remain valid for immigration purposes B. holding that the oneyear statute of limitations was not tolled during the pendency of petition for certiorari to the united states supreme court seeking review of denial of state postconviction relief C. holding pendency of postconviction judicial proceedings relevant to immunity determination D. holding that regulations that permitted an immigration official to reinstate removal orders violated the immigration and nationality act E. holding that the pendency of postconviction motion does not negate the finality of convictions for immigration removal purposes

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the pendency of postconviction motion does not negate the finality of convictions for immigration removal purposes
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this Warrant is prohibited by law or otherwise determined to be invalid or unenforceable in any respect by a court of competent jurisdiction, the provision that would otherwise be prohibited, invalid or unenforceable shall be deemed amended to apply to the broadest extent that it would be valid and enforceable, and the invalidity or unenforceability of such provision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Warrant so long as this Warrant as so modified continues to express, without material change, the original intentions of the parties as to the subject matter hereof and the prohibited nature, invalidity or unenforceability of the provision(s) in question does not substantially impair the respective expectations or reciprocal obligations of the parties or the practical realization of the benefits that would otherwise be conferred upon the parties. The parties will endeavor in good faith negotiations to replace the prohibited, invalid or unenforceable provision(s) with a valid provision(s), the effect of which comes as close as possible to that of the prohibited, invalid or unenforceable provision(s).

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: class must “be defined in such a way that anyone within it would have standing.” Bur-dick v. Union Sec. Ins. Co., No. 07-4028, 2009 WL 4798873, at *4 (C.D.Cal. Dee. 9, 2009). Defendant contends that the class definitions include members who were either unexposed to the alleged misrepresentations or whose purchasing decisions were unaffected by the representations and accordingly suffered no injury. In the Ninth Circuit, “standing is satisfied [under the UCL and FAL] if at least one named plaintiff meets the requirements.... Thus, we consider only whether at least one named plaintiff satisfies the standing requirements.” Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 1013, 1021 (9th Cir.2011); see also Kwikset Corp. v. Sup. Ct., 51 Cal.4th 310, 328-29, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 741, 246 P.3d 877 (2011) (<HOLDING>). Here, Plaintiff Larsen contends that she was Options: A. holding alleged false information on labels sufficient for standing for ucl and fal claims B. holding that the furnishing of misleading information cannot support a claim for negligent misrepresentation the information must be false C. holding that the provisions of the false claims act allowing suit imposing liability on any person who presented false claims to the federal government did not allow suits against state governments D. holding that apparel cleaners submission of false statements of their receipts a percentage of which were to be paid to the united states did not constitute false claims within the meaning of the federal false claims act E. holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative

assistant: The best answer is A. holding alleged false information on labels sufficient for standing for ucl and fal claims
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by the different parties hereto on separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall constitute an original, but all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. A set of counterparts executed by all the parties hereto shall be lodged with Parent and the Collateral Agent. Delivery of an executed signature page to this Agreement by facsimile, PDF or other electronic transmission shall be as effective as delivery of an original executed counterpart of this Agreement.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of this circuit. Moreover, Boggs did not break new ground so much as simply recognize a distinction explicit in Davis itself. See Boggs, 226 F.3d at 736-37. In Hargrave, the panel concluded that the defendant had a constitutional right to cross-examine a witness not about credibility but about competency — about “mental limitations affecting her ability accurately to perceive and recall the events at issue.” Hargrave, 248 Fed.Appx. at 727. Even there, however, the panel recognized that the case would be different if the cross-examiner simply sought to show that the witness "might be a person who was more willing to lie under oath than the average person.” Ibid. Absent clearly established Supreme Court law to the contrary, we continue to adhere to Boggs. See Jordan, 675 F.3d at 596-97 (<HOLDING>), cited approvingly by Jackson, 133 S.Ct. at Options: A. recognizing distinction between two types of waiver B. recognizing distinction made by majority C. recognizing this distinction D. recognizing distinction between tolling and estoppel E. recognizing the boggs distinction

