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: entertainment under the above sections. Defendants argue that under United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988), the government cannot charge them under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 245, because Kozminski holds that 18 U.S.C. § 241 “prohibit[s] only intentional interference with rights made specific either by the express terms of the Federal Constitution or laws or by decisions interpreting them.” Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 941, 108 S.Ct. at 2759. The argument is without force, because 18 U.S.C. § 245 expressly defines the rights at issue in that statute, and 42 U.S.C. § 2000a expressly defines the federal right which was at issue in the 18 U.S.C. § 241 conspiracy. See United States v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 563, 563-66, 88 S.Ct. 1231, 1232-34, 20 L.Ed.2d 132 (1968)(<HOLDING>). The district court held that the two video Options: A. holding that interference with the right to service in a restaurant is chargeable under 18 usc 241 B. holding that 18 usc 241 and 42 usc 3631 fall within a separate exception to rav C. holding that 18 usc 241 and 42 usc 3631 fall within separate exception to rav D. holding that a sentencing court is required by 18 usc 3583g to revoke the defendants term of supervised release unless defendant could come under the exception in 18 usc 3583d E. holding that 18 usc 1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc 1001

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that interference with the right to service in a restaurant is chargeable under 18 usc 241
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: Portimex’s argument is meritless. Portimex cannot escape the duplicative nature of the breach of contract claims it has asserted in Mexico, which plainly involve the same parties, the same facts and the same causes of action, merely by arguing that different law applies to those contract claims. In both actions, Portimex alleged that Zen-Noh breached the two contracts for the sale of sorghum. Application of the Convention to those allegations does not give rise to any new or different causes of action. Further, even though Portimex had a full and fair opportunity in this Court to argue that the Convention should apply to its breach of contract claims, it never did so, nor did it dispute the Court’s application of Louisiana law. Cf. Betkell v. Peace, 441 F.2d 495, 497 (5th Cir.1971) (<HOLDING>). Because Portimex’s breach of contract action Options: A. holding that a foreign representative may assert under 804 only those avoiding powers vested in him by the law applicable to the foreign estate B. holding that in cases of a false conflict of law a court may apply the law of the forum state C. holding that a party relying on foreign law must plead and prove it and partys failure to do so entitles court to assume that foreign law is the same as forum law D. holding under texas version of the recognition act that public policy exception is not triggered simply because the body of foreign law upon which the judgment is based is different from the law of the forum or because the foreign law is more favorable to the judgment creditor than the law of the forum E. holding that as a matter of law the embassy of a sovereign nation is a foreign state

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a party relying on foreign law must plead and prove it and partys failure to do so entitles court to assume that foreign law is the same as forum law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 466, 119 S.Ct. 2013, 144 L.Ed.2d 442 (1999) (citing California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 390-91, 105 S.Ct. 2066, 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985)). 3 . United States v. Vazquez, 555 F.3d 923, 930 (10th Cir.2009). 4 . United States v. Bradford, 423 F.3d 1149, 1160 (10th Cir.2005). 5 . See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). 6 . United States v. Mathis, 357 F.3d 1200, 1203-04 (10th Cir.2004) (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)). 7 . Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 696, 116 S.Ct. 1657. 8 . See United States v. Jarvi, 537 F.3d 1256, 1259 (10th Cir.2008) (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487-88, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)). 9 . See United States v. Gentry, 406 Fed.Appx. 274, 279 (10th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). 10 . See United States v. Herrera, 782 F.3d Options: A. holding a defendant is not entitled to a franks hearing without making a substantial preliminary showing that defect in the affidavit is material B. holding that speculation as to whether and when the police had actually field tested a bag reported to contain heroin falls far short of the substantial preliminary showing of intentional or reckless omission required by the franks test C. holding that notice of a defect could not be imputed to a defendant inasmuch as it created the defect D. holding that the defendant would have been entitled to a franks hearing had he shown that officers withheld negative information casting into doubt the dogs reliability E. holding that a violation of the forum defendant rule is a jurisdictional defect

