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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution, delivery and performance of the Loan Documents by each Obligor to be a party thereto (a) have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate or other organizational actions of such Obligor; (b) do not and will not violate any applicable provision of law, except to the extent that such violation could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect; (c) do not and will not violate or any writ, order or decree of any court or Governmental Authority, except to the extent that such violation could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect; (d) do not and will not violate any provision of the Organic Documents of such Obligor; and (e) do not and will not result in a breach of, or constitute a default, or result in the creation of any Lien (other than any Liens created under the Loan Documents in favor of Administrative Agent) upon any property or assets of such Obligor pursuant to, any applicable law, regulation, instrument or agreement to which any such Obligor is a party or by which any such Obligor or its properties may be subject or bound, except to the extent that such breach or default could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. Each Obligor has obtained all Necessary Authorizations, and all such Necessary Authorizations are in full force and effect, except for (a) filings and recordings with respect to the Collateral to be made or delivered to Administrative Agent for filing or recording and (b) those Necessary Authorizations, the failure of which to obtain or make would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. None of such Necessary Authorizations is the subject of any pending or, to the Borrower’s knowledge, threatened revocation, by the grantor of the Necessary Authorization.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: United States v. Palacios-Martinez, 845 F.2d 89 (5th Cir.1988), interpreting Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. at 828, 107 S.Ct. at 2149.). Asibor contends his deportation hearing violated due process for the following reasons: (1) he was denied the right to contact the Nigerian Consul; (2) the INS incorrectly informed him that two years was the maximum penalty; (3) he was never told he could appeal the deportation; and (4) no attorney was physically present to represent him at the deportation hearing. At trial, the court reviewed the deportation hearing transcript and found no defect. In analyzing Asibor’s claims under the two-step process previously announced by this court, we find that Asibor’s deportation hearing was not “fundamentally unfair.” See Zaleta-Sosa, 854 F.2d at 52 (<HOLDING>); Perez-Torres, 15 F.3d at 405 (holding that Options: A. holding that use of a coerced confession in criminal trial would be fundamentally unfair B. holding that failure to notify alien of right to contact mexican consul was not fundamentally unfair C. holding that admission of evidence showing murder victim was pregnant though prejudicial did not render sentencing fundamentally unfair D. holding that admission of evidence must be fundamentally unfair to constitute a due process violation E. holding that alien demonstrated deportation proceedings were fundamentally unfair when alien was deprived effective assistance of counsel

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that failure to notify alien of right to contact mexican consul was not fundamentally unfair
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a February 3, 2011, work injury. Employer contends that simply telling Brian Yoder that he fell, even if true, did not satisfy the Act’s notice requirements. Accordingly, the claim petition should have been denied. The claimant has the burden of proving all elements necessary to support an award of benefits. Inglis House v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), 535 Pa. 135, 634 A.2d 592, 595 (1993). Section 311 of the Act requires the claimant to inform his employer of a work injury within 120 days of its occurrence. If he fails to do so, he is ineligible for compensation. 77 P.S. § 631. This deadline cannot be extended where the claimant asserts that he told a fellow employee of the injury. Canterna v. United States Steel Corporation, 12 Pa.Cmwlth. 579, 317 A.2d 355, 357 (1974) (<HOLDING>). Timely, notice “protect[s] the employer from Options: A. holding that a notice of claim period did not begin to run until discovery of the injury B. holding clear and convincing evidence established that the claimants attempted suicide was the result of a mental injury suffered subsequent to a compensable injury C. holding claimants status as illegal alien did not preclude entitlement to benefits for workrelated injury D. holding that limitations period begins to run on date notice was received at claimants residence even if claimant did not receive it until a later date E. holding a claimants injury report to a fellow employee did not satisfy the act because the claimants supervisor did not learn of the injury until six months later