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing the boggs distinction
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 may be amended from time to time by the Committee in its discretion; provided , however , that this Agreement may not be modified in a manner that would have a materially adverse effect on the Award Shares as determined in the discretion of the Committee, except as provided in the Director Plan, the Omnibus Plan or in any other written document signed by you and the Company.

assistant: Amendments
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: 23 . Wilson v. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Ky., 884 S.W.2d 641, 646 (1994). 24 . Owens v. Clemons, Ky., 408 S.W.2d 642, 645 (1966). 25 . Commonwealth, ex rel. Cowan v. Wilkinson, Ky., 828 S.W.2d 610, 614 (1992). 26 . 501 U.S. 957, 998, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 2703, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring). 27 . See Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447, 464, 104 S.Ct. 3154, 3164, 82 L.Ed.2d 340 (1984)(recognizing that there was no federal constitutional right to jury sentencing even for capital offenses); and Perry v. Commonwealth, Ky., 407 S.W.2d 714, 715 (1966)(hold-ing that there was no right to jury sentencing under Kentucky Constitution § 7). 28 . See also Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 9.84(1). 29 . See generally Boone v. Commonwealth, Ky., 780 S.W.2d 615 (1989)(<HOLDING>). 30 . Kohler v. Benckart, Ky., 252 S.W.2d 854, Options: A. holding that where the capital defendants future dangerousness is at issue and state law prohibits the defendants release on parole due process requires that the sentencing jury be informed that the defendant is parole ineligible B. holding that a defendant has the right both to present evidence to prove that the defendant does not qualify for sentencing under the act and to challenge the states evidence regarding the defendants eligibility for sentencing as a prison releasee reoffender C. holding that defendant has due process right to introduce evidence on minimum parole eligibility in sentencing phase D. recognizing the defense has a right to comment on the presentence report and may introduce evidence E. holding that the hearsay rule is not suspended in the sentencing phase

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that defendant has due process right to introduce evidence on minimum parole eligibility in sentencing phase
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All expenses, other than underwriting discounts and commissions, incurred in connection with registrations, filings or qualifications pursuant to Sections 2 and 3, including, without limitation, all registration, listing and qualification fees, printers and accounting fees, the fees and disbursements of counsel for the Company (plus any special and local counsel) and independent certified public accountants for the Company, all fees and disbursements customarily paid by the issuer or sellers of securities, excluding underwriting fees, discounts, commissions and allowances, if any, shall be borne by the Company. The Company shall also reimburse the Holders for the reasonable fees and disbursements of Legal Counsel in the aggregate amount up to $50,000 in connection with registrations and underwritten offerings pursuant to Section 2 or 3 of this Agreement.

assistant: Expenses
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: could not have been sexually assaulted, even though defendant planned to, and had taken substantial steps to, carry out the act. The State contends that because it was impossible for defendant to have completed the crime he had attempted, the instruction was correct. We disagree. “[C]lear and correct jury instructions are essential for a fair trial.” State v. Brown, 138 N.J. 481, 522, 651 A.2d 19 (1994). Jury instructions constitute “a road map to guide the jury, and without an appropriate charge a jury can take a wrong turn in its deliberations.” State v. Martin, 119 N.J. 2, 15, 573 A.2d 1359 (1990). “So critical is the need for accuracy that erroneous instructions on material points are presumed to be reversible error.” Ibid. Accord, State v. Rhett, 127 N.J. 3, 7, 601 A.2d 689 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Prior to the enactment of the New Jersey Code Options: A. holding that instruction that omitted elements of crime that defense had conceded was error although not plain error B. holding the denial of a proper question is always reversible error C. holding that incorrect charges on substantive elements of a crime constitute reversible error D. holding wrongful granting of states challenge for cause reversible error E. holding that error in denying such challenge is reversible error without demonstration of prejudice