assistant: The best answer is A. holding a defendant is not entitled to a franks hearing without making a substantial preliminary showing that defect in the affidavit is material
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: estoppel claim dismissed because Cornell fails to identify any promise any of the Individual Defendants made. I agree with the Individual Defendants. As I noted above, the only basis that exists for Cornell’s promissory estop pel claim is the sewage facility agreement and the surrounding promises. See supra Part IV.E. In the complaint, Cornell only alleges that the Borough made the promises regarding the dedication of the facility and the reimbursement of Cornell’s expenses. See Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 27, 31, 33-34, 148. Cornell does not claim that any of the Individual Defendants made any of these or other promises. Accordingly, I will dismiss the promissory estoppel claim against the Individual Defendants. See Crouse v. Cyclops Industries, 560 Pa. 394, 745 A.2d 606, 610 (2000) (<HOLDING>). E. Immunity Defenses The Individual Options: A. holding that objection must reasonably be expected to alert the trial court to the ground subsequently raised on appeal B. holding that the first element of a promissory estoppel claim is the promisor made a promise that he should have reasonably expected to induce action emphasis added C. recognizing that allegation of state action is a necessary element of a 1983 claim D. holding that the trial court erred when it did not consider what the husband could have been reasonably expected to have earned based upon the recent work history and other pertinent circumstances E. holding that due process required a hearing so the putative father would have an opportunity to present evidence to show as a factual matter that he could not reasonably have complied with utahs statutory requirements or deadlines because he could not reasonably have expected his baby to be born in utah

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the first element of a promissory estoppel claim is the promisor made a promise that he should have reasonably expected to induce action emphasis added
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the likelihood and probability of infection following treatment. As in Arnold, Kamel’s claims regarding failure to disclose risks and to receive informed consent do not fall within the waiver provision of the TTCA. See id. at 469 (“Failure to receive informed consent [does] not waive immunity under the TTCA.” (citing Miller, 51 S.W.3d at 589)). Likewise, Kamel’s claims of negligent supervision, failure to perform the necessary medical treatment, and failure to use acceptable practices to limit infection are claims for errors in medical judgment or general medical negligence and do not involve the use of tangible property. Therefore, those claims do not fall within the waiver in section 101.021(2). See id.; see also Hall v. Provost, 232 S.W.3d 926, 928 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Kamel contends that the doctors’ use Options: A. holding that errors in medical judgment do not provide waiver of immunity under ttca B. holding that general medical malpractice claims do fall with waiver provision of ttca C. holding that a north carolina rule requiring an expert certification in a medical malpractice case applied in a federal tort claims act case sounding in medical malpractice brought in federal court D. holding that where the basis of state claims for medical malpractice relates to the administration of plan benefits those claims fall squarely within the scope of erisa E. holding that plaintiffs could not sue attorneys for legal malpractice so long as underlying medical malpractice action out of which legal malpractice claim arose was still pending on appeal

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that general medical malpractice claims do fall with waiver provision of ttca
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: No Loan Party will, nor will it permit any Subsidiary to, enter into any arrangement, directly or indirectly, whereby it shall sell or transfer any property, real or personal, used or useful in its business, whether now owned or hereafter acquired, and thereafter rent or lease such property or other property that it intends to use for substantially the same purpose or purposes as the property sold or transferred (a “Sale and Leaseback Transaction”), except for any such sale of any fixed or capital assets by any Borrower or any Subsidiary that is made for cash consideration in an amount not less than the fair value of such fixed or capital asset and is consummated within 90 days after such Borrower or such Subsidiary acquires or completes the construction of such fixed or capital asset.

assistant: Sales
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 490, 510 (D.C.Cir.1996) (noting that a co-defendant can “free ride” on the objection of another only if trial judge makes it clear that such a practice will be followed). Appellants’ objections to the process are essentially twofold: first, that the jurors were in effect “volunteers,” and second, that the court’s hardship excusáis were invalid because they failed to fit the criteria of 28 U.S.C. § 1866(c)(1). Although the statute does not in terms bar a jury of volunteers, courts have held that such a jury fails to satisfy the Act’s goals of random selection and of exclusion only on objective grounds. See United States v. Branscome, 682 F.2d 484 (4th Cir.1982); United States v. Kennedy, 548 F.2d 608, 611 (5th Cir.1977). But see Coleman v. Risley, 839 F.2d 434, 449 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). We assume that a truly voluntary jury would Options: A. holding that pennsylvania national guard members could be used for civilian law enforcement because they were not in federal service at the time B. holding that the challenged practices were not consumeroriented under 349 because they were directed only at prospective insurance agents C. holding that prospective jurors randomly asked if they could serve at a particular time were not volunteers D. holding if plaintiff does not serve report as to particular defendant trial court must dismiss that defendant from suit E. holding officers did not have a realistic opportunity to intervene because they were not present at the time of the shooting

