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: regarding the disparity between punishments for crack and powder cocaine is not a ground for departure under the Guidelines is distinguishable. E.g., United States v. Andrade, 94 F.3d 9, 14-15 (1st Cir.1996); United States v. Sanchez, 81 F.3d 9, 11 (1st Cir.1996); United States v. Camilo, 71 F.3d 984, 990 (1st Cir.1995) ("In light of the October rejection of the Sentencing Commission’s April amendment, we cannot accept the argument that the Sentencing Commission was derelict in its duty to weigh penalties.”); see also United States v. Martin, 221 F.3d 52, 58 (1st Cir.2000) (stating that "departures (up or down) based on the inherently speculative possibility that the guidelines might under other circumstances be modified are impermissible”); cf. Franklin, 2005 WL 1330959, at *1 n. 1 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, while this Court rejects the Options: A. holding that crackpowder disparity was constitutional stating that ujntil the en banc court of this circuit the us supreme court or congress itself accepts this assertion of disparity and finds it untenable challenges to the sentencing guidelines based on the disparity between sentences for crack cocaine and powder cocaine will continue to fail B. holding that while tenth circuit had specifically and clearly held that crackpowder disparity was not valid basis for departure district court was free to consider this disparity in determining sentence postbookerfanfan C. holding that the trial judge may consider the crackpowder cocaine disparity in determining whether in the particular case a withinguidelines sentence is greater than necessary to serve the objectives of sentencing D. holding that sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine is constitutional E. holding that the district courts failure to give consideration to the sentencing disparity that would result was another reason the defendants sentence was unreasonable

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that while tenth circuit had specifically and clearly held that crackpowder disparity was not valid basis for departure district court was free to consider this disparity in determining sentence postbookerfanfan
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: with Tang’s assertion that the omitted portion of his statement “specifically rebuffs] the defamatory charge that [the] article imputed to [Tang].” Rather, this is but one interpretation depending on the listener’s point of view. In the absence of evidence that it omitted Tang’s remarks to portray his statements falsely, the First Amendment protects the Houston Chinese Press’s editorial choice regarding what material it included in the article. See id. Tang offered no evidence to controvert Wang’s testimony regarding his interpretation of Tang’s remarks. Nor has Tang offered sufficient evidence to show that Wang’s interpretation was not a plausible or reasonable one in light of the tenor of the press conference and the provocative nature of Tang’s analogy. See Cantu, 168 S.W.3d at 855 (<HOLDING>). Given Wang’s understanding of Tang’s Options: A. holding contract with ambiguous terms should not be dismissed on pleadings B. holding that understandable misinterpretation of ambiguous facts does not show actual malice C. holding that an ambiguous mention of an attorney is not a request for counsel D. holding exclusion was not ambiguous E. holding that mere surmise or suspicion of malice does not carry the probative force necessary to form the basis of a legal inference of malice

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that understandable misinterpretation of ambiguous facts does not show actual malice
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: seek unnecessary. See ch.2002-240, § 2, at 1782, Laws of Fla. (deleting authorization for arbitration). WOLF, C.J., Concurring. I cannot agree with the reasoning of the majority. Section 627.062(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), requires that “[t]he department and insurer must treat the decision of the arbitrators as the final approval of a rate filing.” The majority determines that the statute may not be enforced as written because it conflicts with the Florida Windstorm Underwriters Association Plan of Operation. That plan was adopted by rule by the Department of Insurance. Fundamental administrative law dictates that an administrative rule may not conflict with the unambiguous dictates of a statute. See Cleveland v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 868 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>). The majority’s determination that the plan Options: A. holding that 9 usc 1 conflicts with the inclusive language of the convention and thus may not restrict its scope B. holding that confirmation of a chapter 11 plan creates a binding contract which may be enforced in state courts C. holding that a rule that conflicts with a subsequent adopted statutory amendment may not be enforced D. holding that property settlement agreements may be specifically enforced E. holding that this boilerplate language conflicts with the regulations and rulings

