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: 108. 61 . We believe the instant case is one of these cases. 62 . See Wallace, 106 S.W.3d at 108. 63 . See McIntire, 698 S.W.2d at 658. 64 . Bahm, 219 S.W.3d at 396 ("While the court of appeals used the words 'reasonable grounds,’ its emphasis on proof in its analysis appears to conflict with its earlier statement that an appellant does not need to establish a prima facie case to obtain a hearing on his motion for new trail.”). 65 . If an appellate court made such a determination in favor of an appellant and thus remanded the case to the trial court, what determinations would remain for the trial court to make at the hearing? 66 . Wallace, 106 S.W.3d at 108 (emphasis added). 67 . McIntire, 698 S.W.2d at 660; see McMillan v. State, 769 S.W.2d 675, 677 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, pet. ref’d) (<HOLDING>). 68 . See id. 69 . The instant case was Options: A. holding that if the defendant fails to file a motion in the trial court to withdraw his plea he cannot attack it for the first time on appeal B. holding that trial court did not err in ruling on appellees motion for summary judgment before appellees complied with appellants discovery request when the record reflected that appellant filed a motion to compel three days before the hearing and the record did not reveal any effort on the part of appellant to secure a ruling from the trial court on its motion to compel or object at the trial court hearing the motion for summary judgment prior to ruling on the motion to compel C. recognizing that the defendant whose trial counsel represented him on motion for new trial had no opportunity to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim prior to appeal and remanding the case for a hearing solely on this issue D. holding that the trial court should have granted a motion for relief from judgment when it was the trial courts failure to serve the defendant with notice of the final judgment as required by rule 1080h1 that prevented the defendant from timely appealing E. holding that by denying the defendant a hearing on his motion for new trial the trial court abdicated its fact finding function and effectively prevented the defendant from making a record sufficient to challenge on appeal the policy about which he complains

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that by denying the defendant a hearing on his motion for new trial the trial court abdicated its fact finding function and effectively prevented the defendant from making a record sufficient to challenge on appeal the policy about which he complains
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company agrees to advance all costs and expenses referred to in Sections 9.1 and 9.6 ; provided , however , that the Executive agrees to repay to the Company any amounts so advanced only if, and to the extent that, it shall ultimately be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction that the Executive is not entitled to be indemnified by the Company or the Parent as authorized by this Agreement. The advances to be made hereunder shall be paid by the Company to or on behalf of the Executive within 20 days following delivery of a written request therefor by the Executive to the Company. The Executive’s entitlement to advancement of costs and expenses hereunder shall include those incurred in connection with any action, suit or proceeding by the Executive seeking a determination, adjudication or arbitration in award with respect to his rights and/or obligations under this Section 9 .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: any constitutional violation. Public officials are generally granted qualified immunity from lawsuits based on reasonable discretionary acts taken in carrying out their official duties. Because of the need to protect constitutional rights while also avoiding a chilling effect on the conduct of these officers, qualified immunity balances “[t]he public interest in deterrence of unlawful conduct and in compensation of victims,” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 819, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), with the public interest in having officials act “with independence and without fear of consequences,” id. (quoting Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967)); see also Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) (<HOLDING>). “[Wjhether an individual official protected Options: A. holding officials in their individual capacities may be able to assert personal immunity defenses including qualified immunity that are not available in officialcapacity suits B. holding suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief are permissible because they are in effect suits against the officials in their individual capacities C. holding suits against state officials for monetary damages impermissible where the action is in essence one for the recovery of money from the state rather than against the officer in his individual capacity D. recognizing that permitting damages suits against government officials can entail substantial social costs including the risk that fear of personal monetary liability and harassing litigation will unduly inhibit officials in the discharge of their duties E. holding that officials in their individual capacities may be able to assert personal immunity defenses including qualified immunity that are not available in officialcapacity suits

