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: Instead, AJP argued that it lacked the level of knowledge required for a violation. It also challenged the willful classification. Rejecting AJP’s arguments, the ALJ affirmed the willful violation as well as a majority of the other citations. AJP filed a petition for review with the Commission. When the Commission declined to review the case, the ALJ’s decision became the Commission’s final order. See 29 U.S.C. § 6610). In its petition for review in this court, AJP challenges all of the Commission’s adverse determinations, arguing that they are unsupported by substantial evidence. The company also argues that the scaffolding regulations fail to provide the fair notice required by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See Gen. Elec. Co. v. EPA, 53 F.3d 1324, 1328-29 (D.C.Cir.1995). (<HOLDING>). II. We will affirm the Commission’s decision Options: A. recognizing that agency regulations must provide fair notice before penalties are imposed B. holding that before a duty can be imposed there must be a relationship between the parties and the harm must have been foreseeable C. recognizing that prison regulations designed to provide security are not only legitimate but are central to all other correctional goals D. holding that agency is bound by its regulations E. holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that agency regulations must provide fair notice before penalties are imposed
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: indicating that the decision to demote and reassign Harmon to one of their Fairfax, Virginia locations was based not on his polygraph test results but instead on the company’s belief that Harmon’s refusal to provide additional information demonstrated a need for increased supervision for a period of 30 to 60 days. See Day Dep. at 71-73; Brar Dep. at 54-61. Defendant’s evidence further indicates that CB Squared executives offered Harmon the option of working at a closer location in Garrisonville, Virginia after he complained that the commute to Fairfax in the mornings was prohibitively long. Brar Dep. at 61-63. Such attempts to accommodate Plaintiffs needs could be construed by the trier of fact as inconsistent with an intent to force Plaintiff to resign. See Holsey, 743 F.2d at 209 (<HOLDING>). In his account of the October 16th meeting, Options: A. holding that fraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence B. holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances C. holding that employers intent may be inferred through circumstantial evidence D. holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent E. holding that an agreement may be inferred entirely from circumstantial evidence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that employers intent may be inferred through circumstantial evidence
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 purchase and sale of the Notes by the Company to the Purchaser shall occur at one closing of the Offering (a “ Closing ” and the date of such Closing, the “ Closing Date ”) to occur on November 17, 2016. Purchasers signing a counterpart signature page to this Agreement as of a Closing Date shall become parties to this Agreement only as of such Closing Date. On each Closing Date, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein, substantially concurrent with the execution and delivery of this Agreement by the parties hereto, the Company agrees to sell, and the Purchaser agrees to purchase, a principal amount of the Notes equal to its Subscription Amount plus an original issue discount of 5%. The Purchaser shall deliver to the Company, via wire transfer within three (3) business days of the Closing Date, immediately available funds equal to its Subscription Amount together with the surrender of a promissory note in the principal amount of $306,000 which shall represent a portion of the aggregate Subscription Amount of $1,000,000, and the Company shall deliver to the Purchaser its Notes, as determined pursuant to Section 2.2(a), and the Company and the Purchaser shall deliver the other items set forth in Section 2.2 deliverable at the Closing. Upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, the initial Closing shall occur at the offices of SM or such other location as the parties shall mutually agree.

assistant: Closings
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: This was ... reduced to a third-degree felony to a level of offense where I might have been willing to consider probation, but based upon [your] conduct thereafter, I just don't believe that you're a candidate for probation, Mr. Harvey. You've been a fugitive for a year and a half which tells me you are not supervise-able. I can't trust you on probation if I can't trust you to even show up to court when you're supposed to be here. Therefore, I will adopt the recommendation of AP & P and impose zero to five in the State prison to commence forthwith. 2 . It is worth noting that many federal courts have also concluded that a defendant's inaccurate sentencing expectations do not render a plea constitutionally defective. See, e.g., United States v. Gunter, 620 F.3d 642, 647 (6th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Bowlin, 534 F.3d 654, 660 Options: A. holding that an inaccurate sentencing estimate did not render a plea unknowing unintelligent or involuntary because the defendant was informed of the statutory maximum B. holding an attorneys mistaken prediction about a possible sentence does not render a defendants plea unknowing and involuntary C. holding that a defense attorneys failure to uncover a defendants prior felony convictions and the attorneys inaccurate sentencing prediction did not render the defendants plea unknowing and involuntary because the defendant knew at the time he pleaded guilty what his sentence might be D. holding defendant cannot waive claims of an illegal sentence a sentence violating terms of plea agreement an unknowing and involuntary plea and ineffective assistance of counsel E. holding that since sex offender registration was not a direct consequence of the plea the failure to warn of such a requirement did not render the pleas unknowing or unintelligent