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that incorrect charges on substantive elements of a crime constitute reversible 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to follow established procedures for accepting such a plea. After reviewing the state court record, including the transcripts of White’s plea hearing and the hearing on the motion to withdraw plea, the district court concluded that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ resolution of White’s coerced plea and ineffective assistance claims was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). As to White’s claim that the state trial court failed to comply with state procedures regarding the acceptance of a guilty plea, the district court concluded that the claim was not cognizable in a § 2254 petition because it involved a simple alleged error of state law. See Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780, 110 S.Ct. 3092, 111 L.Ed.2d 606 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the district court concluded Options: A. holding that federal habeas relief is not available to correct errors of state law B. holding that errors in state law cannot support federal habeas relief C. holding that gardenvariety errors of state law do not warrant federal habeas relief D. holding that claim of cumulative error does not entitle state prisoner to habeas corpus relief unless 1 claim of cumulative error refers to errors rather than mere unfavorable rulings or events 2 habeas review is not procedurally barred and 3 the errors more likely than not caused a suspect verdict E. holding that federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state 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 following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 362 U.S. 456 80 S.Ct. 874 4 L.Ed.2d 874 Willard H. PHILLIPS, petitioner,v.NEW YORK. No. 497. Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1959. Argued April 18, 1960. April 25, 1960 Mr. Henry W. Schober, Mineola, N.Y., for petitioner. Mr. Joseph I. Heneghan, Mineola, N. Y., for respondent. Argued April 18, 1960. On writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York. PER CURIAM. 1 After hearing oral argument and fully examining the record which was only partially set forth in the petition for certiorari, we conclude that the totality of circumstances as the record makes them manifest did not warrant bringing the case here. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed as improvidently granted.

assistant: 9
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: under a claims-made policy, but rather was only a request for information and explanation); United Capital Ins. Co. v. New York Marine and General Ins. Co., No. 91-4862, 1992 WL 38343, at *3 (E.D.Pa. Feb.19, 1992) (concluding that a letter sent to plaintiff constituted a claim because the letter “specifies the nature of the injuries, alleges negligence on the part of the insured and makes a demand for monies in the form of reimbursement”); Insurance Corp. of America v. Dillon, Hardamon & Cohen, 725 F.Supp. 1461, 1469 (N.D.Ind.1988) (“The word claim requires a demand for money or property or some specific relief, accompanied by an allegation of negligence, malpractice, or some kind of wrongdoing.”); Bensalem Township v. Western World Ins. Co., 609 F.Supp. 1343, 1348-49 (E.D.Pa.1985) (<HOLDING>); Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Sukut Constr. Co., 136 Options: A. holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983 B. holding that failure of eeoc to transmit charge to phrc within limitations period was subject to equitable tolling where plaintiff requested crossfiling in the cover letter attached to the eeoc charge on the first page of the charge itself and on an official form used by the eeoc for requests for dualfiling C. holding that neither a letter from the eeoc nor an attached charge of age discrimination qualified as a claim under a claimsmade policy because the documents failed to request money or other relief and only served to put the plaintiff on notice that a demand for relief may subsequently follow D. holding that plaintiffs filing with the eeoc constituted a formal charge because the plaintiff attached a statement to the filed intake questionnaire that included a request for the agency to act E. holding because the district court refused to grant plaintiff reinstatement or any other injunctive relief the damage award was neither incidental to nor intertwined with any other relief

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that neither a letter from the eeoc nor an attached charge of age discrimination qualified as a claim under a claimsmade policy because the documents failed to request money or other relief and only served to put the plaintiff on notice that a demand for relief may subsequently follow
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: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, each of the parties hereto shall, and shall cause their respective Affiliates to, promptly execute and deliver such other certificates, instruments or other documents and promptly perform such further acts as may be reasonably required or desirable to carry out or to perform the provisions of this Agreement.

