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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted in such manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law, but if any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect under any applicable law or rule in any jurisdiction, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision or any other jurisdiction, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced in such jurisdiction to the maximum extent permitted by law.

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: Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights or obligations of the Parties hereunder may be assigned by the Company, on the one hand, or Seller, on the other hand, without the prior written consent of Seller (in the case of the Company) or the Company (in the case of Seller), as applicable; provided , however , that subject to Section 3.6 (a) the Company, on the one hand, and Seller, on the other hand, may assign or delegate any or all of its rights or obligations hereunder to an Affiliate without the prior written consent of the other Party, and (b) the Company may assign this Agreement to a successor to all or substantially all of the assets or business of the Company to which this Agreement relates, whether in a merger, sale of stock, sale of assets or otherwise. Subject to the first sentence of this Section 8.3 , this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns. Any attempted assignment or transfer in violation of this Section 8.3 shall be null and void.

assistant: Assignments
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: Neither the Borrower, any Subsidiaries nor any ERISA Affiliate sponsors, maintains or contributes to, or has at any time in the six-year period preceding the date hereof sponsored, maintained or contributed to, any employee pension benefit plan, as defined in section 3(2) of ERISA, that is subject to Title IV of ERISA, section 302 of ERISA or section 412 of the Code.

assistant: Erisa
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: at the plaintiffs expense.” Id. at 6, 93 S.Ct. 1943. The common benefit exception is inapplicable to this case. The plaintiffs ask this court to shift their fees to the defendants; the common benefit doctrine, however, serves to shift fees and expenses from the plaintiffs individually to the benefitting class as a whole. To award attorneys’ fees under this theory “is not to saddle the unsuccessful party with the expenses but to impose them on the class that has bene-fitted from them.” Mills v. Elec. Auto-Lite Co., 396 U.S. 375, 396-97, 90 S.Ct. 616, 24 L.Ed.2d 593 (1970); see also id. at 397, 90 S.Ct. 616 (reimbursing the plaintiffs for attorneys’ fees from the corporate treasury, thus spreading the costs across the benefitting shareholders); Hall, 412 U.S. at 8-9, 93 S.Ct. 1943 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the plaintiffs have not met their Options: A. recognizing that union members interests are adequately represented by the union B. holding that a rico action by union members was properly dismissed where any financial improprieties occurred with union funds and directly injured solely the union C. recognizing union members vital concern in preserving jobs for union members D. holding that the plaintiffs acted on behalf of all union members and reimbursing the attorneys fees from the union treasury such that all union members in effect equally contributed to the costs of litigation E. holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the plaintiffs acted on behalf of all union members and reimbursing the attorneys fees from the union treasury such that all union members in effect equally contributed to the costs of litigation
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of implementing policy, is the very raison d’etre of our federal system. Id. at 989-90, 111 S.Ct. 2680 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). In preserving the narrow proportionality principle in Harmelin, the Supreme Court adhered to the notion expressed in previous cases that severity alone does not render a sentence grossly disproportionate: By contrast, Rummel and Davis, decisions in which the Court upheld sentences against proportionality attacks, did not credit such comparative analyses. In rejecting this form of argument, Rummel noted that “even were we to assume that the statute employed against Rummel was the most stringent found in the 50 states, that severity hardly would render Rummel’s punishment “grossly disproportionate” to his offenses. Id. at 1005, 111 S.Ct. 2680 (<HOLDING>). Appellant fails to demonstrate that section Options: A. holding that intrajurisdictional and interjurisdictional analyses are appropriate only in the rare cases in which a threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross disproportionality B. holding that the imposition of a life sentence for failure to register as a sex offender constituted cruel and unusual punishment because the sentence was so harsh in comparison to the crime C. holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins D. holding that even gross negligence does not of itself justify an inference of intent to deceive E. holding that defendants 25year sentence did not raise threshold inference of gross disproportionality when the evidence showed that during one of numerous acts of child molestation the defendant placed his penis to the young victims mouth ejaculated and made her lick the semen off his penis