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an inaccurate sentencing estimate did not render a plea unknowing unintelligent or involuntary because the defendant was informed of the statutory maximum
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: you agree that neither 9gag , inc nor the site will be liable in any event to you or any other party for any suspension , modification , discontinuance or lack of availability of the site , the service , your subscriber content or other content .

assistant: Limitation of liability
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: except to the extent they are preempted by u.s. federal law , the laws of california , other than its conflict-of-laws principles , govern these terms and any disputes arising out of or relating to these terms or their subject matter , including tort claims .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: points out that the instruction we rejected in Everett indicated that a cruise ship opei’ator could be liable if it “negligently created or maintained its premises” as a whole, while Pizzino’s requested instruction would permit liability if the operator created the specific “unsafe or .fore-seeably hazardous condition” that injured her. This, however, is a distinction without legal significance. Although the specific instruction we addressed in Everett is slightly different than the instruction at issue here, the rule we crafted in Everett is broad enough to render both instructions misstatements of law. In Everett, we reasoned that creation of a defect — and not simply creation or maintenance of the premises as a whole — was insufficient to obviate the notice requirement. Id, at 1358 (<HOLDING>); see also id. at 1359 (deeming unacceptable Options: A. holding jurisdictional defect voids judgment when defect exposes such personal jurisdictional deficiencies as to violate due process B. holding while there may be some case law to support plaintiffs argument the majority approach is that the failure to attach process defect is merely procedural and that this particular procedural defect may be cured C. holding that notice of a defect could not be imputed to a defendant inasmuch as it created the defect D. holding that if the states criminal complaint against defendant had a jurisdictional defect the prosecution had the right to attempt to correct the defect and a motion to dismiss is one method of doing this E. holding that a violation of the forum defendant rule is a jurisdictional defect

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that notice of a defect could not be imputed to a defendant inasmuch as it created the defect
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: under the laws of New York with its principal place of business in New York, that Arch is a corporation organized under the laws of Missouri with its principal place of business in Mis souri, and that MMA is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with its principal place of business in New York. 2 . See Dev. Fin. Corp. v. Alpha Hous. & Health Care, Inc., 54 F.3d 156, 160 (3d Cir.1995) ("The plain language of § 13 67(b) limits supplemental jurisdiction over claims by p lain-tiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 and of parties who join or intervene as plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 19 or 24. The section has little to say about defendants." (internal quotation marks omitted)); United Capitol Ins. Co. v. Kapiloff, 155 F.3d 488, 492 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); State Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Yates, 391 F.3d 577, Options: A. holding that plaintiffs had not fraudulently joined nondiverse defendants where the plaintiffs claims were based on respondeat superior if no cause of action can be stated against the nondiverse defendants for their alleged torts no case exists against defendant new england for example if a statute of limitation has run on a claim against a nondiverse defendant it necessarily has run for new england accordingly the arguments offered by new england to prove fraudulent joinder simultaneously show that no case can be made against the diverse defendant B. holding that the second amendment imposes a limitation on only federal not state legislative efforts C. recognizing that a case becomes removable when nondiverse parties are dismissed subject to the oneyear limitation on removal D. holding that were the court to find fraudulent joinder as to a nondiverse defendant on the basis of evidence equally dispositive of the liability of that defendant and a nondiverse defendant a refusal later in the proceedings to give judgment for the diverse defendant on the same grounds in turn would require the court to revisit a ruling that the nondiverse defendant was fraudulently joined E. holding that the limitation of 1367b applies only to plaintiffs efforts to join nondiverse parties