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a rule that conflicts with a subsequent adopted statutory amendment may not be enforced
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 light of the fact that the covenants set forth in this Section 5 are reasonably required to protect the Company’s legitimate interests, if any provision of Section 5 hereof is held to be unenforceable because of the duration of such provision, the area covered thereby or the scope of the activity restrained, the parties hereby expressly agree that the court making such determination shall have the power to reduce the duration and/or areas of such provision and/or the scope of the activity to be restrained contained in such provision and, in its reduced form, such provision shall then be enforceable. Furthermore, if any court shall refuse to enforce any of the separate covenants deemed included in Section 5 , then such unenforceable covenant shall be deemed eliminated from the provisions hereof to the extent necessary to permit the remaining separate covenants to be enforced in accordance with their terms. The prevailing party in any action arising out of a dispute in respect of any provision of this Section 5 shall be entitled to recover from the non-prevailing party reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and disbursements incurred in connection with the prosecution or defense, as the case may be, of any such action.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The SPV and each Originator agree to do and perform, from time to time, any and all acts and to execute any and all further instruments required or reasonably requested by the other party more fully to effect the purposes 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: induced his employer to terminate his at-will employment?” See Haddle, 525 U.S. at 125, 119 S.Ct. 489. The Supreme Court ruled only on that issue. See Haddle, 525 U.S. at 126, 119 S.Ct. 489. The Eleventh Circuit had already previously rejected the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine. Because the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine was not before the Supreme Court, it would be a mistake to draw any inference from the Court’s silence on the issue. See United States v. Stewart, 650 F.2d 178, 180 (9th Cir.1981); National Electrical Contractors Association v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 632 F.Supp. 1403, 1414 (E.D.Cal.1986), aff'd, 888 F.2d 604 (9th Cir.1989). The intracorporate conspiracy doctrine first developed in the antitrust context. See Nelson, 200 F.2d at 914 (<HOLDING>). The Seventh Circuit extended the doctrine to Options: A. holding that a hospital can conspire with members of its medical staff B. recognizing that representation of a corporation by its officers in administrative proceedings is allowed C. holding that as a general rule the prosecution is entitled to prove its case by evidence of its own choice D. recognizing that agents of a corporation may be held criminally responsible for crimes committed in the name of the corporation E. holding a corporation cannot conspire with its officers and agents to restrain trade in its own products

assistant: The best answer is E. holding a corporation cannot conspire with its officers and agents to restrain trade in its own products
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 capitalization of the Company is as set forth on Schedule 3.1(g). The Company has not issued any capital stock since its most recently filed periodic report under the Exchange Act, other than pursuant to the exercise of employee stock options under the Company’s stock option plans, the issuance of shares of Common Stock to employees pursuant to the Company’s employee stock purchase plans and pursuant to the conversion and/or exercise of Common Stock Equivalents outstanding as of the date of the most recently filed periodic report under the Exchange Act. No Person has any right of first refusal, preemptive right, right of participation, or any similar right to participate in the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents. Except as a result of the purchase and sale of the Securities, there are no outstanding options, warrants, scrip rights to subscribe to, calls or commitments of any character whatsoever relating to, or securities, rights or obligations convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for, or giving any Person any right to subscribe for or acquire, any shares of Common Stock or the capital stock of any Subsidiary, or contracts, commitments, understandings or arrangements by which the Company or any Subsidiary is or may become bound to issue additional shares of Common Stock or Common Stock Equivalents or capital stock of any Subsidiary. The issuance and sale of the Securities will not obligate the Company or any Subsidiary to issue shares of Common Stock or other securities to any Person (other than the Purchasers) and will not result in a right of any holder of Company securities to adjust the exercise, conversion, exchange or reset price under any of such securities. There are no outstanding securities or instruments of the Company or any Subsidiary that contain any redemption or similar provisions, and there are no contracts, commitments, understandings or arrangements by which the Company or any Subsidiary is or may become bound to redeem a security of the Company or such Subsidiary. The Company does not have any stock appreciation rights or “phantom stock” plans or agreements or any similar plan or agreement. All of the outstanding shares of capital stock of the Company are duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable, have been issued in compliance with all federal and state securities laws, and none of such outstanding shares was issued in violation of any preemptive rights or similar rights to subscribe for or purchase securities. No further approval or authorization of any stockholder, the Board of Directors or others is required for the issuance and sale of the Securities. There are no stockholders agreements, voting agreements or other similar agreements with respect to the Company’s capital stock to which the Company is a party or, to the knowledge of the Company, between or among any of the Company’s stockholders.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: predict general economic conditions that also may affect demand for its products or services.”); In re Organogenesis Inc., 316 B.R. 574, 588 (Bankr.D.Mass.2004). The Debtors, therefore, would be faced with a difficult burden of showing that it was unreasonable assumptions, and not the effect of these catastrophic events, that led them to overvalue the Pulver assets. The Debtors would face similar obstacles in prevailing on its claims regarding the 2003 sale. Given the intangible and nature of the Pulver assets, and the industries from which they derived their revenue, the prevailing market price during the transaction period is likely to be the most accurate assessment of value for assets of this nature. In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc., 232 B.R. 565, 572 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y.1999) (<HOLDING>); In re Bay Plastics, Inc., 187 B.R. 315, 330 Options: A. recognizing that even a discount from estimated market value may be considered reasonable where the transaction involves a unique object or intangible property B. holding that the measure of damages of converted property is the market value at the time of conversion C. holding that if despite repairs there remains a loss in actual market value estimated as of the collision date such deficiency is to be added to the cost of repairs D. holding that there was no evidence of market value where owners testimony affirmatively showed that it was based on personal value E. holding that a retained equity interest is property even if it has no market value