assistant: The best answer is E. holding a claimants injury report to a fellow employee did not satisfy the act because the claimants supervisor did not learn of the injury until six months later
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: To request the issuance of a Letter of Credit or the amendment, renewal or extension of an outstanding Letter of Credit (other than an automatic renewal permitted pursuant to paragraph (c) of this Section 2.05 ), the applicable Borrower shall hand deliver or fax (or transmit by electronic communication, if arrangements for doing so have been approved by the recipient) to the applicable Issuing Bank and the Administrative Agent, reasonably in advance of the requested date of issuance, amendment, renewal or extension, a notice requesting the issuance of a Letter of Credit, or identifying the Letter of Credit to be amended, renewed or extended, and specifying the requested date of issuance, amendment, renewal or extension (which shall be a Business Day), the date on which such Letter of Credit is to expire (which shall comply with paragraph (c) of this Section 2.05 ), the amount (which, except in the case of the Existing Letters of Credit, shall be no less than (w) in the case of a Letter of Credit denominated in U.S. Dollars, US$5,000, (x) in the case of a Letter of Credit denominated in Sterling, £5,000, (y) in the case of a Letter of Credit denominated in Euros, €5,000 and (z) in the case of a Letter of Credit denominated in any Designated Committed Alternative Currency, the smallest amount of such currency that is an integral multiple of 5,000 units of such currency and that has a U.S. Dollar Equivalent in excess of US$5,000) and currency of such Letter of Credit, the name and address of the beneficiary thereof and such other information as shall be necessary to enable the applicable Issuing Bank to prepare, amend, renew or extend such Letter of Credit. If requested by the applicable Issuing Bank, the applicable Borrower also shall submit a letter of credit application on such Issuing Bank’s standard form in connection with any such request. A Letter of Credit shall be issued, amended, renewed or extended only if (and upon each issuance, amendment, renewal or extension of any Letter of Credit the applicable Borrower shall be deemed to represent and warrant that), after giving effect to such issuance, amendment, renewal or extension, (i) the U.S. Dollar Equivalent of the LC Exposure will not exceed $40,000,000 and (ii) the Aggregate Revolving Exposure will not exceed the Aggregate Revolving Commitment. Each Issuing Bank agrees that it shall not permit any issuance, amendment, renewal or extension of a Letter of Credit to occur unless it shall have given to the Administrative Agent written notice thereof required under paragraph (l) of this Section 2.05 . On the Closing Date, the Existing Letters of Credit shall be deemed Letters of Credit issued hereunder.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company and the Subsidiaries have, or have rights to use, all patents, patent applications, trademarks, trademark applications, service marks, trade names, trade secrets, inventions, copyrights, licenses and other intellectual property rights and similar rights as described in the SEC Reports as necessary or required for use in connection with their respective businesses and which the failure to so have could have a Material Adverse Effect (collectively, the “ Intellectual Property Rights ”). Except as disclosed on Schedule 3.1(o), none of, and neither the Company nor any Subsidiary has received a notice (written or otherwise) that any of, the Intellectual Property Rights has expired, terminated or been abandoned, or is expected to expire or terminate or be abandoned, within two (2) years from the date of this Agreement. Neither the Company nor any Subsidiary has received, since the date of the latest audited financial statements included within the SEC Reports, a written notice of a claim or otherwise has any knowledge that the Intellectual Property Rights violate or infringe upon the rights of any Person, except as could not have or reasonably be expected to not have a Material Adverse Effect. To the knowledge of the Company, all such Intellectual Property Rights are enforceable and there is no existing infringement by another Person of any of the Intellectual Property Rights. The Company and its Subsidiaries have taken reasonable security measures to protect the secrecy, confidentiality and value of all of their intellectual properties, except where failure to do so could not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: in the event that the company makes any future change to the mandatory arbitration provision ( other than a change to the company 's arbitration notice address ) , you may reject any such change by sending us written notice within 30 days of the change to the company 's arbitration notice address , in which case your account with the company and your license to use the service will terminate immediately , and this dispute resolution provision , as in effect immediately prior to the amendments you reject , will survive the termination of this eula .

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 the event that a Change in Control (as defined in the Plan) occurs prior to the lapsing of the forfeiture restrictions with respect to any portion of the shares of Restricted Stock awarded hereunder, the Compensation Committee, prior to consummation of such Change in Control, shall determine, based on the Company’s actual performance in respect of the Performance Measurements for the period from the date of this Agreement through the date the Compensation Committee makes such determination, the number of shares of Restricted Stock for which the forfeiture restrictions would be expected to lapse for the Performance Periods that are not yet completed at such time as the Compensation Committee makes its determination and the forfeiture restrictions with respect to such number of shares of Restricted Stock shall, immediately prior to the consummation of such Change in Control, lapse without regard to whether the Performance Measurements with respect to such shares of Restricted Stock will thereafter be achieved.