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that intrajurisdictional and interjurisdictional analyses are appropriate only in the rare cases in which a threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross disproportionality
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: detectives' testimony in this case was properly admitted to provide context for the detectives' interrogation tactics and investigative decisions, it is unnecessary for us to reach the question of whether opening statements can open the door to otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence. II. Standard of Review 118 A trial court enjoys broad latitude to determine the admissibility of evi dence. Kaufman v. People, 202 P.3d 542, 553 (Colo.2009). Hence, we grant considerable deference to the trial court's determinations and review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Dale v. Guar. Nat'l Ins. Co., 948 P.2d 545, 556 (Colo.1997). A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is "manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or unfair," Freedom Colo. Info., Inc. v. El Paso Cnty 8) (<HOLDING>); People v. Hall, 107 P.3d 1073, 1078-79 Options: A. holding that the trial court on remand erred when it adopted a new theory of damages contrary to the order of the court of appeals B. holding that the circuit court properly allowed the victims schoolteacher to testify as to the victims general reputation for truthfulness C. holding that trial court did not commit error when it allowed state to reopen evidence to establish venue D. holding that the trial court erred when it allowed a social worker to state that a victim was telling the truth when describing various incidents of abuse E. holding that the trial court erred when it allowed an investigating officer to expressly state on multiple occasions that victims were credible in their accusations

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the trial court erred when it allowed an investigating officer to expressly state on multiple occasions that victims were credible in their accusations
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in any number of and by different parties hereto on separate counterparts, all of which, when so executed, shall be deemed an original, but all such counterparts shall constitute one and the same agreement. Any signature delivered by a party by facsimile or electronic transmission shall be deemed to be an original signature hereto.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment and the other Credit Documents represent the agreement of the Credit Parties, the Administrative Agent and the Lenders with respect to the subject matter hereof and thereof, and there are no promises, undertakings, representations or warranties by the Credit Parties, the Administrative Agent nor any Lender relative to subject matter hereof not expressly set forth or referred to herein or in the other Credit Documents.

assistant: Integration
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 price at which the put option shall be exercisable is the fair market value as of the Annual Valuation Date which precedes the date the put option is exercised except in the case of a put option in favor of a “disqualified person” (as defined in Code Section 4975) in which event the fair market value shall be determined as of the date of the transaction. Payment for the shares of Employer Stock put to the Employer may be made in cash or in installments over a period not exceeding five (5) years, at the election of the Employer. If the purchase price is paid in installments, a reasonable interest rate and adequate security must be provided. The periodic payments shall begin within thirty (30) days after the put is exercised.

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: delay in necessary medical care, amounting in effect to a form of punishment, is actionable. Id. at *8; see also Archer v. Dutcher, 733 F.2d 14, 16-17 (2d Cir.1984). Moreover, deprivations of medical care that cause or perpetuate pain are sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim. Brock v. Wright, 315 F.3d 158, 163 (2d Cir.2003); Thomas v. Tisch, No. 08-CV-0400, 2009 WL 701009, *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2009). The second prong of the Eighth Amendment analysis requires Plaintiff to show that Defendants were subjectively aware of an excessive risk to inmate health and safety, and that Defendants conscious ly disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to ensure a safe environment. Hayes, 84 F.3d at 620; see also Rangolan v. County of Nassau, 217 F.3d 77, 79 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). A. Doe 1 Plaintiff claims that Doe 1 “was not Options: A. holding that a twoday delay was insufficient to establish deliberate indifference and citing cases where no deliberate indifference was found after a sixteenday delay a sixday delay and a threemonth delay B. holding that disagreement with a doctors judgment does not support a claim of deliberate indifference C. holding that a sentence of incarceration would constitute deliberate indifference to defendants medical needs D. holding no deliberate indifference when a failure to take reasonable measures was due to defendants mistake E. holding that a difference of medical opinion was insufficient as a matter of law to establish deliberate indifference