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that even a discount from estimated market value may be considered reasonable where the transaction involves a unique object or intangible property
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: “information” relevant to an aggravating or mitigating factor, regardless of its admissibility under the federal rules of evidence, but provides that the information “may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of creating unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury.” 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c). Thus, not only does the statute is unconstitutional because it lacks proportionality review. Allen argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Gregg mandates proportionality review whenever a death penalty statute allows the consideration of nonstatutory aggravating factors in the final sentencing decision. We disagree with Allen’s reading of the Supreme Court’s holding in Gregg. See Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 50-51, 104 S.Ct. 871, 79 L.Ed.2d 29 (1984) (<HOLDING>). As the Supreme Court held in MeCleskey v. Options: A. holding that the eighth amendment does not require comparative proportionality review by an appellate court B. recognizing that the eighth amendment protects individuals from a lingering death C. holding that the eighth amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence but forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime D. holding that although proportionality review is an additional safeguard against arbitrarily imposed death sentences neither precedent including gregg nor the eighth amendment mandates proportionality review in every case E. recognizing the limited appellate review of sentences imposed under the initial voluntary sentencing standards

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that although proportionality review is an additional safeguard against arbitrarily imposed death sentences neither precedent including gregg nor the eighth amendment mandates proportionality review in every case
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 agreements in this Section and the indemnity provision of Section 11.02(e) shall survive the resignation of the Administrative Agent, any L/C Issuer and the Swing Line Lender, the replacement of any Lender, the termination of the Aggregate Commitments and the repayment, satisfaction or discharge of all the other Obligations.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: sixth issues, Lopez contends that his sentence violates both' the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the “due course of law” guarantee found in Article I, section 19 of the Texas Constitution; Multiple Texas appellate courts have held that mandatory sentencing statutes do not violate constitutional due process rights. See, e.g., Lewis, 448 S.W.3d at 147; Moore v. State, 54 S.W.3d 529, 544 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. refd) (mandatory life sentence did not violate due process rights and defendant had no right to mitigation hear ing); Williams v. State, 10 S.W.3d 370, 372-73 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1999, pet. refd) (mandatory life sentence did not violate due process fights). Lopez relies oh Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 657-58, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 1216, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) (<HOLDING>), and Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 542-43, 91 Options: A. holding unwed father entitled to hearing on his fitness as a parent before children could be taken from him after death of their mother B. holding unconstitutional a statute providing for children to be declared dependent and removed from their unwed fathers custody based on the presumption that unwed fathers are unfit parents C. holding that an illinois statute that conclusively presumed every father of a child born out of wedlock to be an unfit person to have custody of his children violated the due process clause and that due process required the father to be given an opportunity to present evidence regarding his fitness as a parent D. holding that parents are constitutionally entitled to a hearing on parental fitness before children are removed from their custody E. holding due process was violated by the automatic rejection of an unwed fathers custodial relationship without granting the father opportunity to present evidence regarding his fitness as a parent