assistant: Further Assurances
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: locations, nor would it unduly impinge on the lawful communication of information to adult consumers”). Obviously, it is premature to speculate as to what the parameters of appropriate relief would be. 10 . Where commercial speech does concern lawful activity and is not misleading "the government may impose restrictions that advance a substantial' government interest and are no 'more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.’ " Whitaker v. Thompson, 353 F.3d 947, 952-53 (D.C.Cir.2004) (quoting Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557, 566, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980)). 11 . The doctrine has its origins in Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127, 136, 81 S.Ct. 523, 5 L.Ed.2d 464 (1961)(<HOLDING>) and United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 Options: A. holding that the sherman act does not prohibit persons from associating together in an attempt to persuade the legislature or the executive to take particular action with respect to a law that would produce a restraint or a monopoly B. holding ban violated the sherman act C. holding only that a particular ancillary restraint did not constitute a per se violation of the sherman act and remanding for a determination of the case under a rule of reason analysis D. holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act E. holding that same activity violated 2 of the sherman act

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the sherman act does not prohibit persons from associating together in an attempt to persuade the legislature or the executive to take particular action with respect to a law that would produce a restraint or a monopoly
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower will, and will cause the other Subsidiaries to, comply in all respects with: (i) all Applicable Laws now or hereafter in effect wherever its business is conducted, including all Environmental Laws and ERISA, (ii) the provisions of its corporate charter, bylaws, limited liability company agreements and other charter documents, (iii) all agreements and instruments to which it is a party or by which it or any of its properties may be bound, (iv) all applicable decrees, orders, and judgments, and (v) all licenses and permits required by Applicable Laws for the conduct of its business or the ownership, use or operation of its properties, except where a failure to so comply with any of clauses (i) though (v) would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. If any authorization, consent, approval, permit or license from any officer, agency or instrumentality of any government shall become necessary or required in order that the Borrower or the other Credit Parties may fulfill any of its obligations hereunder, the Borrower or other Credit Parties will promptly take or cause to be taken all steps necessary to obtain such authorization, consent, approval, permit or license and furnish the Agent with evidence thereof, except where the failure to obtain the foregoing would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. From and after the date that is thirty (30) days after the Closing Date (or such later date as the Agent shall reasonable agree to) the Credit Parties shall maintain in effect and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to promote and achieve compliance with the Anti-Corruption Laws and applicable Sanctions by the Credit Parties, their Subsidiaries, their respective directors, officers, employees, Affiliates and agents and representatives that will act in any capacity in connection with or benefit from this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive shall be eligible to participate in employee benefit plans, programs and arrangements of the Company (including medical, dental and defined contribution retirement plans), consistent with the terms thereof and as such plans, programs and arrangements may be amended from time to time. To the extent the Board adopts any severance plan or program of the Company that is greater in value for the Executive than provided in Section 4 of this Agreement, Executive shall be eligible to participate in that plan or program in lieu of the benefits provided under Section 4.