assistant: The best answer is D. holding no deliberate indifference when a failure to take reasonable measures was due to defendants mistake
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: separate disclaimer document, with its explicit incorporation of section 103, was sufficiently conspicuous and unambiguous under Wyoming law. In determining whether an at-will employment disclaimer is sufficiently conspicuous and unambiguous, Wyoming courts apply a three-part test. See Lincoln, 867 P.2d at 703-05; Sanchez, 855 P.2d at 1259. First, a court must assess capital letters and is the only text appearing on the one-page document. Cf. Lincoln, 867 P.2d at 704 (listing fact that lettering in disclaimer was capitalized as factor enhancing its prominence). Second, given its placement, plaintiff should have noticed the disclaimer; it was presented in a document completely separate from the manual, and plaintiff filled in her name by hand and signed it. Cf. Sanchez, 855 P.2d at 1259 (<HOLDING>). Finally, the text of the disclaimer is Options: A. holding that an employee handbook did not constitute a valid unilateral contract between the employee and employer in the absence of adequate independent consideration B. holding inconspicuous written disclaimer to be unenforceable absent actual knowledge of the disclaimer C. holding that an arbitration agreement in an employee handbook was illusory where the employer expressly reserved a right to unilaterally rescind any provisions of the handbook D. holding that employee handbook did not give rise to implied contract where it stated that it was not a contract and that employment was terminable at will E. holding that disclaimer was not physically conspicuous where it was buried in the introductory paragraphs of an employee handbook

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that disclaimer was not physically conspicuous where it was buried in the introductory paragraphs of an employee handbook
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: proceeds recovered if an “alternate action” is pursued. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 7 — 804(f)(2). III. Discussion There is no dispute that, the State and the City did not intervene in Khura-na’s original action or otherwise convert it to a civil enforcement action. Nevertheless, Khurana moves for a relator’s share, arguing that the DPA and SAIC Settlement constitute an “alternate civil remedy” ( o. 8:09-CR-203-T-27EAJ, 2011 WL 4431157, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2011) (same); United States v. Lustman, Criminal No. 05-40082-GPM, 2006 WL 1207145, at *3 (S.D. Ill. May 4, 2006) (“Surely Congress would have explicitly specified criminal prosecutions as an ‘alternate remedy* if it intended the result urged here.”), with United States v. Bisig, 2005 WL 3532554, at *3-5 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 21, 2005) (<HOLDING>). However, even if the DPA and SAIC Settlement Options: A. holding that a criminal acquittal does not have collateral estoppel effect on a later civil forfeiture proceeding based on the same conduct B. holding that a criminal prosecution and criminal forfeiture proceeding constituted an alternate remedy and permitting award to relator C. holding that an individual charged with criminal contempt is entitled to the full procedural protections afforded the defendant in any other criminal proceeding D. recognizing criminal forfeiture as an aspect of punishment E. holding that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a criminal forfeiture action where a state court in a related state court forfeiture proceeding had in personam jurisdiction over the same currency subject to forfeiture

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a criminal prosecution and criminal forfeiture proceeding constituted an alternate remedy and permitting award to relator
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: evidence that he contended supported his claims that the PSI was inaccurate, but the Parole Board ignored his evidence and relied on the PSI in making its determination. Thus, Stockmeier asserted that the Parole Board knowingly relied on false information in violation of NRS Chapter 213, the Board’s operating policies, and the common law. Stockmeier asked the district court for injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the Parole Board from relying on the allegedly false information in his PSI. The Parole Board is required to adopt standards for determining whether to grant or deny parole. NRS 213.10885(1). Parole is an act of grace, however, and no one has a right to parole. NRS 213.10705; NRS 213.1099(1); see also Severance v. Armstrong, 96 Nev. 836, 839, 620 P.2d 369, 370 (1980) (<HOLDING>). In considering a prisoner’s eligibility for Options: A. holding that texas parole statutes do not create a protected liberty interest under an older statutory scheme B. recognizing that nevada statutes do not confer a legitimate expectation of parole release and therefore do not create a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest sufficient to invoke due process C. recognizing that early release statutes can create a liberty interest protected by due process guarantees D. holding that state statutes which merely establish procedures and do not mandate any particular substantive result do not give rise to a statecreated liberty interest E. recognizing that it is well established that where a state provides a discretionary parole regime prisoners do not have a liberty or property interest in parole