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the limitation of 1367b applies only to plaintiffs efforts to join nondiverse parties
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: sentences, each of which would not have exceeded 20 years. The Apprendi rule, therefore, would not be implicated. It follows as night the day that any failure of the indictment in this case to allege quantity in the possession counts was immaterial. See Price, 265 F.3d at 1108. C. FAIRNESS, INTEGRITY, AND PUBLIC REPUTATION Finally, even were we to assume that the error here did affect substantial rights, we would affirm nonetheless because, given the evidence and the record we have referred to, the error did not “seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Johnson, 520 U.S. at 469-70, 117 S.Ct. 1544. But see United States v. Cotton, 261 F.3d 397, 403-04 (4th Cir.2001), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 803, 151 L.Ed.2d 689 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Our holding in this regard follows our Options: A. holding that failure to charge drug quantity in the indictment and submit it to the jury seriously affects the fairness integrity and public reputation of judicial proceedings so that the court should exerciseits discretion to recognize the error B. holding that the closure of a courtroom during jury selection a structural error did not seriously affect the fairness integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings C. holding that a plain error did not seriously affect the fairness integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings even though the error was assumed to have affected substantial rights D. recognizing that plain error analysis requires 1 error 2 that is plain 3 that affects defendants substantial rights and 4 that seriously affects fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings E. holding that plain error exists when 1 an error was committed 2 that was plain 3 that affected the defendants substantial rights and 4 the error seriously affects the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that failure to charge drug quantity in the indictment and submit it to the jury seriously affects the fairness integrity and public reputation of judicial proceedings so that the court should exerciseits discretion to recognize the error
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: kidnapping in connection with the get proceeding. Id. at 5. 5 .' Stimler additionally claims that a criminal prosecution which violates RFRA should be terminated before trial. Stimler Br. at 5. This point is not disputed by the Government. The Court denied this motion on the record prior to the beginning of trial, on January 28, 2015, reserving the' right to file a later opinion. Stimler renewed the motion on February 17, 2015, after the jury had been selected and one day before opening arguments. . 6 . The Government has conceded that that under certain Jewish authority, "coercive” acts includes violent and non-violent means. See Transcript, February 19, 2015, T45:10-15. 7 . I note that Stimler contends tha Ed.2d 123 (1970); Clinton v. United States, 260 F.2d 824, 825 (5th Cir.1958) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 948, 79 S.Ct. 731, 3 Options: A. holding that the federal kidnapping act does not make the kidnappers motivation an ingredient of the crime B. recognizing that kidnapping under oklahoma law is a felony C. holding that it is the legislative authority of the union that must make an act a crime D. holding that the potential for violence against the victim is an inherent aspect of the crime of kidnapping under 18 usc 924 E. holding that a kidnappers motivation is not an element of the federal kidnapping offense

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the federal kidnapping act does not make the kidnappers motivation an ingredient of the crime
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 provisions of this Agreement shall not survive the termination of the Executive’s employment hereunder, except that the provisions of (i) Section 5 hereto relating to post-termination payment obligations; (ii) Section 6 hereto relating to the restrictive covenants; (iii) Section 8 hereto relating to return of the Company’s property; and (iv) Section 21 relating to jurisdiction, venue and waiver of personal service shall remain binding upon the Parties.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the bankruptcy estate from Claim 7 when they executed the Release. Debtor argues that at the time the Release was signed, the Mahans did not own Claim 7 and therefore could not have been deemed to release it. Settlements are construed according to state law. In re Almengual, 301 B.R. 902, 906 (Bankr. M.D.Fla.2003). Under Florida law, when the language of a release is clear and unambiguous, a court cannot “indulge in construction or interpretation of its plain meaning.” Hurt v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 380 So.2d 432, 433 (Fla.1980). In the instant case the Release clearly and unambiguously states that the Mahans released the bankruptcy estate “from any and all claims which the Relea-sors [including the Mahans] have knowledge of against the Releasees [including the Bankrupt t. Ct.App.1999) (<HOLDING>). “Conversely, a general release cannot be held Options: A. holding that release which barred all claims from the beginning of the world to the day of these presents included claims which the releasor had or could have had against the releasee up to the date of its execution B. holding that a release of such claims or other matters arising from the beginning of time to the date of execution of this agreement did not protect the defendant from liability arising from unconstitutional conduct that occurred after the agreements execution C. holding that all inclusive language from the beginning of the world to the days present barred all claims arising prior to releases execution D. holding equitable estoppel barred the plaintiffs claims because all of the claims of the amended complaint were in existence during the bankruptcy proceedings yet the plaintiff did not disclose any of the claims in its bankruptcy petitions plans of reorganization or disclosure statements E. holding that despite release language discharging defendant from claims upon or by reason of any matter cause or thing whatsoever from the beginning of the world to the day of these presents release did not bar any claims accruing after the date of execution

