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: are not banned, nor is the use of signs with manually changeable type. Even if EMCs are considered to be a particular “medium,” the fact that a regulation bans a particular medium does not mean that the ordinance is not narrowly tailored. Globe Newspaper, 100 F.3d at 191-92. When the medium itself is the “evil the city [seeks] to address,” then a ban of that entire medium is narrowly tailored. Id. at 192 (citing Vi 1097 (8th Cir.2006) (concluding that an ordinance prohibiting flashing or blinking electronic signs left open sufficient alternative channels of communication, including using non-electronic signs); Globe Newspaper, 100 F.3d at 193 (concluding that street vendors were an adequate alternative to on-street newspaper boxes); Chapin Furniture Outlet, 2006 WL 2711851, at *4 (<HOLDING>). NJI argues that it is losing potential Options: A. holding that prohibiting external illumination of political signs while allowing it for other signs was an unconstitutional contentbased restriction since the message on the sign determines whether or not it may be externally illuminated B. holding that an ordinance exempting certain signs from a general sign ban was an unconstitutional contentbased restriction on speech C. holding that an ordinance banning emcs does not prevent pjlaintiff from displaying any message on a sign not prohibited and noting that plaintiff could use banners flags sandwich boards and inflatable signs as alternatives to emcs D. holding city ordinance preempted by state law because ordinance prohibited act specifically allowed under state law E. holding that a plaintiff had standing to attack an entire ordinance including portions of the ordinance not applied to the plaintiff

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an ordinance banning emcs does not prevent pjlaintiff from displaying any message on a sign not prohibited and noting that plaintiff could use banners flags sandwich boards and inflatable signs as alternatives to emcs
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: given when justice so requires.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 15(a). A motion to amend should be denied “only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would be futile.” Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 242 (4th Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the decision of a district court to grant or deny a motion to amend for abuse of discretion. See id. We agree with HCMF’s contention that the proposed amendment set forth a new legal theory. HCMF originally claimed that it had a federal right under the Boren Amendment itself for DMAS to pay reasonable and adequate rates of reimbursement. See Wilder v. Va. Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 509-10, 110 S.Ct. 2510, 110 L.Ed.2d 455 (1990) (<HOLDING>). In the proposed amendment, HCMF sought to Options: A. holding that title xix providers have federal rights enforceable in a 1983 action B. holding that health care providers could pursuant to 1983 enforce the boren amendment to the medicaid act C. holding that 42 usc 1396aa13a which requires states to make reasonable reimbursement to providers was enforceable by the providers pursuant to section 1983 D. recognizing right to privacy in receipt of health care services to the extent consistent with providing adequate medical care and the safety and good order of the facility E. holding that boren amendment created substantive federal right enforceable by health care providers to reasonable and adequate rates

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that boren amendment created substantive federal right enforceable by health care providers to reasonable and adequate rates
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: differently depending on the issues involved, that phrase is ambiguous when included in a statute, at least in the workers’ compensation context. Compare Chambers v. Transit Mgmt., 360 N.C. 609, 618, 619, 636 S.E.2d 553, 559 (2006) (explaining that in order to prove “causal connection” between specific traumatic event and injury, plaintiff must show that injury was “ ‘the direct result of a specific traumatic incident’ ” (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2(6) (2005)) with Morrison v. Burlington Indus., 304 N.C. 1, 39, 43, 282 S.E.2d 458, 481, 484 (1981) (requiring for “causal connection” a showing that “occupational conditions . . . significantly contributed to the [occupational] disease’s development”), and Gallimore v. Marilyn’s Shoes, 292 N.C. 399, 402, 233 S.E.2d 529, 531 (1977) (<HOLDING>). When confronted with ambiguous statutory Options: A. holding that the language of the statute clearly requires proof of a causal connection between the drivers intoxication and the death of another person B. holding that the claimant committed willful misconduct when she did not return to work at the end of her leave and did not comply with her employers notification policy C. holding that claimant committed willful misconduct when she did not return to work at the end of her leave and did not comply with her employers notification policy D. holding decedents death did not arise out of her employment due to lack of causal connection between work and death since nature of work did not increase risk she would be slain by criminal act E. holding that plaintiffs failure to prove decedents death was caused by the wrongful acts of the defendant precludes any recovery of wrongful death damages under mississippis wrongful death statute

