flwrlabs/fed-legal huggingface dataset:
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the form defendant signed, entitled “Declarations to Paramedical Examiner,” with the exception of (i) the title of the forms; (ii) the signature line differences depending upon whether an agent, paramedical examiner or medial examiner asked and recorded the data and (iii) the questions relating to height and weight, which were not included on the form that defendant signed . (Youngquist Aff. ¶ 3). In the instant matter, the paramedical examiner conducted a physical examination, including measuring defendant’s height and weight, and reported the results of the physical examination on a separate form. (Youngquist Aff. ¶ 6). Thus, every medical question on the form defendant signed, entitled “Declarations to Paramedic oup, Inc., 556 N.Y.S.2d 549, 553, 157 A.D.2d 293, 298 (1st Dep’t 1990) (<HOLDING>); Benefit Trust Life Insur. Co. v. Rowland, 486 Options: A. holding that the best way to harmonize a choice of law clause and an arbitration clause is to apply the substantive case law of the named state to the entire agreement including the arbitration clause B. holding failure of insurer to file under sections of insurance law requiring readable and understandable policies would not by itself void the policy clause but rather carries its own penalties for nonfiling further such clause is void only if the substantive provisions of the clause are inconsistent with other statutes or regulations C. holding that when an arbitration clause has provisions that defeat the remedial purpose of the statute the arbitration clause is not enforceable and that the language insulating an employer from damages and equitable relief renders the clause unenforceable D. holding residual clause of acca void for vagueness E. holding an entire arbitration clause is void and arbitration cannot be compelled where contract contained unconscionable clause and has a nonseverability clause

assistant: The best answer is B. holding failure of insurer to file under sections of insurance law requiring readable and understandable policies would not by itself void the policy clause but rather carries its own penalties for nonfiling further such clause is void only if the substantive provisions of the clause are inconsistent with other statutes or regulations
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: also Myers, 2011 UT 65, 1 24, 266 P.3d 806 ("[A] marriage-like cohabitation relationship is difficult to define with a hard-and-fast list of prerequisites."). As a result, the burden of establishing that cohabitation has occurred is on the payor spouse. See Utah Code Ann. § 30-8-5(10) (stating that "alimony to a former spouse terminates upon establishment by the party paying alimony that the former spouse is cohabitating with another person") (emphasis added). Here, the trial court concluded that Husband had met his burden. We agree. I. We Accept the Trial Court's Factual Findings. { 11 There is some debate among the parties about whether Wife properly marshaled the evidence supporting the factual findings that she resists. See generally Chen v. Stew-ort, 2004 UT 82, 177, 100 P.8d 1177 (<HOLDING>). However, Wife concedes that her challenge is Options: A. holding that the trial courts putting its findings on the record at the conclusion of the states case was sufficient to satisfy 152538 because that section does not specifically limit the time within which the court must state the findings B. holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence C. holding that findings of fact are conclusive if supported by clear and convincing competent evidence even where the evidence might support contrary findings D. holding that appellants must provide a precisely focused summary of all the evidence supporting the findings they challenge and then convince us that the trial court erred in the assessment of that evidence to its findings E. holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that appellants must provide a precisely focused summary of all the evidence supporting the findings they challenge and then convince us that the trial court erred in the assessment of that evidence to its findings
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in a different room than Hanson and, according to Mickey’s own experts, was not a part of Mickey’s delusional scheme. Finally, this mental health defense conflicted with Mickey’s own statements. Mickey claimed self-defense during interviews in which the police described him as alert and cognitively stable. But if he was in a delusional state at the time of the murders, how could he be defending himself? Counsel were not deficient in deciding not to portray his client as a flip-flopper. See Turk, 116 F.3d at 1266-67. Second, a mental health defense was likely to open the door to evidence of Mickey’s deviant sexual behaviors. Belmontes, 130 S.Ct. at 385-86 (commenting on superior performance of counsel in excluding damaging evidence while presenting a defense); Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1037 (<HOLDING>). The experts who would have testified to Options: A. holding the crimes merge where the jury was not asked to determine whether two assaults occurredeventhough the evidence may have been sufficient to support separate crimes B. holding that under the crimes code conspiracy and the completed substantive offense are separate crimes C. holding that the district court acted within its discretion when it denied plaintiffs request for counsel D. holding counsel acted reasonably when not exposing the jury to the defendants other crimes E. holding evidence of other crimes inadmissible when identity is not at issue