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that release which barred all claims from the beginning of the world to the day of these presents included claims which the releasor had or could have had against the releasee up to the date of its execution
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 all of the provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns, except that neither this Agreement nor any of the rights, interests or obligations hereunder may be assigned or delegated by either the Purchaser, on the one hand, or the Acquired Company or the Seller, on the other hand, without the prior written consent of the other party.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: summary judgment 'mirrors’ the standard for judgment as a matter of law, such that ‘the inquiry under each is the same.’ " Reeves, 530 U.S. at 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250-51, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). Therefore, the standards articulated in Reeves are applicable to the present motion for summary judgment. 2 . The court notes that in considering Dose's disability discrimination claims it will not distinguish between his claims under the ADA and comparable disability discrimination claims under the IRCA. This is appropriate because the Iowa Supreme Court has recognized that federal precedent is applicable to discrimination claims under the ICRA. See Fuller v. Iowa Dep’t of Human Servs., 576 N.W.2d 324, 329 (Iowa 1998) (<HOLDING>) (internal citations omitted); cf. Vivian v. Options: A. holding plaintiffs had stated a claim for intentional discrimination under the ada and 504 B. holding that whether a person has a disability under the ada is an individualized inquiry C. holding that epilepsy qualifies as a disability under the ada D. recognizing that chapter 216s prohibition on disability discrimination is the statelaw counterpart to the ada and that in considering a disability discrimination claim brought under iowa code chapter 216 we look to the ada and cases interpreting its language we also consider the underlying federal regulations established by the equal employment opportunity commission hereinafter eeoc the agency responsible for enforcing the ada E. recognizing standards to determine discrimination are the same under the ra and the ada

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that chapter 216s prohibition on disability discrimination is the statelaw counterpart to the ada and that in considering a disability discrimination claim brought under iowa code chapter 216 we look to the ada and cases interpreting its language we also consider the underlying federal regulations established by the equal employment opportunity commission hereinafter eeoc the agency responsible for enforcing the ada
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 those aggrieved employees if we did not discuss it. We have held that an EEOC civil suit may allege any discrimination “stated in the charge itself or discovered in the course of a reasonable investigation of that charge, provided such additional discrimination was included in the EEOC ‘reasonable cause’ determination and was followed by compliance with the conciliation procedures I of the Act.” EEOC v. Hearst Corp., 553 F.2d 579, 580 (9th Cir.1976). Similarly, in EEOC v. Farmer Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir.1994), we held that the EEOC could assert an employee’s discriminatory layoff claim as it was “like and reasonably related to” her charge which alleged discriminatory failure to recall and rehire. See also Vasquez v. Cty. of L.A., 349 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). We “consider [a] plaintiffs civil claims to Options: A. holding individual employee may assert unexhausted retaliation claim if the later claim is reasonably related to the allegations in the employees timely filed charge B. holding sexual harassment claim was not like or related to retaliation allegations and therefore was outside the scope of the administrative charge C. recognizing that a claim is administratively exhausted if it is specifically stated in grows out of or is reasonably related to the substance of the allegations in an administrative charge or complaint D. holding that regarded as claim is reasonably related to claim of discrimination on the basis of disability alleged in eeoc charge E. holding that retaliation claim was reasonably related to prior sex discrimination claim

assistant: The best answer is A. holding individual employee may assert unexhausted retaliation claim if the later claim is reasonably related to the allegations in the employees timely filed charge
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: you may post reviews , comments , photos , videos , and other content ; send e-cards and other communications ; and submit suggestions , ideas , comments , questions , or other information , so long as the content is not illegal , obscene , threatening , defamatory , invasive of privacy , infringing of intellectual property rights ( including publicity rights ) , or otherwise injurious to third parties or objectionable , and does not consist of or contain software viruses , political campaigning , commercial solicitation , chain letters , mass mailings , or any form of `` spam '' or unsolicited commercial electronic messages .

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if the arbitrator issues you an award that is greater than the value of our last written settlement offer made before an arbitrator was selected ( or if we did not make a settlement offer before an arbitrator was selected ) , then we will pay you the amount of the award or usd 5,000 , whichever is greater , and pay your legal adviser , if any , the amount of legal fees incurred , and reimburse any expenses ( including expert witness fees and costs ) that you or your legal adviser reasonably accrue for investigating , preparing and pursuing your claim in arbitration .