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that nevada statutes do not confer a legitimate expectation of parole release and therefore do not create a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest sufficient to invoke due process
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 and various rights and obligations arising hereunder shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Parties hereto and their successors and permitted assigns. Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights, interests, or obligations hereunder shall be transferred, delegated, or assigned (by operation of Law or otherwise) by any Party hereto without the prior written consent of the other Parties.

assistant: Assignments
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 has all requisite power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and the other documents and agreements contemplated hereby and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby. This Agreement and the other documents and agreements contemplated hereby have been duly and validly executed and delivered by Seller, and this Agreement constitutes the legal, valid and binding agreement of Seller enforceable against Seller in accordance with their respective terms, except as enforcement may be limited by (a) bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or other laws affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights generally, and (b) general principles of equity.

assistant: Authority
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 parties agree that, except as required by applicable law (including, without limitation, the rules and regulations of the National Association of Securities Dealers, the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange or the Securities and Exchange Commission), no party shall, with respect to this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby, contact or conduct negotiations with public officials, make any public pronouncements, issue press releases or otherwise furnish information regarding this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby to any third party without the consent of the other party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. No FVE Party shall trade in the securities of any SNH Party or any of their affiliates, and no SNH Party shall trade in the securities of any FVE Party or any of their affiliates, until a public announcement of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement has been made. No party shall record this Agreement or any notice thereof.

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: The Employee agrees to provides his full and continued cooperation in good faith with the Company, its subsidiaries and affiliates and its legal counsel, as may be necessary or appropriate, (i) to respond truthfully to any inquiries that may arise with respect to matters that the Employee was responsible for or involved with during his employment with the Company, (ii) to furnish to the Company, as reasonably requested by the Company, from time to time, the Employee’s honest and good faith advice, information, judgment and knowledge with respect to matters that the Employee was responsible for or involved with during his employment with the Company, (iii) in connection with any defense, prosecution or investigation of any and all actual, threatened, potential or pending court or administrative proceedings or other legal matters in which the Employee may be involved as a party and/or in which the Company determines, in its sole discretion, that the Employee is a relevant witness and/or possesses relevant information, and (iv) in connection with any and all legal matters relating to the Company, its subsidiaries and affiliates, and each of their respective past and present employees, managers, directors, officers, administrators, shareholders, members, agents, and attorneys, in which the Employee may be called as an involuntary witness (by subpoena or other compulsory process) served by any third-party, including, without limitation, providing the Company with written notice of any subpoena or other compulsory process served on the Employee within forty-eight (48) hours of its occurrence. In connection with the matters described in this Section 9, the Employee agrees to notify, truthfully communicate and be represented by, and provide requested information to, the Company’s counsel, to fully cooperate and work in good faith with such counsel with respect to, and in preparation for, any response to a subpoena or other compulsory process served upon the Employee, any depositions, interviews, responses, appearances or other legal matters, and to testify truthfully and honestly with respect to all matters. For the avoidance of doubt, the Company has no obligation to provide the Employee with counsel in connection with any matter. The Company shall reimburse the Employee for reasonable expenses, such as travel, lodging and meal expenses, incurred by the Employee pursuant to this Section 9 at the Company’s request, and consistent with the Company’s policies for employee expenses.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: use in the case; (5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title; (6)Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title. A bill of costs shall be filed in the case and, upon allowance, included in the judgment or decree. 28 U.S.C. § 1920. In Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-42, 107 S.Ct. 2494, 2497, 96 L.Ed.2d 385, 391 (1987), the Supreme Court held that federal courts are limited to assessing only those costs enumerated under § 1920. However, it is generally accepted that courts are free to interpret the meaning of the costs stated within § 1920. See Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Labs., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 176-77 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 812, 112 S.Ct. 61, 116 Options: A. holding that courts are free to interpret what constitutes taxable costs after crawford B. recognizing appellate courts are not free to rewrite rules C. holding that the failure to object to a trial courts instruction constitutes waiver D. holding that extrinsic evidence is permissible to interpret an ambiguous contract E. holding that courts interpret indemnity provisions same as written contracts