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: intending to defraud the Government or willfully to conceal the property, delivers, or causes to be delivered, less property than the amount for which the person receives a certificate or receipt; [or] (7) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government... . 3 . The original contract called for the construction of nine Oilers at cost of several hundred million dollars. The final contract between the Navy and Penn Ship called for the construction of two Oilers, and the Navy subsequently exercised a contract option for Penn Ship to construct an additional two Oil-ers. 4 . United States ex rel. Dunleavy v. County of Del, 123 F.3d 734, 736 n. 2 (3d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>) 5 . Demanding a performance bond after a bid Options: A. holding the presence or absence of federalquestion jurisdiction is governed by the veil pleaded complaint rule which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only where a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint B. recognizing that where jurisdiction is at issue the norm is not to accord the party whose burden it is to plead jurisdiction the presumption of truth as to facts pleaded that must be resolved in answering that question C. holding that the burden is on the party seeking to exercise jurisdiction by clearly alleging facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction D. holding that even where primary claim is a federal question pendent party jurisdiction is not a recognized basis of jurisdiction in the seventh circuit E. holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that where jurisdiction is at issue the norm is not to accord the party whose burden it is to plead jurisdiction the presumption of truth as to facts pleaded that must be resolved in answering that question
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to the direction and authority of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “ Board ”), the Employee shall have direct responsibility for the day to day management and advancement of the Company’s biologic manufacturing activities, including responsibility for all Chemistry and Manufacturing Control (“ CMC ”) processes of PRO 140, including, without limitation, managing consultants of the Company with respect to CMC-related issues. In addition, the Employee will advise the Chief Executive Officer of the Company on all tactical and strategic issues related to CMC matters. The Employee shall report to, and be subject to the lawful direction of, the CEO. The Employee agrees to perform to the best of his ability, experience, and talent those acts and duties, consistent with the position of Chief Technology Officer – Head of Process Sciences, Manufacturing & Supply Chain as the CEO shall from time to time direct. During the Term, the Employee also shall serve in such other Employee-level positions or capacities as may, from time to time, be reasonably requested by the CEO.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT SUPERSEDED BY THE BANKRUPTCY CODE, THIS AGREEMENT AND ALL ACTIONS ARISING UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the construction of this Plan, the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa, in all cases where such meanings would be appropriate. Nothing in this Plan shall preclude or limit the ability of the Company, its subsidiaries and affiliates to pay any compensation to a Participant under any other plan or compensatory arrangement whether or not in effect on the date this Plan was adopted.

assistant: Construction
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: see also ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577 (Fed.Cir.1984). In KSR the Supreme Court cautioned that “[t]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words, teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741. Courts must avoid a “rigid approach” in determining whether an invention would have been obvious to a skilled artisan. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1739-40. An “expansive and flexible approach” must instead be applied, and the courts may utilize “common sense” in addressing a question of obviousness under § 103. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1739-40, 1741-42; see also DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1367-71 (Fed.Cir.2006) cert. denied — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 2937, 168 L.Ed.2d 262 (2007) (<HOLDING>); Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d Options: A. recognizing a common knowledge exception B. holding that a reason to combine may come from the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art the nature of the problem to be solved or common knowledge and common sense C. holding that affidavit of merit is not required in common knowledge cases D. holding that common knowledge and common sense of one skilled in the art must be considered in determining obviousness E. recognizing common knowledge exception

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that common knowledge and common sense of one skilled in the art must be considered in determining obviousness
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: Nothing in this Section 6 shall limit the benefits payable or provided in the event Executive’s employment terminates due to Retirement, death, or Disability under the terms of plans or programs of the Company more favorable to Executive (or his beneficiaries) than the benefits payable or provided under this Section 6 (except in the case of Annual Incentives in lieu of which amounts are paid hereunder), including plans and programs adopted after the date of this Agreement. Subject to Section 5(h), amounts payable under this Section 6 following Executive’s termination of employment will be paid or commence, as applicable, within fifty (50) days following such termination of employment, with the exact date of payment or commencement determined in the sole discretion of the Company. The Company shall have no obligation to pay any such amounts or provide any such benefits in the event Executive’s employment terminates due to Retirement or Disability unless Executive complies with Section 11(b).

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices, requests and demands to or upon a party hereto shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given when delivered by hand or three days after being deposited in the mail, postage prepaid or, in the case of facsimile notice, when received, addressed as follows or to such other address as either party may have furnished to the other in writing in accordance herewith, except that notices of change of address shall be effective only upon receipt.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Indemnification under this Section shall include, without limitation, reasonable and customary out-of-pocket fees and expenses of counsel and expenses of litigation. If the Issuer has made any indemnity payments pursuant to this Section and the recipient thereafter collects any of such amounts from others, the recipient shall promptly repay such amounts collected to the Issuer, without interest.

assistant: Expenses