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: Upon the expiration of the Standstill Period in accordance with Section 2(a), this Agreement will immediately and automatically terminate and no Party shall have any further right or obligation under this Agreement; provided that Sections 3 and 9 through 14 shall survive any termination of this Agreement.

assistant: Terminations
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 Advisory Period may be terminated (i) by the Company solely for Cause (as defined in Section 4(a)) or upon the material breach by Executive of his obligations under Section 6 or 7, (ii) due to Executive’s death or Disability (within the meaning of Section 4(b)) or (iii) by Executive for any reason (and shall be deemed to have terminated voluntarily upon his commencement of full-time employment with any employer other than the Company and its affiliates).

assistant: Terminations
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: uber may , in uber 's sole discretion , permit you from time to time to submit , upload , publish or otherwise make available to uber through the services textual , audio , and/or visual content and information , including commentary and feedback related to the services , initiation of support requests , and submission of entries for competitions and promotions ( `` user content '' ) .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If (i) the Servicer makes a deposit into the Collection Account in respect of an Interest Collection or Principal Collection of a Loan Asset and such Interest Collection or Principal Collection was received by the Servicer in the form of a check that is not honored for any reason or (ii) the Servicer makes a mistake with respect to the amount of any Interest Collection or Principal Collection and deposits an amount that is less than or more than the actual amount of such Interest Collection or Principal Collection, the Servicer shall appropriately adjust the amount subsequently deposited into the Collection Account to reflect such dishonored check or mistake. Any Scheduled Payment in respect of which a dishonored check is received shall be deemed not to have been paid.

assistant: Adjustments
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: Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, all notices and other communications provided for hereunder shall be in writing (including by facsimile transmission). All such written notices shall be mailed, faxed or delivered, to the applicable address, facsimile number or (subject to subsection (c) below) electronic mail address, specified for such Person on Schedule 10.02 or to such other address, facsimile number, or electronic mail address as shall be designated by such party in a notice to the other parties. All such notices and other communications shall be deemed to be given or made upon the earlier to occur of (i) actual receipt by the relevant party hereto and (ii) (A) if delivered by hand or by courier, upon delivery; (B) if delivered by mail, four Business Days after deposit in the mails, postage prepaid; (C) if delivered by facsimile, when sent and the sender has received electronic confirmation of error free receipt; and (D) if delivered by electronic mail (which form of delivery is subject to the provisions of subsection (c) below), when delivered; provided, however, that notices and other communications to Administrative Agent pursuant to Article II shall not be effective until actually received by Administrative Agent. In no event shall a phone call or voicemail message be effective as a notice, communication or confirmation hereunder. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary under this Agreement, any provision relating to any notices, requests and other communications to be made by Administrative Agent to any Borrower shall only be required to be made to one Borrower, and Administrative Agent shall only be required to rely on notices, requests and other communications from one Borrower on behalf of itself and the other Borrowers and not from all or any other Borrower.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: will fill in gaps where parties’ reasonable expectations are clear, but they cannot impose performance where it is not clear the parties had a meeting of the minds.”), reh’g denied (Sept. 29, 2014); Renaissance Alaska, 263 P.3d at 40 (“[T]he threshold inquiry in determining whether a case is an appropriate one for gap-filling is whether, in fact, there is an essential term or circumstance for which the parties failed to plan.” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)); Casey v. Semco Energy, Inc., 92 P.3d 379, 386 (Alaska 2004) (rejecting an argument “that the superior court should have read hew terms into the agreement in order to fill contractual gaps because we find that there were no contractual gaps to fill”); accord Davis v. Dykman, 938 P.2d 1002, 1007 (Alaska 1997) (<HOLDING>); cf. Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v. 538 Madison Options: A. holding that courts may fill gaps in contracts to ensure fairness where the reasonable expectations of the parties are clear B. holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims C. holding that the court was not bound by the parties agreement that contracts were unambiguous and holding that contracts were ambiguous D. holding that a contracts clause violation may support a 1983 claim E. holding payment in kind contracts are proceeds

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that courts may fill gaps in contracts to ensure fairness where the reasonable expectations of the parties are clear
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: conflict-free counsel, February 23, 2006, because the defendant was “unable to stand trial” during that entire period. The defendant counters that, although the time it took the court to dispose of the motions to withdraw and appoint new counsel should be excluded from the 180-day period, the time he was represented by each counsel must be included. We agree with the defendant. The parties agree that the period of time between the filing of the motions to withdraw and the appointment of new counsel should be excluded from the 180-day period. During this time period, the defendant was without counsel and, thus, “no action of consequence to the defendant c[ould have] occur[red] in the . . . case until the motion [wa]s resolved.” State v. Rieger, 695 N.W.2d 678, 687 (Neb. Ct. App. 2005) (<HOLDING>), rev’d on other grounds, 708 N.W.2d 630 (Neb. Options: A. recognizing conflict B. holding that delay resulting from defense counsels withdrawal based upon a conflict of interest was properly excluded from 180day time period C. holding that when defense counsel withdrew an objection to admission of evidence the defendant waived his right to a review of the courts ruling on appeal D. holding that where a defendant acquiesces in a continuance that time is excluded from the speedy trial calculation E. holding that delay when defense counsel withdrew because of conflict is excluded from iad time calculation