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that permitting damages suits against government officials can entail substantial social costs including the risk that fear of personal monetary liability and harassing litigation will unduly inhibit officials in the discharge of their duties
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: determine total loss, restitution victims and restitution amount. J.A. 30 ¶ 3. 2 . As a general matter, restitution is part of a criminal sentence. See United States v. Buchey, 810 F.2d 456, 461 (4th Cir.1987) (“Criminal restitution ... is part of the sentencing process [and thus] is fundamentally 'penal' in nature.”); see also United States v. Snider, 957 F.2d 703, 706-07 (9th Cir.1992) (“Restitution imposed as a component of the defendant’s sentence is a criminal penalty, not a civil remedy."); United States v. Satterfield, 743 F.2d 827, 837 (11th Cir.1984) (noting that Congress intended “to treat restitution as one of the options available to the district court in imposing an appropriate sen tence”). In fact, we have previously held that restitution F.3d 969, 973-74 (4th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Tucker v. Waddell, 83 F.3d 688, 690 n. 1 (4th Options: A. holding issue waived because it was not mentioned in brief but was only raised in notice of appeal B. holding argument not raised in opening brief but raised for the first time in reply brief was waived C. holding issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal D. holding that an issue mentioned in a brief but not addressed is waived E. holding an issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal

assistant: The best answer is A. holding issue waived because it was not mentioned in brief but was only raised in notice of 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: 381, 102 S.Ct. 2485, 2492, 73 L.Ed.2d 74 (1982)). However, a prosecutor’s discretion is subject to constitutional constraints. See Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 465,116 S.Ct. at 1480. A “prosecution brought with a vindictive motive, penalizing those who choose to exercise their constitutional rights, [is] patently unconstitutional.” North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 724, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2080, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969) (quoting United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1968)). Consequently, “to punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort.” Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363, 98 S.Ct. 663, 668, 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978); see also United States v. Williams, 47 F.3d 658 (4th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). It is well settled that a federal court may Options: A. holding a criminal defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel during a plea process B. holding violation of due process to penalize a criminal defendant for pursuing statutory right of appeal C. holding that there is no due process right to appellate review D. holding that there is no constitutional right to appeal a criminal conviction E. holding that a criminal defendant has a due process right to present evidence and that exclusion of evidence for a defense discovery violation should be imposed only if no other remedy suffices

assistant: The best answer is B. holding violation of due process to penalize a criminal defendant for pursuing statutory right of 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: are protected under the FLSA. See Hagan v. Echostar Satellite, L.L.C., 529 F.3d 617, 626 (5th Cir.2008); Lambert v. Ackerley, 180 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc); Valerio v. Putnam Assocs. Inc., 173 F.3d 35, 41 (1st Cir.1999); E.E.O.C. v. Romeo Cmty. Sch., 976 F.2d 985, 989 (6th Cir.1992); E. E.O.C. v. White & Son Enters., 881 F.2d 1006, 1011 (11th Cir.1989); Love v. RE/MAX of Am., Inc., 738 F.2d 383, 387 (10th Cir. 1984); Brennan v. Maxey’s Yamaha, Inc., 513 F.2d 179, 181 (8th Cir. 1975). The Second and Fourth Circuits have held to the contrary. See Ball, 228 F.3d at 364; Lambert v. Genesee Hosp., 10 F.3d 46, 55 (2d Cir.1993). Finally, the Seventh Circuit has taken a middle approach. See Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 570 F.3d 834, 838, 840 (7th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1890, 176 Options: A. holding without discussion of the verbalwritten distinction that plaintiffs oral complaints were protected activity B. holding without discussion of the verbalwritten distinction that plaintiffs apparently oral complaints to supervisors were protected activity C. holding that when the courts oral statements in the plea colloquy conflict with the written agreement the courts oral statements control D. holding that oral declarations of mistrial which discharge the jury are unlike other oral decisions by the trial court which are not binding and are subject to change until a final written order or judgment is entered E. holding that written but not oral internal complaints are protected based on the inclusion of the verb filed