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that prospective jurors randomly asked if they could serve at a particular time were not volunteers
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: assert a UCL claim, and even if she had standing, her claim fails on its merits. A To assert a UCL claim, a private plaintiff needs to have “suffered injury in fact and ... lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.” Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17204. This provision requires Rubio to show that she has lost “money or property” sufficient to consti tute an “injury in fact” under Article III of the Constitution, see Birdsong v. Apple, Inc., 590 F.3d 955, 959-60 (9th Cir.2009), and also requires a “causal connection” between Capital One’s alleged UCL violation and her injury in fact, Hall v. Time Inc., 158 Cal.App.4th 847, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 4 te standing under the UCL. Aron v. U-Haul Co. of Cal., 143 Cal.App.4th 796, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 555, 559 (2006); cf. Birdsong, 590 F.3d at 961 (<HOLDING>). Rubio has also alleged a causal connection Options: A. holding that standing will not lie where matters remain conjectural or hypothetical B. holding that hypothetical injury was insufficient for standing C. holding that prejudice or injury is a necessary element of standing D. holding that notice of judgment was insufficient E. holding that to have standing a plaintiff must establish an injury in fact a casual connection between the injury and that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that hypothetical injury was insufficient for standing
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the Parties to this Agreement shall use such Party's commercially reasonable efforts to take such actions as may be necessary or reasonably requested by the other Parties to this Agreement to carry out and consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement by the Closing Date or extension thereof.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: some of the service is supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions , and you hereby agree that instagram may place such advertising and promotions on the service or on , about , or in conjunction with your content .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Obligors shall execute any and all further documents, agreements and instruments, and take all further actions, as may be required under Applicable Law or as any Required Noteholder may reasonably request, in order to effect the purposes of this Amendment.

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: Notices and all other communications contemplated by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given when personally delivered or when mailed by U.S. registered or certified mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid. In the case of Executive, mailed notices shall be addressed to him at the home address which he most recently communicated to the Company in writing. In the case of the Company, mailed notices shall be addressed to its corporate headquarters, and all notices shall be directed to the attention of its Secretary.

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: The Company will use the net proceeds from the sale of the Shares, after payment of legal fees and other closing costs, to retire the Deerfield debt, support the Lee’s License Agreement activities, and general working capital requirements focused on the advancement of the AEROSURF, lyophilized KL4 surfactant and aerosol delivery system development programs.

assistant: Use Of Proceeds
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: or both liability theories, and because we find there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of gender discrimination, infra, we need make no determination as to whether or not the court erred in granting judgment to Plaintiff as a matter of law on her constitutional claim of a violation of procedural due process. Cf. Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 99, 101 S.Ct. 2193, 2199, 68 L.Ed.2d 693 (1981) (“[P]rior to reaching any constitutional questions, federal courts must consider nonconstitutional grounds for decision.”). Our analysis has the effect of mooting the district court’s holding as to the due process claim, leaving that ruling without legal effect. Cf. Cardinal Chem. Co. v. Morton Int'l, Inc., 508 U.S. 83, 93-95, 113 S.Ct. 1967, 1973-74, 124 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993) (<HOLDING>) (citing Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Options: A. holding that the complaint placed the defendant on notice when it alleged ownership of the asserted patent named the individual defendants cited the patents that are allegedly infringed described the means by which the defendants allegedly infringed the patents and pointed to specific sections of the patent law invoked B. holding that the invalidity of a provision for a de novo trial in superior court in the appeal section of an act did not affect the validity of the remainder of the appeal section C. recognizing that in patent infringement eases a finding of noninfringement prevents a court from reaching an affirmative defense asserting the patents invalidity because the validity issue becomes immaterial to the disposition of the case and that any determination of the patents validity by the district court in such a case should be vacated D. holding that the rationale of the consent decree cases was fully applicable where a stipulated dismissal and settlement resolved pending patent litigation and there were other licensees and alleged infringers who had an incentive to challenge the patents validity E. holding an appellate decision becomes the law of the case and is controlling on both the trial court and on any further appeals in the same case