assistant: The best answer is D. holding decedents death did not arise out of her employment due to lack of causal connection between work and death since nature of work did not increase risk she would be slain by criminal act
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: It is only if we infer that Schmitz’s reference to Wallace’s ab sences is code language for Wallace’s pregnancies that it relates to Wallace’s protected class. If we were to make this inference and countenance this general statement as evidence of discriminatory intent, we would find in effect that any employer’s remark observing that an employee has taken leave constitutes such evidence. We decline to do so for, as the Seventh Circuit has stated, “[t]he [Pregnancy Discrimination Act] requires the employer to ignore an employee’s pregnancy, but ... not her absence from work, unless the employer overlooks the comparable absences of non-pregnant employees.” Marshall v. Am. Hosp. Ass’n, 157 F.3d 520, 526 (7th Cir.1998) (quoting Troupe v. May Dep’t Stores, 20 F.3d 734, 738 (7th Cir.1994)) (<HOLDING>). Next, Gaskin overheard Schmitz state that Options: A. holding that the supervisors failure to give employee new assignments once she announced that she was pregnant and that her maternity leave would occur during the two months prior to the employers busiest time did not constitute evidence of discrimination B. holding that an employee who did not present evidence that she could have returned to work prior to the expiration of her fmla leave allowance was not entitled to additional leave merely because her employer had not properly provided her with notice that the leave was designated as fmla leave C. holding that discharging an employee because she was on maternity leave would violate that poli cy D. holding that an employer was justified in demoting plaintiff after she returned from maternity leave because plaintiff could not rebut the employers evidence that she was having performance problems before she went on leave and that additional performance problems were discovered while she was on leave E. holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the supervisors failure to give employee new assignments once she announced that she was pregnant and that her maternity leave would occur during the two months prior to the employers busiest time did not constitute evidence of discrimination
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 whether a Rule 68 offer has mooted the controversy is not well established. Courts in different jurisdictions have taken a variety of approaches, both with respect to the mechanics by which the court should determine whether the offer is greater than the value of the case (i.e., whether or not the court should conduct any fact finding), and also with respect to the implications of a Rule 68 offer which moots the case (i.e., whether judgment should be entered in favor of the plaintiff, or whether the defendant wins outright). There is a split of authority whether an offer of judgment which moots a case should result in the entry of judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of the Rule 68 offer, or result in the plaintiff losing outright. Compare, e.g., Rand, 926 F.2d at 598 (<HOLDING>), with Ambalu v. Rosenblatt, 194 F.R.D. 451, Options: A. holding that the ada plaintiff was unable to perform essential functions of job when the plaintiffs psychotherapist had told the employer that the plaintiff was unable to work in any position when the plaintiff did not disagree with that point and when the plaintiff in response to a request for admission conceded that she was no longer able to work B. holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired C. holding that a plaintiff loses outright when he or she refuses to honor the defendants offer to satisfy the plaintiffs entire demand D. holding that if the breach of an entire contract is only partial the plaintiff can recover only such damages as he or she has sustained leaving prospective damages to a later suit in the event of further breaches E. holding that plaintiffs claim failed for lack of evidence of a bargainedfor exchange and reliance where plaintiff never informed defendant that she was considering another job offer or that she turned down that offer

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a plaintiff loses outright when he or she refuses to honor the defendants offer to satisfy the plaintiffs entire demand
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment shall become effective as of the date first above written (the “ Amendment Effective Date ”) when (a) the Administrative Agent shall have received counterparts of this Amendment that, when taken together, bear the signatures of the Company, the Borrowing Subsidiaries and the Required Lenders and (b) the Administrative Agent and the Lenders shall have received payment of all fees and expenses required to be paid or reimbursed by the Company or any Borrowing Subsidiary under or in connection with this Amendment and any other Loan Document, including those fees and expenses set forth in Section 11 hereof; provided that the Company has received one or more invoices setting forth such fees and expenses at least three Business Days prior to the Amendment Effective Date.