assistant: The best answer is A. holding unwed father entitled to hearing on his fitness as a parent before children could be taken from him after death of their mother
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: told about the note. However, the court accepted the trial judge’s statement that an attempt to contact counsel was made because the trial judge directed the sheriff to call counsel, and Crockett does not provide us with clear and convincing evidence that the judge did not give the sheriff this direction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Armed with that conclusion, the Illinois Appellate Court then assessed whether the delay in responding to the jury was unreasonable. The affidavits of the jurors show that the trial judge received the note from the jury and did not respond for fifteen minutes to one hour. The Illinois Appellate Court cited several cases in which a judge did not respond to a jury’s question: People v. Sims, 166 Ill. App.3d 289, 116 Ill.Dec. 706, 519 N.E.2d 921, 935 (1987) (<HOLDING>); People v. Chandler, 110 A.D.2d 970, 971, 487 Options: A. holding appellant could not obtain a new trial so that jury could answer liability question because the charge instructed the jury not to answer the question based on its answer to a prior question and because appellant did not object to this instruction B. holding that it was reversible error for a trial court to fail to answer a jurys question on the burden of proof for two hours after which the jury returned a verdict C. holding that it was not reversible error for a trial court to fail to answer a jurys question for fifty minutes after which the jury returned a verdict D. holding that it was error for the trial judge to answer a jurys question without giving defendants counsel an opportunity to be heard before the trial judge responded E. holding that it was not reversible error to fail to answer the jurys question where the trial judge was presiding over closing arguments in a codefendants case when the question was asked and the jury reached a result before the judge could confer with the parties

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that it was not reversible error to fail to answer the jurys question where the trial judge was presiding over closing arguments in a codefendants case when the question was asked and the jury reached a result before the judge could confer with the parties
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 separate counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original and all of which together will constitute one and the same agreement. This Agreement, the agreements referred to herein, and each other agreement or instrument entered into in connection herewith or therewith or contemplated hereby or thereby, and any amendments hereto or thereto, to the extent signed and delivered by facsimile transmission or electronic mail in pdf form, shall be treated in all manner and respects as an original agreement or instrument and shall be considered to have the same binding legal effect as if it were the original signed version thereof delivered in person. At the request of any Party hereto or to any such agreement or instrument, each other Party hereto or thereto shall re-execute original forms thereof and deliver them to all other parties. No Party hereto or to any such agreement or instrument shall raise the use of a facsimile machine or email to deliver a signature or the fact that any signature or agreement or instrument was transmitted or communicated through the use of a facsimile machine or email as a defense to the formation or enforceability of a contract and each such Party forever waives any such defense.

assistant: Miscellaneous
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: Travelers Indem. Co., 802 F.2d 1164 (9th Cir.1986), in support of its argument. There, in a public works case governed by the Miller Act, the court looked to state law to determine whether a lien release was valid. The court stated that “[u]nder Arizona law a release must be supported by consideration.” Id. at 1167 (citation omitted). However, when Youngstown was decided, Arizona case law required that consideration be provided. See Youngstown, 802 F.2d at 1167 (citing State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Rossini, 482 P.2d 484, 488-89, 14 Ariz.App. 235, 239-40, vacated 490 P.2d 567, 107 Ariz. 561 (1971)). After the Youngstown decision, Arizona enacted A.R.S. § 33-1008. Therefore, A.R.S. § 33-1008 controls our inquiry. See Wolfson v. Watts (In re Watts), 298 F.3d 1077, 1083 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Endo’s lien release was an unconditional Options: A. holding that application of the doctrine of law of the case is discretionary and that a district court abuses its discretion in applying the law of the case doctrine only if 1 the first decision was clearly erroneous 2 an intervening change in the law occurred 3 the evidence on remand was substantially different 4 other changed circumstances exist or 5 a manifest injustice would otherwise result B. holding that when intervening supreme court case law is clearly irreconcilable with a prior circuit decision a panel of this court is bound by the later and controlling authority and should reject the prior circuit opinion C. holding a threejudge panel may not reexamine normally controlling circuit precedent in the face of an intervening united states supreme court decision unless the reasoning or theory of our prior circuit authority is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority D. holding that an intervening change in state law allowed a result that would otherwise be inconsistent with a prior ninth circuit decision E. holding a three judge panel cannot reconsider or overrule the decision of a prior panel unless an intervening supreme court decision undermines an existing precedent of the ninth circuit and both cases are closely on point internal quotations and citation omitted