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that in patent infringement eases a finding of noninfringement prevents a court from reaching an affirmative defense asserting the patents invalidity because the validity issue becomes immaterial to the disposition of the case and that any determination of the patents validity by the district court in such a case should be vacated
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any portion of this APA shall be finally determined by any court or governmental agency of competent jurisdiction to violate Applicable Law or otherwise not to conform to requirements of Applicable Law and, therefore, to be invalid, the Parties will cooperate to remedy or void the invalidity, but in any event, will not upset the general balance of relationships created or intended to be created between them as manifested by this APA and the instruments referred to herein. Except insofar as it would be an abuse of the foregoing principle, the remaining provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the account. McColley’s employment was not terminated, even though she was roughly the same age as Schliske. Thus, in every case in which the investigation revealed a violation of the Friends and Family policy which occurred after April 19, 2005, the result was the same. Plaintiff also directs the court to evidence that a more thorough investigation would have revealed other violations of the Friends and Family policy by other associates in the Fort Dodge office. Evidence of a poorly conducted investigation, standing alone, absent evidence that defendants acted in bad faith, failed to follow their ordinary disciplinary procedures or treated other employees differently-proof that is totally absent here-cannot show pretext or defeat a summary judgment motion. See Roeben, 545 F.3d at 643 (<HOLDING>)(citing Hanebrink v. Brown Shoe Co., 110 F.3d Options: A. holding that selfserving deposition testimony standing alone is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment B. holding that plaintiffs allegation that defendant conditioned its software on purchase of its hardware was sufficient to survive summary judgment C. holding without discussing the plaintiffs burden of persuasion that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment D. holding that ejven if plaintiff could show that the employers investigation was poorly conducted or that its decision was impetuous that alone would not allow him to survive summary judgment E. holding that a plaintiff who did not show that he was paid at a lower rate than similarly situated employees could not survive summary judgment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that ejven if plaintiff could show that the employers investigation was poorly conducted or that its decision was impetuous that alone would not allow him to survive summary 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: under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) because the crime of first-degree burglary as defined by California Penal Code § 459 involves a substantial risk of harm in the ordinary case. See, e.g., Park, 649 F.3d at 1179-80. Ramos argues that we should not consider ourselves bound by the decisions in Lopez-Cardona and Kwong because he presents a different argument than did the petitioners in those cases. In support of that proposition he cites Webster v. Fall, 266 U.S. 507, 511, 45 S.Ct. 148, 69 L.Ed. 411 (1925) (“Questions which merely lurk in the record, neither brought to the attention of the court nor ruled upon, are not to be considered as having been so decided as to constitute precedents.”). See also, e.g., Galam v. Carmel (In re Larry’s Apartment, L.L.C.), 249 F.3d 832, 839 (9th Cir. 2001) (<HOLDING>). The continuing vitality of Becker was not an Options: A. holding previous case when no one challenged the issue could not be precedent on the issue B. holding that claim preclusion did not apply even though the legal theory at issue in that case was addressed in a previous case because the case at issue was based on a different set of operative facts C. holding that a question lurked in the record of a previous case because we had no occasion to consider it D. holding it is a question of fact E. holding that the question of whether police had a reasonable basis for finding that a third party had authority to consent to search is a question of law