assistant: The best answer is D. holding counsel acted reasonably when not exposing the jury to the defendants other crimes
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: decided under the correct standard is not for us to say. CONCLUSION We vacate the Veterans Court’s decision and remand for application of the correct statutory standard. VACATED AND REMANDED. REYNA, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The majority finds subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal based on an apparent concession from the government where it “recognized our jurisdiction” at oral argument. I disagree on this informal granting of jurisdiction. It is well recognized that “no action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal court. Thus, the consent of the parties is irrelevant....” Ins. Corp. of Ir. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982); see also Cromer v. Nicholson, 455 F.3d 1346, 1348 (Fed.Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). A more searching review of our jurisdiction Options: A. holding that even where subjectmatter jurisdiction may go unchallenged on appeal we have an obligation to inquire sua sponte into our jurisdiction over the matter B. recognizing that even if neither party disputes this courts subject matter jurisdiction under 38 usc 7292 we are obligated to consider the issue sua sponte if there is reason to doubt that jurisdiction exists C. recognizing federal courts duty to determine matter of its own jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it becomes apparent that jurisdiction may be lacking D. holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims not raised below by the alien even when the bia reviews the claim sua sponte E. recognizing every federal appellate court has a special obligation to consider its own jurisdiction even if it must do so sua sponte

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that even if neither party disputes this courts subject matter jurisdiction under 38 usc 7292 we are obligated to consider the issue sua sponte if there is reason to doubt that jurisdiction exists
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in the suit, and the burden of proof rests upon him to establish his affirmative defense by the preponderance of the evidence.” Lorick & Lowrance, Inc. v. Julius H. Walker & Co., 153 S.C. 309, 318, 150 S.E. 789, 792 (1929). “Assumption of risk is an affirmative defense.” Howard v. South Carolina Dep’t of Highways, 343 S.C. 149, 155, 538 S.E.2d 291, 294 (Ct.App.2000); see also Wallace v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 300 S.C. 518, 524, 389 S.E.2d 155, 158 (Ct.App.1989) (stating “the affirmative defense of assumption of risk ordinarily presents a question of fact for the jury”). The trial court committed reversible error by not placing the burden of proving the affirmative defense of assumption of risk with SCE & G in its jury charge. See Ross v. Paddy, 340 S.C. 428, 532 S.E.2d 612 (Ct.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). When viewed as a whole the court’s Options: A. holding that the burden of proving lack of negligence is on the owner B. holding that defendants bear the burden of proving contributory negligence by a preponderance of the evidence C. holding the trial court erred in not charging the jury that a defendant had the burden of proving the affirmative defense of comparative negligence D. holding that the burden of proving that the employee did not make reasonable efforts is on the defendant E. holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving outside contact with the jury

assistant: The best answer is C. holding the trial court erred in not charging the jury that a defendant had the burden of proving the affirmative defense of comparative 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: Any and all notices or other communications or deliveries required or permitted to be provided hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed given and effective on the earliest of: (a) the date of transmission, if such notice or communication is delivered via facsimile at the facsimile number or email attachment at the email address as set forth on the signature pages attached hereto at or prior to 5:30 p.m. (New York City time) on a Trading Day, (b) the next Trading Day after the date of transmission, if such notice or communication is delivered via facsimile at the facsimile number or email attachment at the email address as set forth on the signature pages attached hereto on a day that is not a Trading Day or later than 5:30 p.m. (New York City time) on any Trading Day, (c) the second (2 nd )Trading Day following the date of mailing, if sent by U.S. nationally recognized overnight courier service or (d) upon actual receipt by the party to whom such notice is required to be given. The address for such notices and communications shall be as set forth on the signature pages attached hereto. To the extent that any notice provided pursuant to this Agreement constitutes, or contains, material, non-public information regarding the Company or any Subsidiaries, the Company shall simultaneously file such notice with the SEC pursuant to a Current Report on Form 8-K.

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: Seller shall timely file all income, franchise and other tax returns required to be filed by it and shall timely pay and discharge all taxes, levies, assessments, liens and other charges imposed on it, on its income or profits, on any of its property or on the Collateral prior to the date on which penalties attach thereto, except for any such tax, levy, assessment, liens or other charge which is being contested in good faith and by proper proceedings and against which adequate reserves are being maintained in accordance with GAAP.