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that written but not oral internal complaints are protected based on the inclusion of the verb filed
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: Execute any and all further documents, financing statements, agreements and instruments, and take all such further actions (including the filing and recording of financing statements and other documents), which may be required under any Applicable Law, or which the Administrative Agent or the Required Lenders may reasonably request, to effectuate the transactions contemplated by the Loan Documents or to grant, preserve, protect or perfect the Liens contemplated by the Security Documents or the validity or priority of any such Lien (subject to Permitted Liens), all at the expense of the Credit Parties. Borrower also agrees to provide to the Administrative Agent, from time to time upon the reasonable request by the Administrative Agent, evidence reasonably satisfactory to the Administrative Agent as to the perfection and priority of the Liens created or intended to be created by the Security Documents (subject to Permitted Liens).

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement constitutes the sole and entire agreement among the parties hereto and no modification of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by Seller, Operator and Buyer. No signature of Title Insurer shall be required to amend this Agreement except for an amendment modifying the terms of Section 8 of this Agreement. No prior agreement or understanding pertaining to the subject matter hereof (including, without limitation, any letter of intent executed prior to this Agreement) shall be valid or of any force or effect from and after the date hereof. Any rule of construction which provides that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply to the interpretation of this Agreement.

assistant: Modifications
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 actual knowledge. Finally, the State argues that Israel’s right to be informed was not violated because Israel could and did seek discovery materials, and because a bill of particulars could have been either requested by Israel pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 7(d) or ordered by the court pursuant to HRS § 806-47 (1985). Based on our rule that all of the information supplied to a defendant must be considered in determining whether the defendant’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation was violated, Treat, 67 Haw. at 120, 680 P.2d at 251, we agree that information provided in a bill of particulars or obtained via discovery should be considered. But cf. Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 770, 82 S.Ct. 1038,1050, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, however, no bill of Options: A. holding that it is well settled that there is no constitutional right to an appeal B. holding that it is clearly settled that where there is a failure to establish an essential element of the defamation cause of action the case becomes one of law for the court C. holding that the obviousness of an error is hard to determine where there is no settled appellate law on point D. holding that under federal law it is a settled rule that a bill of particulars cannot save an invalid indictment E. holding initial indictment which was subsequently found to be invalid tolled the thirtyday period and superseding indictment alleging different charges based on same fraudulent acts as earlier indictment was therefore timely

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that under federal law it is a settled rule that a bill of particulars cannot save an invalid indictment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: 5.5 as part of this continuing innovation , you acknowledge and agree that youtube may stop ( permanently or temporarily ) providing the service ( or any features within the service ) to you or to users generally at youtube 's sole discretion , without prior notice to you .

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 341 U.S. 319 71 S.Ct. 730 95 L.Ed. 966 UNITED STATESv.WHEELOCK BROS., Inc. WHEELOCK BROS., Inc. v. UNITED STATES. Nos. 169, 177. Argued Jan. 3, 1951. Decided May 7, 1951. Mr. Max Siskind, New York City, for Wheelock Bros. Inc. Mr. Oscar H. Davis, Washington, D.C., for the United States. PER CURIAM. 1 Wheelock Bros., Inc., a private motor carrier, sued in the Court of Claims to recover just compensation for an alleged temporary taking of its properties and business by the United States pursuant to Executive Order No. 9462. 9 Fed.Reg. 10071, Aug. 11, 1944. The Court of Claims entered judgment awarding Wheelock Bros., Inc., just compensation in an amount less than that claimed. 1950, 115 Ct.Cl. 733, 88 F.Supp. 278. We granted certiorari on the petitions of both parties. 1950, 340 U.S. 808, 71 S.Ct. 55. 2 While the action was pending in the Court of Claims, Congress passed the Motor Carrier Claims Commission Act,1 providing that that Commission 'shall hear and determine, according to law, existing claims against the United States arising out of the taking by the United States of possession or control of any of the motor-carrier transportation systems described in Executive Order Numbered 9462 * * *.' Section 2. Within the time provided in the Act and before entry of judgment in the Court of Claims, Wheelock Bros., Inc., filed its claim with the Commission. 3 At the threshold, we are met with the question whether the Court of Claims had jurisdiction to enter judgment in this case. Congress, in § 6 of the Motor Carrier Claims Commission Act, expressly provided: 'The jurisdiction of the Commission over claims presented to it as provided in section 2 of this Act shall be exclusive; but nothing in this Act shall prevent any person who does not elect to present his claim to the Commission from pursuing any other remedy available to him.' 4 Wheelock Bros., Inc., by filing its claim with the Commission, did elect to present it to that tribunal. The Commission's jurisdiction over the claim being 'exclusive,' the Court of Claims was without jurisdiction to enter judgment in this case. For this reason, the judgment below is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Claims with instructions to dismiss the claim in that court. 5 It is so ordered. 6 Judgment vacated, case remanded with instructions. 1 62 Stat. 1222 (1948), as amended, 62 Stat. 1289, 1290 (1948), 63 Stat. 80 (1949), 49 U.S.C.A. § 305 note.