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that courts are free to interpret what constitutes taxable costs after crawford
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the Borrower Representative may request the issuance of Letters of Credit denominated in Dollars or an LC Alternative Currency (in the case of U.S. Letters of Credit) for the account of the U.S. Borrowers or Letters of Credit denominated in Dollars, Canadian Dollars or an LC Alternative Currency (in the case of any Canadian Letter of Credit) for the account of the U.S. Borrowers or the Canadian Borrower, in a form reasonably acceptable to the Applicable Administrative Agent and the applicable Issuing Bank, at any time and from time to time during the Availability Period. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the terms and conditions of any form of letter of credit application or other agreement submitted by any Borrower to, or entered into by any Borrower with, an Issuing Bank relating to any Letter of Credit, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control. For the avoidance of doubt, subject to Section 2.06(n) any Letter of Credit hereunder for the account of the U.S. Borrowers or the Canadian Borrower may be for the benefit of any Subsidiary whether or not a U.S. Borrower or a Canadian Borrower.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party’s obligations under this Section 2.16 shall survive the resignation or replacement of the Administrative Agent or any assignment of rights by, or the replacement of, a Lender, the termination of the Commitments and the repayment, satisfaction or discharge of all 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the agreements and documents referred to herein contain the entire agreement and understanding among the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and, except as expressly provided in Section 7.2(f) , supersede all prior agreements and understandings, whether written or oral, relating to such subject matter in any way.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth on Schedule 6.6 , (a) there are no legal actions, suits, proceedings, claims or disputes pending or, to the Knowledge of the Borrower, threatened, at law, in equity, in arbitration or before any Governmental Authority against or affecting the Borrower or its Subsidiaries that could reasonably be expected to have, individually or in the aggregate, a Material Adverse Effect; (b) there is no injunction, writ, temporary restraining order, decree or any order or determination of any nature by any arbitrator, court or other Governmental Authority purporting to enjoin or restrain the execution, delivery or performance of the Note Documents or which relates to the assets or the business of the Borrower or its Subsidiaries; and (c) there is no litigation, claim, audit, dispute, review, proceeding or investigation currently pending or threatened against the Borrower or its Subsidiaries for any violation or alleged violation of any Requirements of Law, and neither the Borrower nor any Subsidiary has received written notice of any threat of any suit, action, claim, dispute, investigation, review or other proceeding pursuant to or involving any Requirements of Law.

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: Each party shall take such actions and execute such other and further documents as reasonably may be requested from time to time after the Effective Time by any other party to carry out the terms and provisions and intent 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: (emphasis added) (quoting Havner, 953 S.W.2d at 720). 27 . Faust, 337 S.W.3d at 335 (emphasis added). 28 . Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Crye, 907 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Tex.1995). 29 . See Crump, 330 S.W.3d at 218. 30 . Synar v. Union Pac. R. Co., No. 12—99— 00428-CV, 2001 WL 1263573, at *6 (Tex.App.-Tyler Oct. 17, 2001, pet. denied) (not designated for publication). 31 . See id. 32 . See Tex.R. Evid. 803(18); Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 556. 33 . C 545 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth, pet. denied) (op. on reh'g). 55 . See id. 56 . See Tex.R. Evid. 401; Nichols, 379 S.W.3d at 387-89. 57 . See Sw. Country Enters., Inc., 991 S.W.2d at 493-94; see also Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(B), 33.2; Tex.R. Evid. 103(a)(2). 58 . See Barraza v. Eureka Co., Inc., 25 S.W.3d 225, 232 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2000, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). 59 . See Charter Oak Fire Ins. v. Perez, 446 Options: A. holding that the plaintiff had no legitimate expectation of privacy at a meeting with coworkers in which her termination was discussed B. holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment C. holding that a plaintiff who pled in her complaint that her law firm actively misled her in support of her request for application of the discovery rule had sufficiently pled the application of the doctrine D. holding that testimony of plaintiff and her coworkers regarding cause of her injury was pure conjecture E. holding that plaintiffs allegations that her supervisor was a lesbian and that she made improper remarks to her including telling the plaintiff to invite her to lunch and making comments about plaintiffs coworkers private lives and sexual preferences and on one occasion approaching the plaintiff from behind hugging her and whispering in her ear a request for a cookie from another table did not suffice to establish a hostile working environment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that testimony of plaintiff and her coworkers regarding cause of her injury was pure conjecture
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: constructive, or judicially imposed lien, or (4) asserted against real or personal property. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 51.903; Cardenas v. Wilson, 428 S.W.3d 130, 132 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (noting that 51.903 inquiry into mechanic’s lien determines only that mechanic’s lien is provided by Texas law, not whether the underlying mechanic’s lien was valid). If the motion requires greater inquiry, then it is a motion for declaratory judgment. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 37.004(a) (West 2015); State Bar of Tex. v. Heard, 603 S.W.2d 829, 833 (Tex. 1980) (“We look to the substance of a plea for relief to determine the nature of the pleading, not merely at the form of title given to it.”); Nguyen, 2016 WL 2343893, at *2 (citing Becker, 2010 WL 877569, at *2-3 (<HOLDING>)). A motion for declaratory judgment must be Options: A. holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion B. holding motion requesting more relief than section 51903 provides was motion for declaratory judgment C. holding that motion accepting judgment but requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law was not directed against the judgment D. holding that substance of motion to extend time was a section 1301f motion rather than a section 1301g motion and that trial court did not abuse discretion in denying the section 1301f motion E. holding that the courts denial of either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and is not reviewable