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: There are no federal, state, county, local or foreign taxes due and payable by the Company which have not been timely paid. There are no accrued and unpaid federal, state, county, local or foreign taxes of the Company which are due, whether or not assessed or disputed. There have been no examinations or audits of any tax returns or reports by any applicable federal, state, local or foreign governmental agency. The Company has duly and timely filed all federal, state, county, local and foreign tax returns required to have been filed by it and there are in effect no waivers of applicable statutes of limitations with respect to taxes for any year.

assistant: Payments
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: appeared in Hinds County Justice Court and through them attorneys, pled not guilty. Similarly, on February 11, 2009, plaintiff Charles Shawn Lucrow was charged in Rankin County, Mississippi with driving under the influence. He initially appeared and pled not guilty in Rankin County Justice Court. On March 16, 2010, while the charges remained pending against them in the state justice courts, plaintiffs filed the present action in this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants, as a mat ter of official policy, custom and practice, systematically deny justice court defendants access to favorable evidence relating to both guilt and punishment, in violation of their due process rights. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-96, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) (<HOLDING>). More particularly, plaintiffs alleged that Options: A. holding that suppression by prosecutor of evidence favorable to an accused violates due process where evidence is material to either guilt or punishment B. holding that suppression by prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused upon request by the defense violates due process where evidence is material either to guilt or punishment irre spective of the good faith of the prosecution C. holding that suppression of evidence by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the defendant upon request violates the defendants right to due process where the evidence is material D. holding that suppression of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process when evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution E. holding that suppression by government of evidence favorable to accused upon request violates due process when evidence is material to guilt

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that suppression of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process when evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution
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 corporate action on the part of the Company, its officers, directors and stockholders necessary for the authorization, execution and delivery of this Agreement and the performance of all obligations of the Company hereunder and thereunder, including, without limitation, the authorization of the Exchange, and the issuance (or reservation for issuance) of the Exchange Shares have been taken on or prior to the date hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and onto her abdomen onee she submarined. He further indicated that Amanda’s pelvic and leg injuries were caused by- her knees impacting the vehicle’s dash panel. Mr. Lewis concluded that had Amanda not submarined and her seat not collapsed, she would not have sustained these injuries. Additional Evidence Amanda also introduced portions of Nissan’s pre-trial discovery responses wherein Nissan admitted to disposing of its developmental test reports including any reports concerning crashworthiness, front passenger seatbelt spool-out, submarining, and the effectiveness of the Pathfinder’s seatbelt systems. Mr. Whitman explained in detail why he believed that Nissan’s record retention policy was a bad of our sister states. E.g., Stone Man v. Green, 263 Ga. 470, 435 S.E.2d 205, 206 (1993) (<HOLDING>). The undisputed evidence demonstrates that Options: A. holding that punitive damages are as a general rule improper where a defendant has adhered to environmental and safety regulations B. holding tcpa is remedial statute and that statutory damages are not punitive damages C. holding that punitive damages are not allowed under the flsa D. holding a court may not award punitive damages E. holding that punitive damages are not fines

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that punitive damages are as a general rule improper where a defendant has adhered to environmental and safety regulations
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 Lender shall have the right at any time to sell one or more participations to any Person (other than Holdings, any of its Subsidiaries or any of its Affiliates) in all or any part of its Multi-Draw Term Loan Commitments, Term Loans or in any other Obligation. The holder of any such participation, other than an Affiliate of the Lender granting such participation, shall not be entitled to require such Lender to take or omit to take any action hereunder except with respect to any amendment, modification or waiver that would (i) extend the final scheduled maturity of the Term Loan or Term Loan Note in which such participant is participating, or reduce the rate or extend the time of payment of interest or fees thereon (except in connection with a waiver of applicability of any post-default increase in interest rates) or reduce the principal amount thereof, or increase the amount of the participant’s participation over the amount thereof then in effect (it being understood that a waiver of any Default or Event of Default or of a mandatory reduction in the Multi-Draw Term Loan Commitment shall not constitute a change in the terms of such participation, and that an increase in any Multi-Draw Term Loan Commitment or Term Loan shall be permitted without the consent of any participant if the participant’s participation is not increased as a result thereof), (ii) consent to the assignment or transfer by any Credit Party of any of its rights and obligations under this Agreement, or (iii) release all or substantially all of the Collateral under the Collateral Documents or all or substantially all of the Guarantors from the Guaranty (in each case, except as expressly provided in the Credit Documents) supporting the Term Loans hereunder in which such participant is participating. Company agrees that each participant shall be entitled to the benefits of Sections 2.17(c), 2.18 and 2.19 to the same extent as if it were a Lender and had acquired its interest by assignment pursuant to clause (c) of this Section; provided , (i) a participant shall not be entitled to receive any greater payment under Section 2.18 or 2.19 than the applicable Lender would have been entitled to receive with respect to the participation sold to such participant, unless the sale of the participation to such participant is made with Company’s prior written consent, and (ii) a participant that would be a Non-US Lender if it were a Lender shall not be entitled to the benefits of Section 2.19 unless Company is notified of the participation sold to such participant and such participant agrees, for the benefit of Company, to comply with Section 2.19 as though it were a Lender. To the extent permitted by law, each participant also shall be entitled to the benefits of Section 10.4 as though it were a Lender, provided such Participant agrees to be subject to Section 2.16 as though it were a Lender.