assistant: 9
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: evidence to rebut the presumption of ownership created by the certificates of title; and (3) the facts of this case do not give rise to creation of a trust. It is accordingly ORDERED that the Trustee’s objection at ECF No. 14 is SUSTAINED and the three vehicles are determined to be non-exempt property of this bankruptcy estate. ORDERED. 1 . See [ECF No. 1], at 12. 2 . See [ECF No. 17], at 5. 3 . Fla. Stat. 710.111(1)(f). 4 . See [ECF No. 27-1], at 5 (the Debtor at her 341 meeting stating, "the reason they’re in my name is because to put them in their name the insurance would have been astronomical”). 5 . In re Kirk, 381 B.R. 800, 802 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2007) (quoting Nash Miami Motors, Inc. v. Bandet, 47 So.2d 701, 703 (Fla.1950)); see also Cannova v. Corran, 92 So.2d 614, 619 (Fla.1957) (<HOLDING>) ("The presumption is that [the individual] was Options: A. holding that a jury is presumed to follow the trial courts instructions B. holding that an action brought in the name of a person adjudicated as incapacitated instead of in the name of her guardian cannot be corrected as a misnomer C. holding arresting a person for refusing to provide his or her name violates the fourth amendment D. holding that a jury is presumed to follow a judges instructions E. holding that a person is presumed to own all property that is titled in her name

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a person is presumed to own all property that is titled in her name
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices, requests, claims, demands, and other communications provided for or permitted hereunder shall be in writing (including electronic communication), mailed (registered, airmail postage and charges prepaid), or delivered personally. All such notices and communications shall, when mailed or telecopied, be effective when received at the relevant address.