assistant: Effectiveness
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: other third parties, such as banks and brokerage houses with security interests in margined securities, and the total amount of assets available to all for distribution. SECO has pressed that, injuries to other Credit Bancorp investors notwithstanding, it would be inappropriate to distribute any of its identifiable assets to other investors. SECO cites no authorities for this proposition. Though it is too early to predict when and how the assets of Credit Bancorp will be distributed, this claim is worthy of some preliminary discussion. Federal courts have come to rather different conclusions concerning the distribution of assets under an equity receivership. Certain courts have approved the return of traceable assets. See Anderson v. Stephens, 875 F.2d 76, 77-80 (4th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); SEC v. P.B. Ventures, Civ. A. No. 90-5322, Options: A. holding that debtors payments to investors were for reasonably equivalent value because such payments reduced the amount of the investors claims for rescission B. holding that unlawful restraint could not even be an included offense C. holding that judicial enforcement of a contract cannot convert what would otherwise be a private matter into state action D. holding in context of cftc enforcement action that assets deposited into account after issuance of district courts freeze order could not be included in amount to be distributed pro rata among defrauded investors E. holding family court has wide discretion in determining how marital property is to be distributed

assistant: The best answer is D. holding in context of cftc enforcement action that assets deposited into account after issuance of district courts freeze order could not be included in amount to be distributed pro rata among defrauded investors
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: 398, 407 (Alaska 1976) (citations omitted). 23 . Rollins v. State ex rel. Municipality of Anchorage, 748 P.2d 767, 771 (Alaska App.1988) (citing Hentzner v. State, 613 P.2d 821, 826 (Alaska 1980)). 24 . Bayless & Roberts, 548 P.2d at 407 (citations omitted). 25 . Id. at 400. 26 . "|T]he contradiction of my findings” is a reference to the letter the board wrote and sent out to the members with the copy of the court’s attorney's fees award. The letter the board wrote expressed, among other things, the board's disagreement with the court’s April 6 order and attorney's fees award. 27 . Continental Ins. Cos. v. Bayless & Roberts, Inc., 548 P.2d 398, 407 (Alaska 1976); Carter v. Brodrick, 750 P.2d 843, 845 (Alaska App.1988). 28 . Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink, 941 P.2d 132, 137 (Alaska 1997) (<HOLDING>); see also Virgin v. Virgin, 990 P.2d 1040, Options: A. holding that when evidence did not prove dependency of child as alleged in complaint but revealed pure custody dispute juvenile court was without jurisdiction to determine custody of child B. holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the best interest of the children require the continuation of primary physical custody with defendant and secondary custody with plaintiff and the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law for this court to determine whether the guidelines were followed C. holding in child custody context that court not required to make wrapup finding D. holding that juvenile court that determined child was not dependent had no jurisdiction to thereafter determine custody of child E. holding that personal jurisdiction is not required to make an outofstate parent a party to custody action where the state court has subject matter jurisdiction under the uniform child custody jurisdiction act

assistant: The best answer is C. holding in child custody context that court not required to make wrapup finding
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: we cannot say that § 1396r-5(e)(2)(C) has a “plain meaning” that mandates a resource-first approach. The MCCA does not set out a definition of income as that term is used in subsection (e)(2)(c). Further, unlike the district court, we do not read subsections (b), (d)(e) and'(f) as imparting a plain meaning that prohibits the transfer of income pre-eligibility, such that transferred income cannot be included in the community spouse’s income as that term is used in subsection (e)(2)(C). Instead, we believe that subsection (e)(2)(C)’s reference to “income” is ambiguous at best. Indeed, the differing views of the various courts and agencies that have interpreted subsection (e)(2)(C) provide a strong indication that the subsection is ambiguous. Compare, e.g., Gruber, 647 N.E.2d at 861 (<HOLDING>), and Kimnach, 645 N.E.2d at 825 (same), with Options: A. holding that mcca mandates resourcefirst ap proach in implementing subsection e2c B. holding that to sustain a conviction under subsection 1a of oregons seconddegree assault statute the state needs to prove only that defendant was aware of the assaultive nature of his conduct and that his conduct in fact caused the victim serious physical injury C. holding that subsection 13la does not apply if the information is not of a personal nature D. holding that a court should be more hesitant in accepting ab2 suit which contains significant individual issues than it would under subsection 23b3 E. holding that 1226e does not purport to foreclose challenges to 1226c itself as opposed to decisions implementing that subsection