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an intervening change in state law allowed a result that would otherwise be inconsistent with a prior ninth circuit decision
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 Bridge Release shall be deemed to have been entered into and shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California as applied to contracts made and to be performed entirely within California. Any action brought to enforce this Bridge Release, and any action arising out of, in connection with, or relating to this Bridge Release, shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts located in the Northern District of California. Both parties waive the right to a jury trial in any such action, and each party shall bear the costs and fees it incurs in any such action.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a defendant were held to be inadmissible pursuant to Rule 803(8)(B). Id. Similarly, a defendant’s exculpatory statements contained in a police report were held inadmissible under Rule 803(8) as a matter “observed by police officers.” State v. Maness, 321 N.C. 454, 459, 364 S.E.2d 349, 351 (1988). However, fingerprinting and photographing a suspect, and cataloguing a judgment and sentence, are the types of routine and unambiguous matters which the public records hearsay exception in Rule 803(8) is designed to allow, and. were not meant to be prohibited by the exclusion in subsection (B). United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1114, 164 L. Ed. 2d 667 (2006); see also, State v. Windley, 173 N.C. App. 187, 193-94, 617 S.E.2d 682, 686 (2005) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied and disc. review denied, 360 Options: A. holding statements by coconspirator nontestimonial and thus admissible B. holding that a certified abstract of a defendants driving record was nontestimonial C. holding that records of a criminal defendants previous convictions in state court are nontestimonial D. holding that driving records were nontestimonial E. holding that law enforcement record cards allegedly bearing defendants fingerprints were nontestimonial in nature

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that law enforcement record cards allegedly bearing defendants fingerprints were nontestimonial in nature
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 legal action or other legal proceeding relating to the enforcement of any provision of this Agreement is brought against either party hereto, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements (in addition to any other relief to which the prevailing party may be entitled).

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Transactions (a) do not require any consent or approval of, registration or filing with, or any other action by, any Governmental Authority, except such as have been obtained or made and are in full force and effect or have been made or to be made in connection with the filing of the Security Instruments to secure the Obligations, (b) will not violate any Requirement of Law applicable to the Borrower or any Restricted Subsidiary, (c) will not violate or result in a default under any indenture, agreement or other instrument evidencing Material Indebtedness or a Material Sales Contract binding upon the Borrower or any Restricted Subsidiary or any of their respective assets, or give rise to a right thereunder to require any payment to be made by the Borrower or any Restricted Subsidiary, and (d) will not result in the creation or imposition of any Lien on any asset of the Borrower or any Restricted Subsidiary not otherwise permitted under Section 7.02.

assistant: No Conflicts
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: hearing. The trial court orally granted appellee's motion to file the affidavit of Thomas Easley. This ruling had an impact on the trial court’s decision to grant at least one of appellee’s motions for partial summary judgment, for in its judgment, the trial court specifically stated that it relied on the affidavit of Thomas Easley. 6 . 1 George D. Braden, et al„ The Constitution of the State of Texas: An Annotated and Comparative Analysis 406 (George D. Braden, primary author and ed., 1977). 7 . Other courts interpreting the term "proceeding” in the context of other statutes and rules have also concluded that it requires a broad interpretation. See American Maintenance & Rentals, Inc. v. Estrada, 896 S.W.2d 212 218 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, vacated pursuant to settlement) (<HOLDING>); Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. Martin, 844 Options: A. holding that phrase other proceeding as used in rule 801e1a of the texas rules of civil evidence denoted steps and events in the process of litigation besides a trial or hearing because of the word other before the word proceeding B. holding the word individuals is not the equivalent of the dictionary acts use of the word persons C. holding that the word void is not sufficient D. holding that california rule modeled almost word for word on rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure does not allow a pro se attorney litigant to recover sanctions in the form of an award of attorneys fees E. holding that the word interest is to be understood in its ordinary senseto hold that congress intended to use the word in the sense of a penalty is contrary to all rules of interpretation and invokes a special definition of the word interest that is unwarranted citations omitted

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that phrase other proceeding as used in rule 801e1a of the texas rules of civil evidence denoted steps and events in the process of litigation besides a trial or hearing because of the word other before the word proceeding
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: for purposes of this section 7 , rovio 's licensors and channel partners are third party beneficiaries to the limitations of liability specified herein and they may enforce this eula against you .