assistant: Participations
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 with respect to the material terms and conditions of the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents, the Company confirms that neither it nor any other Person acting on its behalf has provided any of the Purchasers or their agents or counsel with any information that it believes constitutes or might constitute material, non-public information which is not otherwise disclosed in the Commission Documents. The Company understands and confirms that the Purchasers will rely on the foregoing representation in effecting transactions in securities of the Company. All of the disclosure furnished by or on behalf of the Company to the Purchasers regarding the Company and its subsidiaries, their respective businesses and the transactions contemplated hereby, including any disclosure schedules to this Agreement, is true and correct and does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The Company acknowledges and agrees that no Purchaser makes or has made any representations or warranties with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby other than those specifically set forth in Section 2.2 hereof.

assistant: Disclosures
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 Lenders agree to indemnify the Administrative Agent (to the extent not reimbursed by the Borrower), ratably according to the respective amounts of their Commitments (or, if the Commitments have expired or terminated, the amount of their outstanding Advances), from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, actions, judgments, suits, costs, expenses or disbursements of any kind or nature whatsoever which may be imposed on, incurred by, or asserted against the Administrative Agent in any way relating to or arising out of this Agreement or any action taken or omitted by the Administrative Agent under this Agreement, provided that no Lender shall be liable for any portion of such liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, actions, judgments, suits, costs, expenses or disbursements found in a final-non-appealable judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction to have resulted from the Administrative Agent’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. Without limiting the foregoing, each Lender agrees to reimburse the Administrative Agent promptly upon demand for its ratable share of any out‑of‑pocket expenses (including counsel fees) incurred by the Administrative Agent in connection with the preparation, execution, delivery, administration, modification, amendment or enforcement (whether through negotiations, legal proceedings or otherwise) of, or legal advice in respect of rights or responsibilities under, this Agreement, to the extent that the Administrative Agent is not reimbursed for such expenses by the Borrower.

assistant: Indemnifications
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: There is no action, suit, inquiry, notice of violation, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened against or affecting the Company, any Subsidiary or any of their respective properties before or by any court, arbitrator, governmental or administrative agency or regulatory authority (federal, state, county, local or foreign) (collectively, an “ Action ” ) which (i) adversely affects or challenges the legality, validity or enforceability of any of the Transaction Documents or the Securities or (ii) would, if there were an unfavorable decision, have or reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. Neither the Company nor any Subsidiary, nor any director or officer thereof, is or has been the subject of any Action involving a claim of violation of or liability under federal or state securities laws or a claim of breach of fiduciary duty. There has not been, and to the knowledge of the Company, there is not pending or contemplated, any investigation by the Commission involving the Company or any current or former director or officer of the Company. The Commission has not issued any stop order or other order suspending the effectiveness of any registration statement filed by the Company or any Subsidiary under the Exchange Act or the Securities Act.