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that mcca mandates resourcefirst ap proach in implementing subsection e2c
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: case. Reilly’s defense depends, in part, on Riggs’ performance under the agreement. Indeed, Riggs’ execution of the terms of the Trust Agreement has already been placed in issue by the parties. TRST has claimed Riggs expressly or implicitly waived Article X, Section 10.02 of the Trust Agreement. Thus, in deciding this case, the Court could determine Riggs breached the Trust Agreement or was negligent in signing or performing the contract and absolve Reilly of liability. Such a finding could be unfairly detrimental to Riggs. Although there is no danger of issue preclusion in the case pending in Washington, D.C., a negative precedent could impair Riggs in that litigation; that is, assuming this case is decided first. See Pulitzer-Polster v. Pulitzer, 784 F.2d 1305, 1309 (5th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). In addition, if the D.C. Court acknowledged Options: A. holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice B. holding that a finding of no plain error on direct appeal precludes a finding of prejudice under strickland C. holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause D. holding nonagency defendants were properly joined as indispensable parties under rule 19 but recognizing no apa cause of action could stand against them E. holding that a negative precedent can cause enough prejudice to an absentee for a finding of indispensability under rule 19

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a negative precedent can cause enough prejudice to an absentee for a finding of indispensability under rule 19
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: used Plaintiffs’ property to dispose of pollutants and saved the expenses of otherwise collecting and disposing of same.” Branch, 778 F.Supp. at 35-36. Indeed, a number of other courts beyond those on which Plaintiff relies have upheld the recovery of restitution damages for a polluter’s disposal of waste on another’s property that confers a benefit on the polluter. See N.C. Corff P’ship, Ltd. v. OXY USA, Inc., 929 P.2d 288, 295 (Okla.Ct.App.1996) (Property surface owner was not precluded from making alternative claim for unjust enrichment in its action against oil and gas well operator, arising from alleged pollution of groundwater by operation of oil and gas wells, alleging common law torts); Evans v. City of Johnstown, 96 Misc.2d 755, 410 N.Y.S.2d 199, 205-07 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1978) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Healy Tibbitts Const. Co., Options: A. holding that the plaintiff may proceed under a claim for breach of contract and unjust enrichment because the defendant admitted the existence of a contract solely for the purposes of summary judgment B. holding that where a prior agreement fixed the salary of the plaintiff plaintiff could not seek to recover for his services on a theory of unjust enrichment C. recognizing a claim for civil liability against municipalities under 1983 D. holding that plaintiff could proceed on claim for unjust enrichment against municipalities for money saved by not properly disposing of waste materials E. holding that there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that plaintiff could proceed on claim for unjust enrichment against municipalities for money saved by not properly disposing of waste materials
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: mechanisms, which are internal to the Department of Labor but reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702. See 40 U.S.C. §§ 3143-44, 3703. In the case of a violation, both statutes provide for the withholding of contract funds by the Department of Labor (to pay under- or unpaid employees at the prevailing rate) and the possibility of an up to three-year ban on the award of federal contracts to the breaching contractor or subcontractor. §§ 3142(c)(3), 3144, 3703(b); see also 29 C.F.R. § 5.12. The CWHSSA also provides for daily assessed liquidated damages and, in some cases, criminal liability. 40 U.S.C. §§ 3703(b), 3708; 29 C.F.R. § 5.8. Caselaw suggests that neither statute provides a private right of action. See Cou- tu, 450 U.S. at 768-69, 771-84, 101 S.Ct. 1451 (<HOLDING>); see also, e.g., Bane v. Radio Corp. of Am., Options: A. holding that no private right of action exists B. holding that the dba does not confer a private right of action for back wages under a contract that administratively has been determined not to call for davisbacon work but declining to decide whether the act creates an implied private right of action to enforce a contract that contains specific dba stipulations C. recognizing private right of action D. holding that erisa creates no private right of action E. holding that a private right of action exists