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As compensation for his services hereunder and in consideration of the Executive’s other agreements hereunder, during the Employment Period, the Company shall pay the Executive an annual base salary (the “Base Salary”), payable in equal installments in accordance with the applicable payroll practices, at an initial rate of $700,000 for the first year of this Agreement, subject to annual review by the Company Board for increases but not decreases; provided , however , such Base Salary may be reduced in connection with a broad-based reduction for senior executives of the Company.

assistant: Base Salary
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 Required Antitrust Approvals shall have been obtained and shall remain in force and effect and shall not have been set aside or modified, on appeal or otherwise. There shall be in effect no provision of any material applicable Legal Requirement or Governmental Order (including, without limitation, any Antitrust Law), in each case in the Designated Countries or in the European Union as a whole, prohibiting the consummation of any of the Contemplated Transactions.

assistant: Qualifications
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: right" to the uncollected taxes because the Legislature may "cut off . . . liability at any stage" prior to collection. Snow's Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Morgan, supra at 292. A more recent court decision found that the State's "accrued right to collect inheritance taxes”, In re Estate of Hitchman, 100 Wn.2d 464, 466, 670 P.2d 655 (1983), was an "existing right" to be protected from retroactive application of a major tax law revision by a savings clause. Hitchman, at 469. Because of the "savings clause", however, the court did not have to address the dissent's invocation of Snow's Mobile Homes, recognizing the Legislature's power to extinguish a tax obligation. See Hitchman, at 472 (Brachtenbach, J., dissenting); see also Henry v. McKay, 164 Wash. 526, 535, 3 P.2d 145, 77 A.L.R. 1025 (1931) (<HOLDING>). Given our consistent treatment of amendatory Options: A. holding that state legislature should determine whether to cure discriminatory tax by enforcing tax as to all or forgiving tax in its entirety B. holding that the state police is a state agency C. holding that the state through its legislature may retroactively release the delinquent propertyowner from tax liabilities due to the state D. holding that taxpayers failure to follow state requirement that he report change in federal income tax did not except state tax liability from discharge E. holding that a state may not condition voting in state elections on payment of a tax

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the state through its legislature may retroactively release the delinquent propertyowner from tax liabilities due to the state
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 for matters and filings that would not, individually or in the aggregate, have or reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect, (i) all federal, state and local tax returns, reports and statements required to be filed by or on behalf of Borrower have been filed with the appropriate Governmental Authorities in all jurisdictions in which such returns, reports and statements are required to be filed and, except to the extent subject to a Permitted Contest, all Taxes (including real property Taxes) and other charges shown to be due and payable in respect thereof have been timely paid prior to the date on which any fine, penalty, interest, late charge or loss may be added thereto for nonpayment thereof, (ii) except to the extent subject to a Permitted Contest, all state and local sales and use Taxes required to be paid by Borrower have been paid, and (iii) all federal and state returns have been filed by Borrower for all periods for which returns were due with respect to employee income tax withholding, social security and unemployment taxes, and, except to the extent subject to a Permitted Contest, the amounts shown thereon to be due and payable have been paid in full or adequate provisions therefor have been made.

assistant: Taxes
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 failure of a Party hereunder to assert a right or enforce an obligation of the other Party shall not be deemed a waiver of such right or obligation. The waiver by any Party of a breach of any provision of, or Event of Default under, this Agreement shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of any other breach of that provision or as a waiver of any breach of another provision of, Event of Default or potential Event of Default under, this Agreement, whether of a like kind or different nature.

assistant: No Waivers
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging Eighth Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, see Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we vacate and remand. We conclude that Funtanilla adequately alleged deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). Specifically, Funtanilla alleged that while he was in the suicide prevention cell, “defendant Rubles observed him once during the night cutting his arm.” (Complaint at 2, ¶ 10). See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (<HOLDING>); Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Options: A. holding prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knew that prisoner faced a substantial risk of harm and disregarded that risk B. holding that a prison official may be held liable under the eighth amendment for denying humane conditions of confinement only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it C. holding that prisoner must show prison officials were deliberately indifferent to prison conditions to establish an eighth amendment violation D. holding that an individual is not qualified for a job if there is a genuine substantial risk that he could be injured or could injure others and the employer cannot modify the job to eliminate that risk E. holding that a medical professional was not deliberately indifferent where the prisoner alleged that the professional performed some investigation and determined that the prisoner does not have the condition he thinks he has