assistant: Litigations
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 Purchaser understands the meaning and legal consequences of the representations and warranties contained in this Subscription Agreement and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Company, its officers and directors, and each agent and employee thereof, from and against any and all loss, damage, liability or expense (including judgments, fines, amounts paid in settlement, attorney’s fees and other legal costs actually incurred as a result of any such person or entity being made a party or threatened to be made a party to any threatened, pending or completed action, suit or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative, or investigative, by reason of or arising from any breach of representation or warranty of it or any misrepresentation or misstatement of fact or omission to state or represent facts made by it to the Company, including without limitation, the information which it has furnished in this Subscription Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that the indictment and the record provide Patterson with sufficient protection from the risk that he will be placed in jeopardy a second time for the same conduct for which he was convicted, given the specificity with which the government identified at trial the members and goals of the drug conspiracies, the conspiracies’ geographic scopes, the drugs distributed in the conspiracies, and the conspiracies’ termination dates. See also United States v. Young, 862 F.2d 815, 819 (10th Cir.1988) (“[Kjeeping in mind that reference may be had to the entire record in a subsequent proceeding, the indictment is sufficient to protect the defendant against double jeopardy.” (citing Russell, 369 U.S. at 763, 82 S.Ct. 1038)); United States v. Pease, 240 F.3d 938, 942-43 (11th Cir.2001) (per curium) (<HOLDING>). This claim therefore fails. G. Evidence Used Options: A. holding that an indictment charging a cocaine distribution conspiracy with a start date unknown to the grand jury was sufficiently specific to allow the defendant to plead double jeopardy if charged again for the same conduct B. holding that an indictment that referred to wholesale quantities of cocaine and cocaine base was sufficiently broad to include the specific quantities of drugs actually found by the jury C. recognizing that an indictment must contain the elements of the offense charged fairly inform a defendant of the charge and enable the defendant to plead double jeopardy as a defense in a future prosecution for the same offense D. holding that a plea to an indictment charging a 28member conspiracy involving possession with intent to distribute or distribution of 30 kilograms of cocaine did not relieve the government of proving at sentencing the amount attributable to the defendant E. holding that the double jeopardy clause did not bar charging the defendant with both receipt and possession of child pornography where the defendant was charged with possessing a set of files that did not form the basis for a separate receipt count

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an indictment charging a cocaine distribution conspiracy with a start date unknown to the grand jury was sufficiently specific to allow the defendant to plead double jeopardy if charged again for the same conduct
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: The record is silent as to why appellant’s counsel failed to request a limiting instruction when the evidence was introduced and is therefore insufficient to overcome the presumption that counsel’s actions were part of a strategic plan. Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707, 714 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 814 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). In the absence of evidence concerning counsel’s reasons—or lack thereof—for his actions, we are unable to conclude that his performance was deficient under the first prong of the Strickland standard. See Jackson, 877 S.W.2d at 771. Moreover, trial counsel is not necessarily deficient for failing to request a limiting instruction on extraneous matters when the evidence is introduced. Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 881 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). In Ryan v. State, 937 S.W.2d 93, 104-05 Options: A. holding that trial counsels failure to request a limiting instruction did not constitute ineffective assistance where counsel testified he did not want to draw more attention to the incriminating evidence B. holding that failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel C. holding that failure to request jury instruction about manner in which evidence was obtained was not error and thus did not constitute ineffective assistance because defendant was not entitled to instruction D. holding that district courts incomplete 404b limiting instruction did not warrant reversal because district court told defense counsel what limiting instruction it would give and defense counsel did not object or request a more specific instruction E. holding that counsels failure to object or request a limiting instruction for evidence of defendants incarceration was sound trial strategy

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that trial counsels failure to request a limiting instruction did not constitute ineffective assistance where counsel testified he did not want to draw more attention to the incriminating evidence
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: Evergreen contract, the term of this Agreement (the “Term”) shall be for a period of five (5) years, commencing on the Effective Date and renew upon completion of achieving annual goal creating a perpetual agreement in effect.

assistant: Terms
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 at any time subsequent to the Effective Date, any provision of this Agreement shall be held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, void or unenforceable, such provision shall be of no force and effect, but the illegality or unenforceability of such provision shall have no effect upon the legality or enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement.

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: This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all such separate counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same agreement. In proving this Amendment or any other Loan Document in any judicial proc eedings, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one such counterpart signed by the party against whom such enforcement is sought. Any signatures hereto delivered by Electronic Transmission shall be deemed an original signature heret o.