assistant: Change In Control
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: ¶ 25. The parties cite several cases in which we have addressed tolling upon the filing of a complaint. Clark Sand Co., Inc. v. Kelly, 60 So.3d 149 (Miss.2011); Lincoln Elec. Co. v. McLemore, 54 So.3d 833, 839 (Miss.2010); Hill v. Ramsey, 3 So.3d 120, 123 (Miss.2009); Price v. Clark, 21 So.3d 509, 521 (Miss.2009); Owens v. Mai, 891 So.2d 220, 223 (Miss.2005); Watters v. Stripling, 675 So.2d 1242, 1244 (Miss. 1996), Erby v. Cox, 654 So.2d 503, 505 (Miss.1995); W.T. Raleigh Co. v. Barnes, 143 Miss. 597, 109 So. 8, 9 (1926); and Nevitt v. Bacon, 32 Miss. 212, 66 Am. Dec. 609 (1856). However, none of these cases addresses subsequent dismissal for want of prosecution. ¶ 26. Benny also cites persuasive precedent in which other courts have found no tolling of 9, 60-61 (Fla.Ct.App. 1968) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 30. Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d)(1) Options: A. holding that the limitations period is likewise not tolled during the pendency of a certiorari petition to the supreme court B. holding that tolling of the statute of limitations was not tolled during the pendency of a claim dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution C. holding that the statute of limitations is tolled during a malicious prosecution suit when a timely complaint is filed D. holding that the plain meaning of 2244d2 is that the statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of any properly filed federal habeas corpus petition E. holding that the oneyear statute of limitations was not tolled during the pendency of petition for certiorari to the united states supreme court seeking review of denial of state postconviction relief

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that tolling of the statute of limitations was not tolled during the pendency of a claim dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of those motions. See United Nat. Ins. Co. v. R & D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir.2001) (indicating that ordinarily notice of appeal becomes effective when district court rules on motion for reconsideration). As the Millers’ notices of appeal are not yet effective, we are without jurisdiction to entertain the Millers’ appeal. See id. (limiting appeals to those where a valid notice of appeal is filed). Defendants contend that the order dismissing the case was a final judgment because it was a separate document distinct from any opinion or memorandum. However, because the dismissal order provides the basis for the entry of judgment, the order itself cannot satisfy the separate document requirement. See McCalden v. Calif. Library Ass’n, 955 F.2d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). In this case, only one document disposes of Options: A. holding that in connection with a motion to dismiss the court may consider a document not attached to the pleadings where the plaintiffs claim depends on the contents of a document the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss and the parties do not dispute the authenticity of the document even though the plaintiff does not explicitly allege the contents of that document in the complaint B. holding that an order dismissing the case did not satisfy rule 58s separate document requirement because the order was never entered as a separate document C. holding that a threepage memorandum opinion order containing the district courts reasoning and case citations failed to comply with the separate document requirement D. holding the amount of procedural unconscionability was limited by the fact that the arbitration agreement was presented as a separate two page document E. holding the separate document rule violated when the alleged judgment was included with the memorandum and order of the court

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an order dismissing the case did not satisfy rule 58s separate document requirement because the order was never entered as a separate document
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and implicates the special knowledge and training of an engineer. But, whether section 150.002 applies in the context of a workplace-safety claim against a professional engineering firm is not determined by the type of work the employee performed for the engineering firm. Rather, the proper analysis is whether the claims for damages arise out of the engineering firm’s provision of professional engineering services. In this case, the plaintiffs do not claim that Jacobs Engineering negligently designed or constructed the anechoic chambers or other specialized structures, or that it chose improper materials for their construction. The plaintiffs instead allege that Jacobs Engineering failed to provi 2010 WL 2026037, at *6-9 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] May 20, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>). We therefore hold that the trial court did Options: A. holding that plaintiff was required to provide a certificate of merit when all of its allegations against engineering firm with whom it contracted to supervise oil well fracturing treatment were based on firms provision of those services B. holding that the plaintiffs causes of action were preempted because their claims were premised on the existence of an erisa plan C. holding that the plaintiffs claims for assault and battery were patently without merit since the officers actions under the circumstances were justified D. holding that plaintiffs whose claims were based on failure to warn refinery employee of danger of asbestos exposure were required to provide certificate of merit when claims were alleged against defendant in its capacity as designer and general contractor of refinery E. holding that claims against a city police chief in his official capacity were really claims against the city