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: 345 U.S. 925, 73 S.Ct. 783, 97 L.Ed. 1356 (1953). Plaintiff argues the Supreme Court in Haddle v. Garrison, 525 U.S. 121, 119 S.Ct. 489, 142 L.Ed.2d 502 (1998), implicitly considered and rejected the intracorpo-rate conspiracy doctrine’s application to § 1985 by allowing an employee to bring a § 1985(2) action against his employer and its officers. Plaintiff misconstrues the scope and holding of Haddle. Although Haddle involved a § 1985(2) action alleging conspiracy among an employer and its officers, the intracorporate conspiracy issue was not considered. The Supreme Court made clear its review was “confined to one question: Can petitioner state a claim for damages by alleging that a conspiracy proscribed by § 1 1985 claims. See Dombrowski v. Dowling, 459 F.2d 190, 196 (7th Cir.1972) (<HOLDING>). The Circuits are divided over whether Options: A. holding that when two executives of the same firm make a decision to discriminate in furtherance of the purposes of the business this decision cannot be called a conspiracy for purposes of 1985 B. holding that the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction requires that the outofstate coconspirator was or should have been aware of the acts performed in the forum state in furtherance of the conspiracy C. holding that in a conspiracy case venue lies where the conspiracy agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators D. holding that it was immaterial for conflict of interest purposes whether one attorney or two attorneys in the same firm represented the witness and the defendant E. holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that when two executives of the same firm make a decision to discriminate in furtherance of the purposes of the business this decision cannot be called a conspiracy for purposes of 1985
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: 421 U.S. 723, 95 S.Ct. 1917, 44 L.Ed.2d 539 (1975), and is consistent with the holdings in Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 382, 103 S.Ct. 683, 687, 74 L.Ed.2d 548 (1983), and in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, supra. Blue Chip Stamps held that a section 10(b) plaintiff must be a purchaser or seller of a security, and thus limited standing under the 1934 Act to “plaintiffs ... who have at least dealt in the security to which the prospectus, representation, or omission relates.” Id. 421 U.S. at 747, 95 S.Ct. at 1931. Put and call option trading on an underlying security is directly affected by the prospecti, representations and omissions of the issuer of the underlying security. See Deutschman, 841 F.2d at 506. Cf. Kirby v. Cullinet Software, Inc., 116 F.R.D. 303 (D.Mass.1987) (<HOLDING>). In Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. Options: A. recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members B. holding that class representatives cannot appear pro se C. holding that sellers of covered calls are not atypical class representatives D. holding that a class representatives ignorance of the case is not a bar to certification unless it impairs the representatives ability to vigorously prosecute the action E. holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that sellers of covered calls are not atypical class representatives
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company and the Subsidiaries have, or have rights to use, all patents, patent applications, trademarks, trademark applications, service marks, trade names, trade secrets, inventions, copyrights, licenses and other intellectual property rights and similar rights as described in the SEC Reports as necessary or required for use in connection with their respective businesses and which the failure to so have could have a Material Adverse Effect (collectively, the “Intellectual Property Rights”). None of, and neither the Company nor any Subsidiary has received a notice (written or otherwise) that any of, the Intellectual Property Rights has expired, terminated or been abandoned, or is expected to expire or terminate or be abandoned, within two (2) years from the date of this Agreement. Neither the Company nor any Subsidiary has received, since the date of the latest audited financial statements included within the SEC Reports, a written notice of a claim, has been accused or otherwise has any knowledge that the Intellectual Property Rights violate or infringe (and will not infringe) upon the rights of any Person, except as could not have or reasonably be expected to not have a Material Adverse Effect. To the knowledge of the Company, all such Intellectual Property Rights are enforceable and there is no existing infringement by another Person of any of the Intellectual Property Rights. The Company and its Subsidiaries have taken reasonable security measures to protect the secrecy, confidentiality and value of all of their intellectual properties, except where failure to do so could not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. The Company has no knowledge of any facts that would preclude it from having valid license rights or clear title to the Intellectual Property Rights. The Company has no knowledge that it lacks or will be unable to obtain any rights or licenses to use all Intellectual Property Rights that are necessary to conduct its business.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: See In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 109, 117 (2d Cir.2013). Section 301 of the LMRA supplies jurisdiction for “[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization.” 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). It is well-established that card check and neutrality agreements with arbitration provisions are contracts within the meaning of § 301. For example, in Hotel & Restaurant Emps. Union Local 217 v. J.P. Morgan Hotel, this Court affirmed jurisdiction over a dispute arising from an agreement between an employer and a union with card check, neutrality, and arbitration provisions similar to those at issue here. 996 F.2d 561, 563 (2d Cir.1993); cf. Retail Clerks International Ass’n v. Lion Dry Goods, Inc., 369 U.S. 17, 25-28, 82 S.Ct. 541, 7 L.Ed.2d 503 (1962) (<HOLDING>). Our sister circuits have similarly understood Options: A. holding that immunity agreements are analogous to plea agreements and are enforced under principles of contract law within the constitutional safeguards of due process B. holding that agreements other than fullfledged collective bargaining agreements may be contracts within the meaning of 301 C. holding that collective bargaining agreements cannot compel the arbitration of statutory rights D. holding that property settlement agreements may be specifically enforced E. holding that where a collective bargaining agreements terms are clear but the management has engaged in contrary practice for a number of years the words of the agreement must be enforced