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: rule. If the opinions of the nontestifying experts were to be admitted, the experts should have appeared and testified. We hold that the examiner’s testimony regarding the opinions of the nontestifying experts was inadmissible hearsay. See generally Minn. R. Evid. 802 (stating that hearsay is inadmissible absent an exception). However, not every judicial error warrants reversal. An error is harmless “[i]f the verdict actually rendered was surely unattributable to the error, * * State v. Jones, 556 N.W.2d 903, 910 (Minn.1996). Here, the examiner’s testimony regarding the opinions of the nontestifying experts was insignificant and cumulative compared to the weight of the other evidence of Bradford’s guilt offered at trial. See, e.g., State v. Bauer, 598 N.W.2d 352, 367 (Minn.1999) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we hold that the admission of the Options: A. holding error in admission of evidence is harmless when it was merely cumulative to other evidence in the record B. holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless C. recognizing that no prejudice results where the evidence erroneously admitted was merely cumulative and an appellate court will not reverse for harmless error in the admission of evidence D. holding that when evidence was erroneously admitted such error was harmless when the evidence was insignificant and cumulative E. holding improperly admitted evidence may be harmless if cumulative

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that when evidence was erroneously admitted such error was harmless when the evidence was insignificant and cumulative
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in overbearing or coercive activity in making requests or conveys the message that compliance with requests is required). The officers did not have the squad car lights on or guns drawn; they simply approached on foot, and asked two questions. Cf. United States v. Thomas, 430 F.3d 274, 276-81 (6th Cir.2005) (finding no Fourth Amendment seizure when two officers knocked on the suspect’s back door, told the suspect they wanted to talk to him, and asked him to come outside); United States v. Foster, 376 F.3d 577, 581-84 (6th Cir.2004) (finding no seizure where three uniformed officers approached the suspect as he was emerging from a parked vehicle with the engine running, and asked the suspect his name, what he was doing, and whether he had identification); Waldon, 206 F.3d at 602-04 (<HOLDING>). Contrary to Mitchell’s suggestion, the Options: A. holding that the facts that the vehicle described in the tip was parked outside the home that allen gave inconsistent answers to officers questioning and that in addition the defendant fit the physical description of the suspect were sufficient to support the officers reasonable inference that the defendant was actually the suspect and therefore that there was probable cause to arrest him B. holding that no seizure occurred where officer approached the suspect at the bus stop mentioned that he was investigating a bank robbery asked the suspect what he was doing in the area and for his identification and otherwise gave no indication that the suspect was not free to leave or to refuse to respond to questioning C. holding that the state courts conclusion that a suspect did not unambiguously request counsel was not unreasonable when during a postmiranda interview the suspect stated i think i would like to talk to a lawyer after which the police stopped questioning him left the room and did not resume questioning until the suspect explicitly said he did not want a lawyer and wanted to continue talking D. holding that an officer engaged in the functional equivalent of interrogation when he asked a suspect to identify clothing found at a crime scene after the suspect was in custody and had invoked his right to silence regardless of the officers intentions E. holding that if a police officer inflicted no constitutional injury on a suspect it is inconceivable that the police commissioners could be liable to the suspect

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that no seizure occurred where officer approached the suspect at the bus stop mentioned that he was investigating a bank robbery asked the suspect what he was doing in the area and for his identification and otherwise gave no indication that the suspect was not free to leave or to refuse to respond to questioning
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: Mylett’s claims against three police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of due process and § 1985 for conspiracy need not long detain us. We agree with the district court’s conclusion that Mylett failed to assert a cognizable class-based animus to support a claim under section 1985 and failed to establish an enforceable property interest as against these defendants. The judgment of the district court is, in all respects, AFFIRMED. 1 . The charges stemmed from Mylett's supposed refusal to pay for belt buckles. 2 . Mylett objected to the form of the submission because it required the jury to determine whether some part of his speech was protected before it could answer the question related to causation. See Wilson v. University of Texas Health Center, 973 F.2d 1263 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>), cert, denied sub nom. Hurst v. Wilson, — U.S. Options: A. holding that question whether employee speech is protected and concomitant determination whether it touches a matter of public concern are for the court and to be answered with reference to the form context and content of the claimed speech as revealed by the record as a whole B. holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern C. recognizing the need to balance the states interest in fulfilling its responsibilities to the public the extent to which the speech in question involves a matter of public concern and the manner time place and context of the speech D. holding that if the speech in question does not address a matter of public concern there is no first amendment violation E. holding a regulation is contentneutral as long as it is justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that question whether employee speech is protected and concomitant determination whether it touches a matter of public concern are for the court and to be answered with reference to the form context and content of the claimed speech as revealed by the record as a whole
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: for the trier of fact is whether the employer’s selection of a particular applicant over the plaintiff was motivated by discrimination, and evidence of the plaintiff’s superior qualification is thus probative of pretext. However, the bar is set high for this kind of evidence of discrimination because differences in qualifications are generally not probative evidence of discrimination unless those disparities are of such weight and significance that no reasonable person, in the exercise of impartial judgment, could have chosen the candidate selected over the plaintiff for the job in question. Celestine v. Petroleos de Venezuella SA, 266 F.3d 343 (5th Cir.2001), abrogated on other grounds, National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 105, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002) (<HOLDING>). 19 . From Agoh’s testimony during his Options: A. holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original B. holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii C. holding that title vii does not include a continuing violation doctrine D. holding that title vii does not address samesex harassment E. holding that the doctrine of qualified immunity does not protect a government official who is sued in an official capacity under title vii because title vii does not impose personal liability