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that plaintiffs whose claims were based on failure to warn refinery employee of danger of asbestos exposure were required to provide certificate of merit when claims were alleged against defendant in its capacity as designer and general contractor of refinery
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: from the eleven boxes of pseudoephed-rine that Aguilar-Muniz was convicted of possessing, adjusted upward for obstruction of justice and downward for acceptance of responsibility and timely notification of intent to plead guilty. Even if Aguilar-Muniz had not waived appeal of his sentence, an appeal based on the Eighth Amendment would fail. Outside of the death penalty context, the Eighth Amendment is offended only by sentences that are “grossly disproportionate” to the crime. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 959, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991); United States v. Bland, 961 F.2d 123, 129 (9th Cir.1992). Longer sentences based on similar drug violations have been held not to violate the Eighth Amendment. See United States v. Van Winrow, 951 F.2d 1069, 1071 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In addition to evaluating the issues raised Options: A. holding similar evidence sufficient to sustain a jury verdict of possession with intent to distribute cocaine B. holding that simple possession of cocaine is not lesser included offense of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute C. holding that life sentence without parole for defendant convicted of possession with intent to distribute 1519 grams of cocaine does not violate the eighth amendment D. holding no unfair prejudice from admission of conviction for possession of 50 to 200 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute as evidence of intent to distribute cocaine E. holding that a life sentence without parole for possession of 650 grams of cocaine base did not violate the eighth amendment

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that life sentence without parole for defendant convicted of possession with intent to distribute 1519 grams of cocaine does not violate the eighth amendment
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 does not necessarily follow that the threat-of-death enhancement would be grafted onto all crimes covered by § 2B3.1. Furthermore, a reading of the statute under which Jennings was indicted and convicted x-eveals that the threat-of-death enhancement would not be applied in “every conceivable circumstance” under the statute. 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) covers not only individuals who take property from a bank “by force and violence, or by intimidation,” as did Jennings, but also those who obtain property from a bank by extortion and those who enter a bank with the intent to commit a felony therein. See 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Jennings’s contention also does not recognize the fact that one can commit a robbery with force or intimidation without threatening Uves. See Jennette, 295 F.3d at 292 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Bingham, 628 F.2d 548, 549 Options: A. holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction B. holding that because it is not strictly necessary under the statute for a victim to fear death the guideline enhancement is not coterminous with the basic offense conduct C. holding that application of 2a31 is appropriate even when the victim is fictional as an enhancement for a fictitious victim is consistent with the utilitarian purpose of the enhancement D. holding that it is not E. holding that the district court erred in imposing an enhancement under the 5k20 departure provision where an enhancement under the separate guidelines provision for restraining a victim during the course of an offense would have been appropriate

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that because it is not strictly necessary under the statute for a victim to fear death the guideline enhancement is not coterminous with the basic offense conduct
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in determining whether to quash a subpoena). In any event, as discussed above, evidence of Non-Consequential Damages Parties’ hedging strategies is probative of the reasonableness of Consequential Damages Parties’ strategies and not substantially outweighed by the risks enumerated in Federal Rule of Evidence 403. See Am. High-Income Trust v. AlliedSignal Inc., No. 02 Civ. 2506, 2006 WL 3545432, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2006) (denying motion to quash deposition subpoena because movant failed to show that deponent lacks relevant information or that his deposition would constitute an undue burden). Furthermore, the Bondholders do not submit affidavits from the subpoenaed entities and individuals describing the burden that the trial subpoenas impose. See Kirschner, 2005 WL 1214330, at *3 (<HOLDING>); In re County of Orange, 208 B.R. at 121 Options: A. holding that the burden is on the plaintiff B. holding that movant nonparty witness is not subjected to undue burden by testifying at trial because the courts interest in having all available information germane to the controversy outweighs the temporary interruption in the movants ongoing substance abuse treatment C. holding that a hearing officer may not quash a subpoena for a fact witness pursuant to section 32226152 florida statutes and rule 15a60135 florida administrative code and the defense has the absolute right to subpoena other witnesses to testify as to whether or not the defendant exhibited any signs of impairment at or near the time of arrest D. holding that it is not an undue burden for an 88yearold nonparty witness with mobility problems to testify at trial where the party seeking to quash the subpoena provided no affidavit or specific information regarding the manner and extent of the burden E. recognizing burden