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the dba does not confer a private right of action for back wages under a contract that administratively has been determined not to call for davisbacon work but declining to decide whether the act creates an implied private right of action to enforce a contract that contains specific dba stipulations
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 shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their legal representatives, successors and assigns. Nothing in this Agreement, expressed or implied, is intended to confer on any person other than the Parties or their respective heirs, successors and assigns any rights, remedies, obligations, or other liabilities under or by reason of this Agreement.

assistant: Benefits
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: premiums for that Employee.” Id. at 1842. The phrase “agrees in writing,” LINA argues, empowers LINA to decide whether to insure Bowers, and then whether to grant the WOP benefit. This reading of the Life Policy language entirely ignores the context of the phrase. In both instances, the sentences address when a benefit begins, not whether a benefit applies at all. The use of the phrase “in writing” does no more than further emphasize this point. The instances in which a legal consequence is conditioned on the delivery of written notice are legion. To argue that a provision regarding the delivery of written notice implicitly grants discretion contradicts both common sense and basic contract interpretation principles. See Jacobs v. Pickands Mather & Co., 933 F.2d 652, 657 (8th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>) (quotations omitted). As such, this language Options: A. holding that the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law B. holding that the rules governing interpretation of a lease are the same as those governing interpretation of a contract C. holding erisa plan interpretation is simply one of contract interpretation D. holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans E. holding an administrative interpretation cannot change the meaning of a statute or control the courts interpretation of it