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that agreements other than fullfledged collective bargaining agreements may be contracts within the meaning of 301
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: Swingline Loans shall bear interest at a per annum rate equal to the Base Rate as in effect from time to time plus the Applicable Margin for Base Rate Loans under the Revolving Facility or at such other rate or rates as the Borrower and the Swingline Lender may agree from time to time in writing. Interest on Swingline Loans is solely for the account of the Swingline Lender (except to the extent a Revolving Lender acquires a participating interest in a Swingline Loan pursuant to the immediately following subsection (e)). All accrued and unpaid interest on Swingline Loans shall be payable on the dates and in the manner provided in Section 2.5. with respect to interest on Base Rate Loans (except as the Swingline Lender and the Borrower may otherwise agree in writing in connection with any particular Swingline Loan).

assistant: Interests
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: Burleson’s 2012 arrest, state law did “expressly provide[]” that Burleson may not possess firearms. So this case boils down to one question: In applying § 921(a)(20)’s “unless clause,” do we look to state firearm restrictions in effect at the time Burle-son’s civil rights were restored, or to those in effect when Burleson was arrested on the § 922(g) charge? We think the text of § 921(a)(20) unambiguously answers that question in Burleson’s favor, pointing us to the law that governed at the time of restoration. The key statutory phrase is “unless such ... restoration ... expressly provides ” for a firearm restriction. “Such restoration” plainly “refers back to the restoration of civil rights discussed in the previous clause.” United States v. Osborne, 262 F.3d 486, 491 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). By stating that firearm restrictions must be Options: A. holding texas law governs the procedural matter of preservationoferror requirements even if another jurisdictions law governs substantive issues B. holding state law governs disputed ownership of lands C. recognizing rule that state law governs the substance of claims in bankruptcy proceedings D. holding texas law governs procedural matters E. holding that law at time of restoration governs 921a20 inquiry

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that law at time of restoration governs 921a20 inquiry
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company has filed all reports, schedules, forms, statements and other documents required to be filed by the Company under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act, including pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) thereof, for the two (2) years preceding the date hereof (or such shorter period as the Company was required by law or regulation to file such material) including the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-212610) initially filed with the Commission on July 20, 2016 (which has not been declared effective by the Commission and the Company has applied for withdrawal of such registration statement on October 19, 2016) (the foregoing materials, including the exhibits thereto and documents incorporated by reference therein, being collectively referred to herein as the “SEC Reports”). As of their respective dates, the SEC Reports complied in all material respects with the requirements of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act, as applicable, and none of the SEC Reports, when filed, contained any untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The financial statements of the Company included in the SEC Reports comply in all material respects with applicable accounting requirements and the rules and regulations of the Commission with respect thereto as in effect at the time of filing. Such financial statements have been prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles applied on a consistent basis during the periods involved (“GAAP”), except as may be otherwise specified in such financial statements or the notes thereto and except that unaudited financial statements may not contain all footnotes required by GAAP, and fairly present in all material respects the financial position of the Company and its consolidated Subsidiaries as of and for the dates thereof and the results of operations and cash flows for the periods then ended, subject, in the case of unaudited statements, to normal, immaterial, year-end audit adjustments.