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a question lurked in the record of a previous case because we had no occasion to consider it
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 authorized equity securities of each of the Credit Parties as of the Closing Date are as set forth on Schedule 3.4 to the Disclosure Letter. All issued and outstanding equity securities of each of the Credit Parties are duly authorized and validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable. All issued and outstanding equity securities of any Subsidiary of any Credit Party are free and clear of all Liens other than those in favor of Agent for the benefit of Agent and Lenders, and such equity securities were issued in compliance with all applicable Laws. The identity of the holders of the equity securities of each of the Credit Parties (other than Invuity) and the percentage of their fully-diluted ownership of the equity securities of each of the Credit Parties as of the Closing Date is set forth on Schedule 3.4 to the Disclosure Letter. Except as set forth on Schedule 3.4 to the Disclosure Letter, as of the Closing Date there are no preemptive or other outstanding rights, options, warrants, conversion rights or similar agreements or understandings for the purchase or acquisition from any Credit Party of any equity securities of any such entity.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the Constitution or federal law, it should “afford a reasonable opportunity for the legislature to meet constitutional requirements by adopting a substitute measure rather than for the federal court to devise ... its own plan.” Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 540, 98 S.Ct. 2493, 57 L.Ed.2d 411 (1978). This case presents an exceptional circumstance, however: the General Assembly enacted the 2016 Plan after another panel of this Court invalidated the 2011 Plan as a racial gerrymander. Harris, 159 F.Supp.3d at 627. When a court finds a remedial districting plan also violates the Constitution, courts generally do not afford a legislature a second “bite-at-the-apple” to enact a constitutionally compliant plan. See Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 27, 95 S.Ct. 751, 42 L.Ed.2d 766 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 586, 84 S.Ct. 1362 Options: A. holding that when a district court fails to provide reasons for imposing special conditions and the defendant fails to object we review for plain error B. 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 C. holding that if a state fails to enact a constitutionally acceptable remedial districting plan the responsibility falls on the district court D. holding that plain error review applies when a party fails to raise a claim before the district court E. holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that if a state fails to enact a constitutionally acceptable remedial districting plan the responsibility falls on the district court
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: From time to time on and after the date hereof, Purchaser and the Seller Representative shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Escrow Agent such further documents and instruments and shall do and cause to be done such further acts as the Escrow Agent shall reasonably request (it being understood that the Escrow Agent shall have no obligation to make any such request) to carry out more effectively the provisions and purposes of this Agreement, to evidence compliance herewith or to assure itself that it is protected in acting hereunder.

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: cats and operated a 'kitten mill' in Unionville, Missouri."). 15 . In his deposition, Wilkerson testified that there was no lawsuit. He said, "I was just trying to drum up some business for a class action lawsuit possibly after reading the reviews and reading past histories of RSL.” He was not asked whether this comment was directed toward Texas residents, and considering that he lives in California, the comment itself is not evidence suggesting that Texas residents were targeted by his solicitation of support for a lawsuit. 16 . See, e.g., Machulsky v. Hall, 210 F.Supp.2d 531, 542 (D.N.J.2002) (buyer's negative eBay feedback about seller was not purposefully directed toward seller’s home state of New Jersey); Bailey v. Turbine Design, Inc., 86 F.Supp.2d 790, 796 (W.D.Tenn.2000) (<HOLDING>); English Sports Betting, Inc. v. Tostigan, No. Options: A. holding that defendant could not be liable for distributing defamatory statements unless it knew or had reason to know of statements B. holding plaintiffs must plead alleged defamatory statements with precision C. holding that statements in personnel files that would otherwise be defamatory are privileged D. holding defamatory statements posted on defendants website attacked plaintiff as a nationwide competitor in aircraft conversions not as a tennessee businessman E. holding that defendants alleged defamatory statements that plaintiff made loans in exchange for sexual favors did not constitute outrageous conduct

assistant: The best answer is D. holding defamatory statements posted on defendants website attacked plaintiff as a nationwide competitor in aircraft conversions not as a tennessee businessman
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: • fail to pay for items purchased by you , unless you have a valid reason as set out in an ebay policy , for example , the seller has materially changed the item 's description after you bid , a clear typographical error is made , or you can not contact the seller ( see our unpaid item policy ) ;

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In consideration of Oxenreiter’s execution and delivery of this Agreement and purchase of the Shares hereunder, and in addition to all of the Company’s and GMS’s other obligations under this Agreement, the Company and GMS shall jointly and severally defend, protect, indemnify and hold harmless Oxenreiter from and against any and all actions, causes of action, suits, claims, losses, costs, penalties, fees, liabilities and damages, and expenses in connection therewith (irrespective of whether Oxenreiter is a party to the action for which indemnification hereunder is sought), and including reasonable attorneys’ fees and disbursements (the “ Indemnified Liabilities ”), incurred by Oxenreiter as a result of, or arising out of, or relating to (a) any material misrepresentation by Company or GMS or any material breach of any covenant, agreement, obligation, representation or warranty by the Company or GMS contained in this Agreement, or (b) after any applicable notice and/or cure periods, any breach or default in performance by the Company or GMS of any covenant or undertaking to be performed by the Company or GMS hereunder. To the extent that the foregoing undertaking by the Company or GMS may be unenforceable for any reason, the Company and GMS shall make the maximum contribution to the payment and satisfaction of each of the Indemnified Liabilities, which is permissible under applicable law.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Should the Plan become void or unenforceable by operation of law or judicial decision, this Agreement shall have no force or effect. Nothing set forth in this Agreement is intended, nor shall any of its provisions be construed, to limit or exclude any definition, restriction, limitation or other term or condition of the Plan as is relevant to this Agreement and as may be specifically applied to it by the Committee. In the event of a conflict in the provisions of this Agreement and the Plan, as a rule of construction the terms of the Plan shall be deemed superior and apply.