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that it is not an undue burden for an 88yearold nonparty witness with mobility problems to testify at trial where the party seeking to quash the subpoena provided no affidavit or specific information regarding the manner and extent of the burden
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: does not contend that it is. See supra note 11 and accompanying text. 16 .Kazakhstan’s contention that as a civil law jurisdiction it does not recognize common law torts, may be still further evidence that Kazakhstan did not intend to waive immunity for tort claims like those asserted here. See Kazakhstan Mot. to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, at 9-10. In light of the significant ambiguities concerning waiver noted in the text, we need not rely on this point to decide this case, and hence need not consider Kazakhstan's representation regarding its legal system. We note, however, that World Wide did not dispute that representation. See World Wide Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss. 17 . Cf. Hercules, Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 417, 423, 116 S.Ct. 981, 985-86, 134 L.Ed.2d 47 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Watters, slip op. at 5-7 (concluding that the Options: A. holding that claims not pursued within two years of their accrual fall outside of the federal tort claims acts limited waiver of sovereign immunity B. holding that the tucker acts waiver of sovereign immunity for contract claims does not extend to claims for contracts implied in law C. holding in a breach of contract action brought by a government contract surety under the tucker act that the tucker act contains an unequivocal expression waiving sovereign immunity as to claims not particular claimants D. holding that the tucker acts waiver does not extend to statutory claims E. holding that rfras waiver of sovereign immunity did not extend to monetary damages the acts reference to appropriate relief was susceptible to more than one interpretation and thus was not an unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the tucker acts waiver of sovereign immunity for contract claims does not extend to claims for contracts implied in 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in counterparts (including by PDF or facsimile), each of which shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement. Only one such counterpart signed by the party against whom enforceability is sought needs to be produced to evidence the existence of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and each Ancillary Agreement has been duly executed and delivered by Purchaser and constitutes a valid and binding obligation of Purchaser, enforceable against Purchaser in accordance with its terms subject to the Bankruptcy and Equity Exception.

assistant: Binding Effects
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 Borrower hereby represents and warrants to Agent that (a) the execution, delivery and performance of this Amendment and any and all Other Documents executed and/or delivered in connection herewith have been authorized by all requisite corporate action on the part of each Borrower and will not violate the Articles or Certificate of Incorporation or By-Laws or the Certificate of Formation or Operating Agreement of any Borrower; (b) the representations and warranties contained in the Credit Agreement, as amended hereby, and the Other Documents are true and correct on and as of the date hereof and on and as of the date of execution hereof as though made on and as of each such date; (c) no Default or Event of Default under the Credit Agreement, as amended hereby, has occurred and is continuing, unless such Default or Event of Default has been specifically waived in writing by Agent; and (d) each Borrower is in full compliance with all covenants and agreements contained in the Credit Agreement and the Other Documents, as amended hereby.

assistant: Representations
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 HERETO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY SUBMITS, FOR ITSELF AND ITS PROPERTY, TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN SITTING IN THE CITY OF MADISON (OR IF SUCH COURT LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN SITTING IN THE CITY OF MADISON), AND ANY APPELLATE COURT FROM ANY THEREOF, IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING HERETO OR THERETO, OR FOR RECOGNITION OR ENFORCEMENT OF ANY JUDGMENT, AND EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY AGREES THAT ALL CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING MAY (AND ANY SUCH CLAIMS, CROSS-CLAIMS OR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS BROUGHT AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT OR ANY OF ITS RELATED PARTIES MAY ONLY) BE HEARD AND DETERMINED IN SUCH FEDERAL (TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW) OR WISCONSIN STATE COURT. EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO AGREES THAT A FINAL JUDGMENT IN ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE AND MAY BE ENFORCED IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS BY SUIT ON THE JUDGMENT OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW. NOTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT OR IN ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT SHALL AFFECT ANY RIGHT THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT, ANY ISSUING BANK OR ANY LENDER MAY OTHERWISE HAVE TO BRING ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT AGAINST THE BORROWER OR ITS PROPERTIES IN THE COURTS OF ANY JURISDICTION.