assistant: Financial Statements
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: F.3d 143, 147 (2d Cir.2005). “A ‘genuine’ dispute over a material fact only arises if the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Dister v. Cont’l Group, Inc., 859 F.2d 1108, 1114 (2d Cir.1988) (citation omitted). However, “[c]on-clusory allegations, conjecture and speculation ... are insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact.” Kerzer v. Kingly Mfg., 156 F.3d 396, 400 (2d Cir.1998). The Second Circuit has held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 “does not impose an obligation on a district court to perform an independent review of the record to find proof of a factual dispute.” Amnesty Am. v. Town of W. Hartford, 288 F.3d 467, 470 (2d Cir.2002) (citing Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1030-31 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>)). Moreover, “because nothing in the federal Options: A. holding that it is unfair to the district court to other litigants and to the movant to impose a duty on the district court to search and sift the factual record for the benefit of the defaulting party B. holding that it is not the courts duty to sift through the record for evidence that supports a partys contentions C. holding that evidence not submitted to the district court cannot be part of the record on appeal D. holding that the movant has the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion E. holding that although the district court was not required to discuss each of the factors on the record a decision to dismiss stands a better chance on appeal if the appellate court has the benefit of the district courts reasoning

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that it is unfair to the district court to other litigants and to the movant to impose a duty on the district court to search and sift the factual record for the benefit of the defaulting party
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a tax return). Le Doux also challenges her liability for frivolous return penalties because she contends that she did not receive a proper Form 17 Notice and Demand. This argument is without merit. The IRS may send notice and demand on any form so long as it includes the information that 26 U.S.C. § 6303 requires. See Long v. United States, 972 F.2d 1174, 1181(10th Cir.1992)(“Not only does the IRS Manual not confer on the taxpayer a substantive right to receive a particular form, but also ‘the form on which a notice of assessment and demand for payment is made is irrelevant as long as it provides the taxpayer with all the information required under 26 U.S.C. 6303(a).’ ’’)(quoting Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d 521, 525 (9th Cir.1990)); Jones v. Commissioner, 338 F.3d 463, 466 (5th Cir.2003)(<HOLDING>); Hoffman v. United States, 209 F.Supp.2d 1089, Options: A. holding that actual notice fulfills a notice requirement that an applicable federal regulation be conspicuously posted because actual notice is the best notice B. holding notice of balance due satisfies notice and demand requirements C. holding such service satisfies due process D. holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner E. holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city

assistant: The best answer is B. holding notice of balance due satisfies notice and demand requirements
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company may, in its sole discretion, decide to deliver any documents related to the RSUs or any future RSUs granted under the Plan by electronic means or request Participant’s consent to participate in the Plan by electronic means. Participant hereby consents to receive such documents by electronic delivery and agrees to participate in the Plan through an on-line or electronic system established and maintained by the Company or a third party designated by the Company.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in this case. Our analysis of Rule 25 in the preceding section makes clear that a successor judge’s determination about acting as the thirteenth juror involves both an analysis of the proof adduced at trial, including the extent to which witness demeanor was at issue, and a legal conclusion about the ability of the successor judge to act as the thirteenth juror. It is well- settled that this Court reviews de novo a trial court’s conclusions of law. See, e.g., State v. Carter, 160 S.W.3d 526, 531 (Tenn.2005); State v. Daniel, 12 S.W.3d 420, 423 (Tenn.2000). As to the successor judge’s analysis of the trial record, this Court is in the same position to evaluate the transcript and exhibits as is the successor judge. See, e.g., Krick v. City of Lawrenceburg, 945 S.W.2d 709, 712 (Tenn.1997) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, a 'de novo review of the Options: A. holding if a deposition is taken for discovery only not for use at trial the deposition is not a stage of trial for which the defendant must be present B. recognizing that appellate court is in same position as trial court to assess evidence when all of the proof is contained in the record by deposition C. holding the materials submitted were sufficient because the record should include all that is necessary in order for the reviewing court to accurately assess the challenged agency action D. holding that the record on direct appeal was insufficiently developed to permit the appellate court to assess the merits of the claim E. holding that where there is evidence sufficient to sustain finding of trial court that prejudicial error was contained in record there is no basis for stating that trial court abused discretion in granting new trial