assistant: The best answer is C. holding erisa plan interpretation is simply one of contract interpretation
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 hard to reconcile on this point”). The test for admissibility in this circuit and elsewhere has long been more permissive: whether the defendant’s conduct in prior crimes is “sufficiently analogous to support an inference” that the defendant intended to do something similar later. See United States v. Benton, 852 F.2d 1456, 1468 (6th Cir.1988). That is functionally the test the district court applied here. Thus, in United States v. LeCroy, 441 F.3d 914 (11th Cir.2006), the court upheld the admission of evidence that the police found notes in the defendant’s car saying that he planned to “rob ears and kill people” and “rape rob and pillage” as evidence that he intended to cause harm during a carjacking 10 years later. Id. at 918, 926; see also Benton, 852 F.2d at 1459, 1467-68 (<HOLDING>). The two offenses in LeCroy were no more Options: A. holding that acquiescence required proof that the government willfully accepted the torturous activity or consented to it B. holding that the government could introduce evidence that a sheriff had accepted kickbacks to protect bootleggers to prove that the sheriff later accepted kickbacks for the purpose of protecting a cocainedistribution scheme C. holding that on resentencing following reversal the state was required to introduce evidence to prove the defendant qualified for an enhanced sentence and could not only rely upon evidence introduced at a prior sentencing hearing D. holding that the government must prove the facts used in sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence E. holding that the government may not introduce evidence obtained through violations of the fourth amendment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the government could introduce evidence that a sheriff had accepted kickbacks to protect bootleggers to prove that the sheriff later accepted kickbacks for the purpose of protecting a cocainedistribution scheme
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 capital stock of the Company consists of 350,000,000 shares of Common Stock and 2,000,000 shares of preferred stock. As of December 31, 2015, 42,807,468 shares of Common Stock were issued and outstanding and no shares of preferred stock were issued and outstanding. All of the issued and outstanding shares of the Company’s capital stock have been duly authorized and validly issued and are fully paid, nonassessable and free of pre-emptive rights and were issued in full compliance with applicable state and federal securities law and any rights of third parties. Except for the Sabby Affiliates, no Person is entitled to pre-emptive or similar statutory or contractual rights with respect to any securities of the Company. Except as described in the SEC Filings, there are no outstanding warrants, options, convertible securities or other rights, agreements or arrangements of any character under which the Company is or may be obligated to issue any equity securities of any kind and except as contemplated by this Agreement, the Company is not currently in negotiations for the issuance of any equity securities of any kind. Except as described in the SEC Filings, there are no voting agreements, buy-sell agreements, option or right of first purchase agreements or other agreements of any kind among the Company and any of the security holders of the Company relating to the securities of the Company held by them. Except as described in the SEC Filings, no Person has the right to require the Company to register any securities of the Company under the 1933 Act, whether on a demand basis or in connection with the registration of Securities of the Company for its own account or for the account of any other Person.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In exchange for the Severance Pay described above, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, Employee hereby fully and forever unconditionally releases and discharges Employer, all of its past, present and future parent, subsidiary, affiliated and related corporations, their predecessors, successors and assigns, together with their divisions and departments, and all past or present officers, directors, employees, insurers, attorneys and agents of any of them (hereinafter referred to collectively as " Releasees "), and Employee covenants not to sue or assert against Releasees in any forum, for any purpose, any or all claims, administrative complaints, demands, actions and causes of action, of every kind and nature whatsoever, whether at law or in equity, and both negligent and intentional, arising from or in any way related to Employee's employment or separation from Employer, based in whole or in part upon any act or omission, occurring on or before the date of this general release, without regard to Employee's present actual knowledge of the act or omission, which Employee may now have, or which Employee, or any person acting on Employee's behalf may at any future time have or claim to have, including specifically, but not by way of limitation, matters which may arise at common law or under federal, state or local laws, including but not limited to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the National Labor Relations Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Utah Labor Code and any other state or federal laws, excepting only any claim for worker's compensation, unemployment compensation, COBRA rights, and any vested rights under any ERISA benefit plan. Employee does not waive or release any rights arising after the date of execution of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party hereto will execute such further documents and instruments and take such further actions as may reasonably be requested by one or more of the others to consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, or to effect the other purposes of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: but that is otherwise related to a case under title 11” and to "submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court,” subject to de novo review. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c); In re Wood, 825 F.2d at 95. 41 . In re Querner, 7 F.3d at 1201. 42 . In re Wood, 825 F.2d at 93. 43 . 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). 44 . Id. § 541(a)(6). 45 . Id. § 541(a)(7). 46 . In re Klein-Swanson, 488 B.R. 628, 633 (8th Cir. BAP 2013). 47 . In re Swift, 129 F.3d 792, 795 & n. 12 (5th Cir.1997); In re Klein-Swanson, 488 B.R. at 633. 48 . See In re IFS Fin. Corp., 669 F.3d 255, 262 (5th Cir.2012) (noting that, under Texas law, "control over funds in an account is the predominant factor in determining an account’s ownership”); see also In re Kemp, 52 F.3d 546, 551-53 (5th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); In re Missionary Baptist Found. of Am., Inc., Options: A. holding that funds held in escrow are property of the estate only to the extent of the debtors independent right to that property B. holding that a debtors interest in a tenancy by the entirety is property of the bankruptcy estate under section 541 because of debtors undivided present interests in the use possession income and right of survivorship of the property C. holding that erisa benefits are not property of the estate D. holding that property seized by a creditor prior to debtors bankruptcy was property of the estate even though creditor the irs held a secured interest a tax lien in the property E. recognizing that exempt property ceases to be property of the estate