assistant: Consent To Jurisdiction
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: principles of federalism and the Commerce Clause. Specifically, they contend that Act No. 26 may affect essential terms of insurance agreements entered in other states. To the extent that Act No. 26 is not limited to South Carolina, they claim the General Assembly improperly imposed its “public policy objections to the application of traditional occurrence definitions to construction cases involving faulty workmanship, on sister states.” We find several procedural barriers prevent the Amici from presenting this argument. The Amici lack standing to assert their challenge, and their claim is not ripe for review as they posit a hypothetical scenario, which Petitioner does not raise and which may not come to fruition. See James v. Anne's Inc., 390 S.C. 188, 193, 701 S.E.2d 730, 732 (2010) (<HOLDING>). Justice BEATTY (concurring in part and Options: A. holding where a party failed to raise an issue clearly implicated in the initial decision of the trial court our mandate acted to prevent that party from raising this issue on remand B. recognizing that justiciability encompasses several doctrines including ripeness mootness and standing and precluding amici from raising an issue not raised by the named party under rule 213 scacr C. holding that the plaintiff was precluded from raising the issue for the first time on appeal D. holding that the court bars a party from raising an issue on remand that was not raised on appeal E. holding that failure to raise issue at district court forecloses party from raising same issue on appeal

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that justiciability encompasses several doctrines including ripeness mootness and standing and precluding amici from raising an issue not raised by the named party under rule 213 scacr
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: During the Employment Term, the Company shall pay Executive an annual base salary of $375,000 per annum in cash (the “ Annual Base Salary ”). Executive’s Annual Base Salary will be subject to annual review by the Board. The Annual Base Salary due to Executive hereunder shall be paid in accordance with the general Company payroll practices.

assistant: Base Salary
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: on Hammons’s retaliation claim. Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against any of his employees because she has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). “To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the plaintiff must show: (1) that [she] engaged in statutorily protected expression; (2) that [she] suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) that there is some causal relationship between the two events.” Holifield, 115 F.3d at 1566. We assume, without deciding, that Hammons’s December 17, 2002 letter to the Chancellor was a s link when the plaintiff returned to work for 11 days before leaving again, and no problems occurred during those 11 days); Sierminski v. Transouth Fin. Corp., 216 F.3d 945, 951 (11th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Breech v. Ala. Power Co., 962 F.Supp. 1447, Options: A. holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection B. holding that more than a year between the protected activity and the discharge is not close enough to support the causal connection requirement C. holding that a temporal proximity of one month between the plaintiffs protected activity and adverse employment action was sufficient to establish a causal connection D. holding that a prima facie case of retaliation requires a causal link between the employees protected activity and the employers adverse employment action E. holding that a 7month time period between the protected activity and the adverse employment action is too indirect to satisfy the causal connection requirement

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a 7month time period between the protected activity and the adverse employment action is too indirect to satisfy the causal connection requirement
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: viber can not ensure that you will be satisfied with any products or services that you purchase from any third-party site that links to or from viber since the third-party sites are owned and operated by independent retailers .

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: Provided such statements are not otherwise available, within ten (10) business days following request from Landlord, Tenant shall provide Landlord with Tenant’s then current financial statements. If required, such financial statements shall be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and, if it is required by law or it is the normal practice of Tenant, such financial statements shall be audited by an independent certified public accountant. If such financial statements are not audited, they shall be certified as being true and correct by Tenant’s chief financial officer. Upon request of Tenant, Landlord agrees to deliver to Tenant a commercially reasonable confidentiality agreement related to the disclosure of such financial statements to Landlord.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: State ex rel. Palmer v. Unisys Corp., 637 N.W.2d 142, 150 (Iowa 2001). LMT can demonstrate no fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct on the part of Wells Fargo absent a showing that Nader was its agent. Thus, any misconduct on Nader’s part will not void the objectively valid contract with Wells Fargo. The evidence demonstrates that Rubenstahl knew he was signing blank lease documents and that LMT would be responsible for lease payments in some amount. He trusted Nader to enter a lease payment amount but did not secure an understanding on the amount of that payment or a clause permitting LMT to cancel the contract during a trial period. LMT thus bore the risk of signing a blank document. See Hall v. World Omni Leasing, Inc., 209 Ga.App. 115, 433 S.E.2d 297, 298 (Ga.Ct.App.1993) (<HOLDING>). LMT argues that a novation occurred when, Options: A. holding that bankruptcy is no exception to the due process principle that one is not bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party to or to which he has not been made a party by service of process internal quotation marks omitted B. holding on summary judgment that where a party purposely signed a writing with blanks left to be filled in by the other party the person signing is bound by it internal marks omitted C. holding that a person signing an arbitration agreement using power of attorney is not a party to that agreement merely by virtue of having signed it D. holding that a party is not bound by the testimony of a witness it calls E. holding that when a contract is signed by one party but not the other the manifestation of consent by the nonsigning party is sufficient to bind that party