assistant: The best answer is A. holding prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knew that prisoner faced a substantial risk of harm and disregarded that risk
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the representations and warranties made in respect of the Purchased Assets pursuant to Exhibit X are true, complete and correct in all material respects, except as disclosed in writing by Seller prior to a Purchase Date for any Purchased Asset and reflected in the related Confirmation.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that district court’s claim-by-claim description of the frivolous nature of the plaintiffs’ complaint demonstrated clearly that their “widespread charges of racial discrimination [were leveled] without any regard for the truth ... in order to harass and embarrass the personnel at Fort Bragg”). The third and fourth instances of bad faith were predicated on the district court’s belief that both David and Samuel Sprafldn had offered testimony that “simply was not credible.” We have no doubt that when a party has materially perjured himself, this, standing alone, is sufficient grounds for finding bad faith. See Chambers, 501 U.S. at 46, 111 S.Ct. at 2133 (noting that the “inherent power extends to a full range of litigation abuses); see also Perichak, 715 F.2d at 84-85 & n. 9 (3d Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); Carrión v. Yeshiva University, 535 F.2d 722 Options: A. holding that even if defendants knew that the company had inventory problems that fact standing alone does not show that defendants knew that the statements in their prospectus or other representations were materially false or misleading at the time the material statements were made B. holding that the defendants materially false statements made under oath are having been critical to the success of his case alone enough to support a finding of bad faith C. holding that in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary a defendant is bound by statements made under oath during his plea colloquy D. recognizing that the sixth circuit has folded the absence of bad faith in under the inadvertence prong made the determination of whether there was evidence of a motive or intention to conceal the potential claim critical to a finding of bad faith and has held that in a particular case numerous attempts by the plaintiffs to cure an initial omission provided evidence that the omission was inadvertent not intentional E. holding that a bad faith claim is a tort

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the defendants materially false statements made under oath are having been critical to the success of his case alone enough to support a finding of bad faith
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall use its commercially reasonable efforts to submit drafts to the First Lien Bank Professionals of any press releases and public documents that constitute disclosure of the existence or terms of this Agreement or any amendment to the terms of this Agreement at least three (3) Business Days prior to making any such disclosure, and shall afford them a reasonable opportunity under the circumstances to comment on such documents and disclosures and shall incorporate any such reasonable comments in good faith.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the Term and thereafter, Executive agrees not to disparage the Company or any of its affiliates or any of their respective directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives or licensees and not to publish or make any statement that is reasonably foreseeable to become public with respect to any of such entities or persons.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: complicated the calculation of his years of credited service, Plaintiff sought clarification of those calculations from the company representative at the retirement interview. The company representative assured Plaintiff that the calculation of his years of credited service was correct. The Overpayment Notice, however, clearly states that the very calculations that the company representative assured Plaintiff were correct at the retirement interview were in fact miscalculated. The Court finds that the company representative’s assurances, which were a crucial aspect of Plaintiffs decision to retire effective July 1, 2009, were so grossly negligent as to amount to constructive fraud upon Plaintiff. See Teisman v. United Omaha Life Ins. Co., 908 F.Supp.2d 875, 887 (W.D.Mich.2012) (<HOLDING>); Krause v. Ohio Operating Engineers-Pension, Options: A. holding that a providers false assurances that a beneficiarys insurance coverage continued may constitute gross negligence B. holding that negligence does not violate the due process clause but reserving the question whether gross negligence does C. holding that ordinary negligence and gross negligence are not separate causes of action D. holding that dawson proscribes gross negligence E. holding that an insurance agent who does not procure the insurance coverage requested breaches his or her duty suggesting a negligence claim

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a providers false assurances that a beneficiarys insurance coverage continued may constitute gross negligence
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 and without limitation of Section 6, the Company shall be the sole owner of all the products and proceeds of the Executive’s services hereunder, including, but not limited to, all materials, ideas, concepts, formats, suggestions, developments, arrangements, packages, programs and other intellectual properties that the Executive may acquire, obtain, develop or create in connection with or during the Term, free and clear of any claims by the Executive (or anyone claiming under the Executive) of any kind or character whatsoever (other than the Executive’s right to receive payments hereunder). The Executive shall, at the request of RCPC, execute such assignments, certificates or other instruments as RCPC may from time to time deem necessary or desirable to evidence, establish, maintain, perfect, protect, enforce or defend its right, title or interest in or to any such properties.

assistant: Intellectual Property