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that funds held in escrow are property of the estate only to the extent of the debtors independent right to that 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: to the “Special Investigations Unit” and HUB Enterprises, Inc., another company with whom Defendant had strong financial ties, to conduct an investigation. While the Court recognizes that “there is nothing procedurally improper about the úse of surveillance,” an IME or FCE would have yielded to a more complete assessment of Plaintiffs capacity and limitations. See Salomaa, 642 F.3d at 676 (“An insurance company may choose to avoid an independent medical examination because of the risk that the physicians it employs may conclude that the claimant is entitled to benefits.”) Here, the fact that a video surveillance was conducted in lieu of an IME raises legitimate questions concerning the thoroughness of the investigation. Calvert v. Firstar Fin., Inc., 409 F.3d 286, 295 (6th Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). In -view of Defendant’s conflict of interest, Options: A. recognizing that language approved by the court may raise questions if incorporated in a jury instruction in a case with different facts B. holding that the failure to conduct a physical examination may in some cases raise questions about the thoroughness and accuracy of the benefits determination C. holding that the failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waives the issue D. holding that vindictive prosecution claims in civil forfeiture proceeding may raise due process questions E. recognizing that a federal court may not review a challenge to a benefits determination of the office of workers compensation programs in the department of labor

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the failure to conduct a physical examination may in some cases raise questions about the thoroughness and accuracy of the benefits determination
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 Ordinance is in fact “narrowly tailored” to further that interest. See, e.g., Edwards v. City of Santa Barbara, 150 F.3d 1213, 1216 (9th Cir.1998) (“A single legitimate government interest may be sufficient to sustain a content-neutral regulation.”) (citing Heffron v. Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 650 n. 13, 101 S.Ct. 2559, 69 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981)). For the reasons discussed below, the Court so finds. First, it is virtually axiomatic that the City has a “significant” interest in traffic flow and safety. Accord, Heffron, 452 U.S. at 650, 101 S.Ct. 2559 (“As a general matter, it is clear that a State’s interest in protecting the ‘safety and convenience’ of persons using a public forum is a valid governmental objective”); see also ACORN, 798 F.2d at 1268 (<HOLDING>). The City’s interest in crime prevention is Options: A. recognizing the substantial risk of disruption in crowd or traffic control that may be presented by solicitation of contributions as compared to other forms of expression B. holding that there is no difference between financial contributions to reduce the mortgage principal and those to improve the property itself and that both types of active contributions entitle the marital estate to a proportionate return on its investment C. holding that an improper traffic control device may create a dangerous condition for which the governments immunity from liability is waived D. holding that a prison official may be held liable under the eighth amendment for denying humane conditions of confinement only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it E. recognizing that object code may be copyrighted as expression under 17 usc 102b

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing the substantial risk of disruption in crowd or traffic control that may be presented by solicitation of contributions as compared to other forms of expression
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: None of the properties and assets of any Credit Party or any Subsidiary thereof is subject to any Lien, except Permitted Liens. No Credit Party or any Subsidiary thereof has signed any financing statement or any security agreement authorizing any secured party thereunder to file any financing statement, except to perfect those Permitted Liens.

assistant: Liens
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 Ninth Circuit has already expanded Cunningham beyond Rule 37(a). In Cato v. Fresno City, 220 F.3d 1073, 1074 (9th Cir.2000), this court stated that the “reasons underlying Cunningham’s bar against immediate appeal from Rule 37(a) sanctions orders apply equally to Rule 16 sanctions orders.” Cato followed Cunningham, holding sanctions imposed under Rule 16(f) to be appealable only after final judgment has been entered, even when the attorney no longer represents any party in the case. Id. Similarly, in American Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. North American Constr. Corp., we interpreted Cunningham to bar immediate appeal of an interlocutory order granting attorney’s fees as a condition of substituting counsel. 248 F.3d 892, 897 (9th Cir.2001). We stated that “[although th st Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). The law in the Second Circuit prior to Options: A. holding that denial of counsel in section 1983 action is not immediately appealable B. holding sanctions order pursuant to district courts inherent powers not immediately appealable C. holding sanctions pursuant to rule 26g not immediately appealable D. holding an order of rule 37a sanctions against an attorney is immediately appealable under 1291 E. holding that the denial of a motion to remand is interlocutory and not immediately appealable