assistant: The best answer is B. holding on summary judgment that where a party purposely signed a writing with blanks left to be filled in by the other party the person signing is bound by it internal marks omitted
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: ..., licensed and approved surgical/hospital facility ... through the obtaining of a Construction Loan.” [Emphasis added.] The phrase “through the obtaining of a Construction Loan” identifies the means by which the “Project” would be funded and accomplished, not the date at which the “Project” would begin. Dr. Cravens’s interpretation cannot be sustained in light of our well-established rules of contract construction. See Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393-94 (Tex.1983). The supreme court has cautioned us to look for “red flags” indicating that justifiable reliance is unwarranted. See Grant Thornton LLP, 314 S.W.3d at 923. There are red flags in this case, and they could not be larger and more weath by Eng’g, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 54, 75-76 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.), (<HOLDING>). Ac cordingly, insofar as any of the jury’s Options: A. holding that contractor could not show that it reasonably relied upon alleged misrepresentation B. holding that plan beneficiaries could not have reasonably relied on any alleged oral misrepresentations in light of a signed severance agreement containing information to the contrary C. holding that bankruptcy trustee for contractor could not avoid prepetition payment of funds from contractor to subcontractors D. holding that a person cannot reasonably rely on a misrepresentation when the contents of a written instrument contradict the alleged misrepresentation E. holding that the court could reasonably assume that no rational class member would have purchased the product had he known of the alleged misrepresentation

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that contractor could not show that it reasonably relied upon alleged misrepresentation
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: After giving effect to the making of the Loan and the other transactions contemplated by this Agreement to occur on the Effective Date, the Loan Parties, on a consolidated basis are, Solvent. No transfer of property is being made by any Loan Party and no obligation is being incurred by any Loan Party in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Agreement or the other Loan Documents with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud either present or future creditors of such Loan Party.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as could not reasonably expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, each Plan is in compliance with the applicable provisions of ERISA, the Code and other Federal and state laws. Except as could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, (i) no ERISA Event has occurred or is reasonably expected to occur; (ii) no Loan Party has incurred, or reasonably expects to incur, any liability (including liability as an ERISA Affiliate of another Person) under Title IV of ERISA with respect to any Single Employer Plan (other than premiums due and not delinquent under Section 4007 of ERISA); (iii) no Loan Party has incurred or reasonably expects to incur any liability (including liability as an ERISA Affiliate of another Person), and no event has occurred which, with the giving of notice under Section 4219 of ERISA, would result in such liability, under Section 4201 or 4243 of ERISA with respect to a Multiemployer Plan; and (iv) neither any Loan Party nor any of its ERISA Affiliate has engaged in a transaction that could be subject to Section 4069 or 4212(c) of ERISA.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: we may change the price of the services at any time and if you have a recurring purchase , we will notify you by email at least 15 days before the price change .

assistant: Unilateral change
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: blood alcohol content); Toler v. State, 623 So.2d 408, 411 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) (refusing to instruct on intoxication even though the defendant had “way too much to drink” and “could not remember some things that occurred”). Petitioner was indeed drunk on the night the crimes were committed, but “[generally, voluntary drunkenness is no defense to a criminal charge.... [T]he degree of intoxication which must be demonstrated to exonerate a defendant is great.” State v. Gover, 267 Md. 602, 606-07, 298 A.2d 378, 381 (1973). Petitioner simply cannot point to evidence sufficient to satisfy that standard, leaving us with no basis to hold that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to give the instruction. See Dickey v. State, 404 Md. 187, 199, 203-04, 946 A.2d 444, 451, 454 (2008) (<HOLDING>); Perry v. State, 344 Md. 204, 242, 686 A.2d Options: A. holding that a trial judge is obliged to give a correct jury instruction notwithstanding that request for instruction was technically erroneous if the evidence generates the subject matter of the jury instruction B. holding that the defendant could not appeal a jury instruction where he did not object to the challenged instruction but in fact requested it and stated he was satisfied with it C. holding that the requested instruction did not state the applicable law and the trial court was not required to grant it citing rule 4 325c D. holding that issue of inadequate jury instruction was waived because the instruction given was the one expressly requested by defense counsel E. holding that the requested instruction was not required under rule 4325c because even assuming that the requested instruction was a correct statement of law the trial judge exercised his discretion properly

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the requested instruction was not required under rule 4325c because even assuming that the requested instruction was a correct statement of law the trial judge exercised his discretion properly