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that title vii does not include a continuing violation doctrine
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 2006 Haw. Sess. Laws at 28-30; 2006 Haw. Senate Journal of 23rd Legislature at 1200 & 1277; 2006 Haw. House of Representatives Journal of 23rd Legislature at 1497 & 1653. However, proceeding to the second step of the Sacks framework, it appears that application of § 134-7(a) would not have an impermissible retroactive effect in this case. Specifically, the Lautenberg Amendment was enacted in 1996 and, therefore, defined gun rights at the time Plaintiff was convicted in 1997. Accordingly, it appears that the application of § 134-7(a) would not have an impermissible retroactive effect because the state law does not take away or impair rights Plaintiff had before the law was enacted. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 269-270, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, the Court concludes that Options: A. holding that the fair sentencing act does not apply retroactively to defendants whose criminal conduct occurred before its enactment even if those defendants were sentenced after its enactment B. holding generally that new rules of law should not be applied retroactively in habeas corpus cases C. recognizing the objection requirement for new state constitutional rules applied retroactively D. recognizing that new law did not apply to claims that accrued prior to enactment E. holding that a court examining if a law should be applied retroactively should consider whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a court examining if a law should be applied retroactively should consider whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice under this Plan shall be in writing and shall be effective when actually delivered or, if mailed, when deposited as first class mail postage prepaid. Mail shall be directed to the Company or Committee at the Company’s main administrative offices, to the Participant at the Participant’s last known home address shown in the Company’s records, or to such other address as a party may specify by notice to the other parties.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: resources which would otherwise have been used to satisfy the claims of creditors.” In re Marshall, 550 F.3d at 1256. The Sixth Circuit reached an identical conclusion in a decision where a trustee sought to avoid a balance transfer from one credit card company to another as preferential under § 547 of the Bankruptcy Code. In re Dilworth, 560 F.3d 562 (6th Cir.2009). “Because the funds transferred by Citi to MBNA at Dilworth’s direction were not earmarked funds and because their transfer diminished the bankruptcy estate, those funds were property in which Dil-worth had an interest. The [Bankruptcy [C]ourt [in Dilworth] did not err in holding that the transfer was preferential and therefore [avoidable by the Trustee.” Id. at 565; see also In re Wells, 382 B.R. 355 (B.A.P. 6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). BOA has failed to direct this Court to one Options: A. holding the assumption of a credit card debt to be nondischargeable based on a waiver of alimony and a significant disparity of income B. holding that the use of convenience checks drawn on a credit card account to pay a debt owed on another credit card was a preferential transfer subject to avoidance because the new lender did not direct or require the loaned funds to be paid to mbna and the debtor could have used the borrowed funds to purchase assets instead of paying the mbna debt C. holding that at a minimum a credit check must be preformed before a credit card is issued in order to have any resulting debt declared nondischargeable D. holding that statute which prohibited possession of machines designed to produce credit cards did not have a rational relationship to goal of preventing credit card fraud because the statute did not require intent to put the equipment to an unlawful use E. holding arbitration clause in credit card agreement unconscionable

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the use of convenience checks drawn on a credit card account to pay a debt owed on another credit card was a preferential transfer subject to avoidance because the new lender did not direct or require the loaned funds to be paid to mbna and the debtor could have used the borrowed funds to purchase assets instead of paying the mbna debt