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that appellate court is in same position as trial court to assess evidence when all of the proof is contained in the record by deposition
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: 97 S.Ct. 285). An official has a sufficiently culpable state of mind when that official “ ‘knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.’ ” Johnson v. Wright, 412 F.3d 398, 403 (2d Cir.2005) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)). Defendants do not dispute that treatment for HCV is a serious medical need. See Pabon v. Wright, 2004 WL 628784, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. March 29, 2004) (“It is well-established that Hepatitis C qualifies as a serious condition for purposes of an Eighth Amendment analysis.”); Johnson v. Wright, 234 F.Supp.2d 352, 360 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (<HOLDING>). Cf. Bender v. Regier, 385 F.3d 1133, 1137 Options: A. holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation B. holding that a plaintiffs failure to obtain evidence of continuing treatment an element of a serious health condition was fatal to a plaintiffs fmla interference claim regardless of the plaintiffs allegations that the defendant failed to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to cure medical certification deficiencies in so ruling the 7th circuit denied the plaintiffs estoppel arguments and instead placed an affirmative duty on the plaintiff to present sufficient evidence to establish a serious health condition as defined by the regulations in order to overcome a summary judgment motion on an fmla interference claim C. holding that an employee requesting unforeseeable medical leave is not required to even mention the fmla when requesting leave for a serious health condition D. holding that officers were objectively reasonable in handling plaintiffs medical situation during seizure E. holding that hcv constitutes an objectively serious medical condition

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that hcv constitutes an objectively serious medical condition
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 Corporation has the right to deduct from all amounts paid pursuant to the Plan any taxes required by law to be withheld and any other deductions applicable to such payment. Except for the amount so withheld, the Participant or beneficiary shall be liable for any and all other taxes due with respect to amounts paid pursuant to the Plan.

assistant: Withholdings
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: On the Transition Date, your service as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer will cease and you will continue as an employee of the Company, initially holding the position of Executive Chairman of the Board, with such duties and responsibilities as assigned by the Board from time to time. You agree that the changes to the terms of your compensation and employment contemplated in this Letter Agreement do not constitute Good Reason under your Employment Agreement. Except as provided in Section 4(c) of this Letter Agreement, following the Transition Date, you may not terminate employment for Good Reason pursuant to Section 4(c)(i) or (ii) (as it relates to equity compensation) of your Employment Agreement.

assistant: Positions
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: complaint for appeal would be to deny them any effective relief from the trial court’s order.” Simpson v. Canales, 806 S.W.2d 802, 812 (Tex.1991). Although the circumstances in Holt and Simpson differ from those here — Simpson, for the order’s being issued pretrial, and Holt, for the order’s not being coupled with a turnover- and-receivership order — these decisions both indicate that an order appointing, a master in chancery, whenever it is entered, is unappealable and that having to wait until it is appealable leaves the complaining party with no adequate remedy. See Simpson, 806 S.W.2d at 812; In re Holt, 2006 WL 1549968, at *2, 3; see also Hardy v. Silva, No. 01-90-00135-CV, 1990 WL 98533, at *1 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] July 12, 1990, no writ) (not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>). We see no reason to reach a different Options: A. holding that mothers failure to appeal prior contempt order precluded her challenge to prior order in appeal from later order entered based upon prior contempt order B. holding in appeal of order granting temporary injunction certifying class and appointing master in chancery with respect to the order appointing a master in chancery we are aware of no authority authorizing an interlocutory appeal from this order C. holding that court lacked jurisdiction on appeal from injunction because the order was simply an interpretation of an earlier order D. holding that order appointing trustee is immediately appealable and citing numerous cases E. holding the order on appeal fails to address likelihood of success on the merits or considerations of public interest the order also fails to require a bond accordingly we remand with instructions to the trial court to either enter an order that satisfies all requirements for entry of a temporary injunction or if appropriate an order denying the injunction

assistant: The best answer is B. holding in appeal of order granting temporary injunction certifying class and appointing master in chancery with respect to the order appointing a master in chancery we are aware of no authority authorizing an interlocutory appeal from this order