assistant: 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: The Company shall (a) by the Disclosure Time, issue a press release disclosing the material terms of the transactions contemplated hereby, and (b) file a Current Report on Form 8-K, including the Transaction Documents required to be filed as exhibits thereto, with the Commission within the time required by the Exchange Act. From and after the issuance of such press release, the Company represents to the Purchasers that it shall have publicly disclosed all material, non-public information delivered to any of the Purchasers by the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, or any of their respective officers, directors, employees or agents in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents. In addition, effective upon the issuance of such press release, the Company acknowledges and agrees that any and all confidentiality or similar obligations under any agreement, whether written or oral, between the Company, any of its Subsidiaries or any of their respective officers, directors, agents, employees or Affiliates on the one hand, and any of the Purchasers or any of their Affiliates on the other hand, shall terminate. The Company and each Purchaser shall consult with each other in issuing any other press releases with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby, and neither the Company nor any Purchaser shall issue any such press release nor otherwise make any such public statement without the prior consent of the Company, with respect to any press release of any Purchaser, or without the prior consent of each Purchaser, with respect to any press release of the Company, which consent shall not unreasonably be withheld or delayed, except if such disclosure is required by law, in which case the disclosing party shall promptly provide the other party with prior notice of such public statement or communication. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company shall not publicly disclose the name of any Purchaser, or include the name of any Purchaser in any filing with the Commission or any regulatory agency or Trading Market, without the prior written consent of such Purchaser, except (a) as required by federal securities law in connection with the filing of final Transaction Documents with the Commission and (b) to the extent such disclosure is required by law or Trading Market regulations, in which case the Company shall provide the Purchasers with prior notice of such disclosure permitted under this clause (b).

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 Company may terminate the Executive’s employment if she is disabled and unable to perform the essential functions of the Executive’s then existing position or positions under this Agreement with or without reasonable accommodation for a period of 180 days (which need not be consecutive) in any 12-month period. If any question shall arise as to whether during any period the Executive is disabled so as to be unable to perform the essential functions of the Executive’s then-existing position or positions with or without reasonable accommodation, the Executive may, and at the request of the Company shall, submit to the Company a certification in reasonable detail by a physician selected by the Company to whom the Executive or the Executive’s guardian has no reasonable objection as to whether the Executive is so disabled or how long such disability is expected to continue, and such certification shall for the purposes of this Agreement be conclusive of the issue. The Executive shall cooperate with any reasonable request of the physician in connection with such certification. If such question shall arise and the Executive shall fail to submit such certification, the Company’s determination of such issue shall be binding on the Executive. Nothing in this Section 3(b) shall be construed to waive the Executive’s rights, if any, under existing law including, without limitation, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §2601 et seq. and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.

assistant: Disability
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: court may also depart if the government’s refusal to file a substantial assistance motion is attributable to bad faith, even when the plea agreement specifies that the decision whether to file is in the government’s sole discretion. See United States v. Isaac, 141 F.3d 477, 484 (3d Cir.1998). While Mr. Khan makes the assertion that he “vigorously assisted authorities,” he does not point to any concrete actions on his part other than bringing the authorities to the apartment in Brooklyn where he received the heroin. See Pet. Mot. at 3. The government acknowledged this act but determined it was not sufficient to warrant a substantial assistance motion. Mr. Khan fails to allege any suspect motive on the part of the government. See United States v. Higgins, 967 F.2d 841, 845 (3d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Given the quantity of heroin involved and Options: A. holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent B. holding 404b evidence admissible under intent exception but not motive exception where motive not contested C. holding trial court improperly instructed jury in trial for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute that evidence of defendants similar acts of possession was admissible to show motive where motive was not element of crime charged and defendant did not contest motive D. holding extrinsic evidence of defendants motive to possess gun inadmissible where defendant did not contest the issue of motive E. holding that the mere fact that a defendant provided assistance and the prosecutor did not file a motion is not sufficient evidence of suspect motive