assistant: The best answer is B. holding motion requesting more relief than section 51903 provides was motion for declaratory judgment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: The obligations of the Receiving Party pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement shall not apply to any Confidential Information that – 8.4 is disclosed by the Receiving Party to satisfy an order of a court of competent jurisdiction or to comply with the provisions of any law or regulation in force from time to time; provided that in these circumstances, the Receiving Party shall advise the Disclosing Party to take whatever steps it deems necessary to protect its interests in this regard and provided further that the Receiving Party will disclose only that portion of the information which it is legally required to disclose and the Receiving Party will use its reasonable endeavours to protect the confidentiality of such information to the greatest extent possible in the circumstances;

assistant: No
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 “any and all pending disputes.” (emphasis added). The agreement, therefore, precludes only those of Farese’s claims that arose out of the defendants’ conduct that occurred prior to the agreement. This raises the question of what date marks the cut-off for conduct protected from suit by Farese by the preclusive effect of the agreement. The state court entered an order approving and enforcing the settlement agreement on July 8, 1999. The state court case was not dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the agreement, however, until December 3, 1999. Not until that time did the settlement agreement take on the weight of a court judgment and the collateral estoppel effects of the agreement begin running. See I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat. Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1549 (11th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). It also makes sense to use December 3, 1999 Options: A. holding that the debtor has the burden of showing that collateral estoppel applies B. holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence C. holding that collateral estoppel applies only where the antecedent judgment was a final judgment D. holding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies when an issue of ultimate fact has necessarily been determined by a valid final judgment E. holding that collateral estoppel applies to 1983 claims

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that collateral estoppel applies only where the antecedent judgment was a final judgment
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: into the state for the singular purpose of securing $100,000 from Schwartz, a New York resident. Not only did Susser admit to making a series of telephone calls to New York in order to negotiate the terms of the loan, but he also admitted to meeting Susser in New York two months before he executed the Note. Although Susser claims that the New York meeting “was a brief social contact for a drink,” Appellant’s Br. 11, 42, and not initiated for purposes of negotiating the Note, he acknowledges that the Note was among the matters discussed. See Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158, 163 (2d Cir.2010) (noting that in prima fade review, “we construe the pleadings and affidavits in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, resolving all doubts in their favo 766 (2d Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). In short, having sought out a particular New Options: A. holding that for purposes of longarm jurisdiction because plaintiff was employed in new york the original event causing his injury occurred in new york B. holding that outofstate defendants transmittal into new york of ceaseanddesist letter to new york plaintiff for purported trademark infringement was insufficient to create jurisdiction over defendant in a new york declaratory judgment action C. holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership D. holding that new york law applies to this matter E. holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that outofstate defendants transmittal into new york of ceaseanddesist letter to new york plaintiff for purported trademark infringement was insufficient to create jurisdiction over defendant in a new york declaratory judgment action
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: these documents also indicate that “[n]ot all Christians ... have found themselves to be targets of ethnic-religious persecution” and that “[t]he ongoing insurgency affects every segment of the population, Sunni, Shi’a, and non-Muslim alike.” Christians In Iraq at 2. According to a 2005 U.S. Department of State report, “insurgents and terrorists kidnapped and killed government officials and workers, common citizens, party activists participating in the electoral process, civil society activists, members of security forces, and members of the armed forces, as well as foreigners.” Id. at 5. At the merits hearing, Hanna himself conceded that Iraq was in the middle of a “very bad” civil war. Such a generalized or random possibility of harm in the country of removal is insuffici Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Toma v. Gonzales, 179 Fed.Appx. 320, 324 (6th Options: A. holding that substantial evidence supported ijs conclusion that petitioners claims were consistent with general civil strife in iraq rather than targeted persecution against christians B. holding that iraqi petitioner who failed to establish past persecution nonetheless had a wellfounded fear of future persecution because evidence of country conditions supported the conclusion that the iraqi government would persecute as traitors any evacuees who returned to iraq C. holding when one identified ground for an adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of petitioners claim of persecution the court is bound to accept the ijs adverse credibility determination D. holding that ijs adverse credibility was not supported by substantial evidence where there were significant communication and translation problems during the asylum hearing and the discrepancies at issue were not crucial to petitioners claim E. holding that substantial evidence supported an adverse credibility finding where inter alia the petitioners claimed guerrilla persecution on their asylum applications but later claimed government persecution