assistant: The best answer is C. holding sanctions pursuant to rule 26g not immediately appealable
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: 119 S.Ct. 1307). Because Jimarez refused to testify at Defendant Rivas-Macias’ trial, the proceeding at issue here, Defendant cannot establish that Jimarez engaged in a testimonial waiver of the privilege. Defendant’s argument to the contrary is unpersuasive. The privilege against self-incrimination protects against a party forcing an individual to adopt, at trial, “his unsworn out-of-court confession.” Silverstein, 732 F.2d at 1347; see also United States v. James, 609 F.2d 36, 45 (2d Cir.1979) (ruling that an individual “had not waived his privilege” by making “previous statements to the FBI and the grand jury” because a “waiver of the privilege in one proceeding does not affect a witness’ rights in another proceeding”); United States v. Diecidue, 603 F.2d 535, 552 (5th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). That is exactly what Defendant Rivas-Macias Options: A. recognizing the right to waive a jury trial B. holding an individuals admission to a government agent prior to trial that he had previously committed perjury did not waive his privilege to invoke the fifth amendment as to that matter at trial C. holding that voluntary testimony before a grand jury did not waive the privilege at trial because it is settled that a waiver of the fifth amendment privilege is limited to the particular proceeding in which the waiver occurs D. holding that the perjury by a key government witness irrespective of whether the government knew of the perjury at the time of trial infected the trial proceedings and required reversal E. holding that the fifth amendment did not apply to tribal government

assistant: The best answer is B. holding an individuals admission to a government agent prior to trial that he had previously committed perjury did not waive his privilege to invoke the fifth amendment as to that matter at trial
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: common carriage service alternatives. For example, the Commission may look at the circumstances surrounding the particular transportation service to determine whether the shipments at issue moved under a continuing agreement, and whether the transportation involved the use of dedicated equipment or a service tailored to meet the distinct needs of the shipper. C.H. Robinson, at 6 (citing General Mills, 8 I.C.C.2d at 323; Contracts, 8 I.C.C.2d at 529; and Ford v. Riss, 9 I.C.C.2d at 896-97). The ICC has the authority to issue new policy statements that establish new formulas to determine how the parties will be regulated under the Interstate Commerce Act. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. v. U.S., 716 F.2d 1369 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 927, 104 S.Ct. 1707, 1708, 80 L.Ed. 181 (1984) (<HOLDING>). The rule in this Circuit is that an Options: A. holding that enforcing new jersey law would violate new yorks strong public policy against interest rates which exceed 25 which policy must be enforced B. holding an endorsement to an existing insurance policy which added a new vehicle did not create a new contract of insurance but was merged with and became a part of the original policy C. holding purposeful and deliberate omission on enactment of new jersey sales and use tax of exemption found in new york counterpart act which served as the model for new jersey act D. holding that despite the occurrence of a fiveday jury trial a new trial was required because we have adopted a new claim construction on appeal and this is not a case in which it is clear from the record that the accused device does or does not infringe E. holding that the iccs new policy which adopted a new formula to distinguish for hire carriers from private carriers was rational under the act

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the iccs new policy which adopted a new formula to distinguish for hire carriers from private carriers was rational under the act
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in the transaction of the current or anticipated future work of such office, department, board or commission, the Department of Records shall determine whether any of such records are of historical or archival value to the City, and shall take over for preservation in the archives of the City any records which have such value. The remainder shall be turned over to the Procurement Department which shall dispose of it in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Department of Records for the disposition of records. (Emphasis added). 4 . Act of May 16, 1923, P.L. 207, as amended, 53 P.S. §§ 7101-7505. 5 . A title search may reveal any liens that may affect a property. See generally Fidelity Nat’l Title Ins. Co. of New York v. Suburban West Abstractors, 852 A.2d 318 (Pa.Super.2004) (<HOLDING>). 6 . There is no testimony in the record that Options: A. holding that the bia is entitled to rely heavily on state department reports B. holding employer was entitled to rely and act upon the written advice from the employees physician C. holding that the plaintiffs have the burden of proof and persuasion as to the existence of standing D. holding that a grant of summary judgment may be affirmed on any independent ground revealed by the record E. holding appellee was entitled to rely on accuracy of last owner search that should have revealed the existence of a judgment

assistant: The best answer is E. holding appellee was entitled to rely on accuracy of last owner search that should have revealed the existence of a judgment