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the mere fact that a defendant provided assistance and the prosecutor did not file a motion is not sufficient evidence of suspect motive
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: (a) There are no actions, suits or proceedings by or before any arbitrator or Governmental Authority pending against or, to the knowledge of any Borrower, threatened against or affecting the Company or any of its Subsidiaries (i) as to which there is a reasonable possibility of an adverse determination and that, if adversely determined, could reasonably be expected, individually or in the aggregate, to result in a Material Adverse Effect or (ii) that could have a material adverse effect on the rights or remedies of the Administrative Agent or the Lenders or on the ability of any Borrower to perform its obligations to them hereunder and under the other Loan Documents to which it is, or will be, a party.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the tipster’s reputation cannot be assessed. J.L., 529 U.S. at 270, 120 S.Ct. 1375. Here, because a known MDOT complainant could be held accountable for fabricating any story, the concerns raised by anonymous tips are simply not present. At the suppression hearing, Officer Schock testified that he knew the report of erratic driving came from the MDOT. This fact was significant to Schock. Officer Schock testified that he worked closely with MDOT personnel, had received reports of traffic infractions and hazards in the past from MDOT, and had found those reports to be reliable. Because Officer Schock was familiar with MDOT personnel in his area and trusted their reports, he was entitled to weigh that fact in responding to the dispatch he received. See Adams, 407 U.S. at 147, 92 S.Ct. 1921(<HOLDING>). Even if we assume, arguendo, that the report Options: A. holding that an unverified tip from a known informant was sufficiently reliable to justify a terry stop and frisk B. holding that an anonymous tip must have sufficient indicia of reliability to justify a stop and frisk C. holding that information of criminal activity given by a known reliable informant is enough to sustain a terry stop D. holding that tip from known reliable informant that was immediately verifiable at the scene could form basis for reasonable suspicion and forcible terry stop E. holding that an anonymous tip supported a terry stop where the informant provided several details but refused to give his name

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an unverified tip from a known informant was sufficiently reliable to justify a terry stop and frisk
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In addition to all such rights of indemnity and subrogation as the Guarantors may have under applicable law (but subject to Section 6.03), the Borrower agrees that (a) in the event a payment in respect of any Secured Obligation shall be made by any other Guarantor under this Agreement, the Borrower shall indemnify such Guarantor for the full amount of such payment and such Guarantor shall be subrogated to the rights of the Person to whom such payment shall have been made to the extent of such payment and (b) in the event any assets of any other Grantor shall be sold pursuant to this Agreement or any other Security Document to satisfy in whole or in part any Secured Obligation, the Borrower shall indemnify such Grantor in an amount equal to the greater of the book value or the Fair Market Value of the assets so sold.

assistant: Indemnity
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: (“[W]e conclude that § 1404(a) is the proper avenue of relief where a party seeks the transfer of a case to enforce a forum-selection clause, while Rule 12(b)(3) is the proper avenue for a party’s request for dismissal based on a forum-selection clause.”); Hillis v. Heineman, 626 F.3d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir.2010) (finding that a party’s defense for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) based on a forum-selection clause was valid and was not waived by the filing of a counterclaim); Muzumdar v. Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd., 438 F.3d 759, 760-62 (7th Cir.2006) (“A challenge to venue based upon a forum selection clause can appropriately be brought as a motion to dismiss the complaint under [Rule] 12(b)(3).”); Sucampo Pharm., Inc. v. Astellas Pharma, Inc., 471 F.3d 544, 548-50 (4th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Riley v. Kingsley Underwriting Agencies, Options: A. recognizing circuit agreement that a motion to dismiss based on an arbitration clause is proper under rule 12b3 B. holding prejudgment denial of motion to dismiss on basis of forumselection clause not to be immediately appealable under 1291 C. holding that since the fifth circuit has accepted rule 12b3 as a proper method for seeking dismissal for improper venue based on a forum selection clause the court need not decide whether a rule 12b1 motion is appropriate D. holding that motions to dismiss based on forumselection clause should be analyzed under rule 12b3 E. holding that a forumselection clause may be enforced under rule 12b3 as a motion to dismiss on the basis of improper venue

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a forumselection clause may be enforced under rule 12b3 as a motion to dismiss on the basis of improper venue