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that substantial evidence supported ijs conclusion that petitioners claims were consistent with general civil strife in iraq rather than targeted persecution against christians
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 parties to each assignment shall deliver to the Administrative Agent (A) a duly executed Assignment and Acceptance, (B) a processing and recordation fee of $3,500, (C) an Administrative Questionnaire unless the assignee is already a Lender and (D) the documents required under Section 2.20(f) .

assistant: Assignments
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: hearsay rule. In resolving this issue, we initially observe that a trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence, and we will reverse only when the trial court has abused its discretion. Jones v. State, 800 N.E.2d 624, 626-27 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). An abuse of discretion will only be found if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. at 627. Although Davis contends on appeal that the police report should have been excluded because it was not properly authenticated, we note that Davis objected to the admission of the report at trial only on the grounds that the report constituted hearsay. As a result, Davis has waived this argument. See Small v. State, 736 N.E.2d 742, 747 (Ind.2000) (<HOLDING>). In addressing Davis’s claim that the police Options: A. holding that the defendant may not state one ground at trial and another on appeal B. holding party may not argue one ground at trial and another on appeal where appellant did not object to testimony at trial on the grounds raised on appeal that it was improper character evidence but objected only on the basis of relevancy issue was not preserved for review C. recognizing that a defendant may not raise one ground for objection at trial and argue a different ground on appeal D. holding to preserve an issue for appellate review the issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by trial court and a party may not argue one ground for objection at trial and another ground on appeal E. holding an issue not preserved when one ground is raised to the trial court and another ground is raised on appeal

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that a defendant may not raise one ground for objection at trial and argue a different ground on appeal
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: 1983). But the FTCA provides only damage actions. Thus there is a broad world to which the military-specific language of the Privacy Act can apply, while Feres leaves the FTCA’s similar language with little or no role. More generally, we have understood Feres to create the equivalent of a “clear statement” rule. In finding it applicable to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), we said: ... Feres itself represents a refusal to read statutes with their ordinary sweep. The unique setting of the military led the Feres Court to resist bringing the armed services within the coverage of a remedial statute in the absence of an express Congressional command. Bois v. Marsh, 801 F.2d 462, 469 n. 13 (D.C.Cir.1986) (emphasis added); see also Coffman v. State of Michigan, 120 F.3d 57, 59 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Roper v. Department of Army, 832 F.2d 247, Options: A. holding that ada and rehabilitation act do not apply to the military absent a clear direction from congress emphasis added B. holding the ada and the rehabilitation act applicable C. holding that neither the ada nor the rehabilitation act applies to prison employment D. holding that exemption under the ada does not preclude liability under the rehabilitation act E. holding that the same standards apply to claims under the ada and under the rehabilitation act

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that ada and rehabilitation act do not apply to the military absent a clear direction from congress emphasis added