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that delay when defense counsel withdrew because of conflict is excluded from iad time calculation
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 Administrative Agent shall have received insurance certificates and endorsements satisfying the requirements of Section 6.5(c), 6.5(d), 6.5(e) and 6.5(f) .

assistant: Insurances
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: Until the expiration of the Standstill Period, SRS and the Company agree not to (and will cause any Persons acting on their behalf not to) make, or cause to be made (whether directly or indirectly), any public statement or any public announcement (including in any document filed with or furnished to the SEC or through the media), or any statement made by a senior investment officer of SRS to any stockholder or investor of the other party or any analyst, in each case which constitutes an ad hominem attack on, or otherwise disparages, the other party’s past, present or future directors, officers, partners, principals or employees. Nothing in this Section 6 shall be deemed to prevent either the Company or SRS from complying with its respective disclosure obligations under applicable law, legal process, subpoena, law, the rules of any stock exchange, or legal requirement or as part of a response to a request for information from any governmental authority with jurisdiction over the party from whom information is sought.

assistant: Non-Disparagement
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: Any dispute between the parties hereto arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be resolved in accordance with the procedures of the American Arbitration Association. Any resulting hearing shall be held in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. The resolution of any dispute achieved through such arbitration shall be binding and enforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties hereunder shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of New York (including Section 5-1401 and Section 5-1402 of the General Obligations law of the State of New York), without regard to conflicts or choice of law principles that would require application of the laws of another jurisdiction, and applicable United States federal law.

assistant: Governing Laws
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: plan in a workmen’s compensation award. Flowers v. Flowers, 118 Ariz. 577, 580, 578 P.2d 1006, 1009 (App.1978) (special concurring opinion). Consequently, the workmen’s compensation award received after dissolution of marriage for injuries received during marriage is the separate property of the worker. California and Texas treat workmen’s compensation benefits received during the marriage as community property and as separate property after the dissolution of the marriage. In re Marriage of McDonald, 52 Cal.App.3d 509, 125 Cal.Rptr. 160 (1975); Hicks v. Hicks, 546 S.W.2d 71 (Tex.Civ.App. 1976). We are aware that there are a number of recent court of appeals decisions regarding the nature of disability benefits received during marriage and after dissolution of marriage. P.2d 909 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Luna v. Luna, 125 Ariz. 120, 608 P.2d 57 Options: A. holding social security disability payments and military disability payments are separate property after dissolution of marriage B. holding veterans administration disability payments are separate property after dissolution of marriage C. holding military service disability payments are community property D. holding that money invested in voluntary investment plan during marriage was marital property because it was property acquired during marriage E. holding that post dissolution costofliving increases are marital property as they stemmed from employment during the marriage

assistant: The best answer is B. holding veterans administration disability payments are separate property after dissolution of marriage
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Court of Appeals noted petitioner’s failure to request specific instructions about his defense and his failure to object to the instruction when given the opportunity to do so. The Court of Appeals also ruled on the merits of petitioner’s claim. The Michigan Supreme Court then denied leave to appeal. Although petitioner subsequently raised the issue again in his motion for relief from judgment, the trial court declined to rule on the claim because the Court of Appeals had already addressed the issue. The state appellate courts declined to review petitioner’s collateral appeal. Thus, the last state court rendering a reasoned judgment on this issue denied relief, in part, because of the procedural default. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, — U.S. —, —, 111 S.Ct. 2590, 2595, 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991) (<HOLDING>); McBee v. Grant, 763 F.2d 811, 813 (6th Options: A. holding that in construing statute courts must first look to its plain language B. holding that orders remanding an action to a federal agency are generally not considered final appealable orders C. holding that a court must look through unexplained orders to the last reasoned decision D. holding that court of appeals statutory jurisdiction over final orders of removal extends to reinstatement orders E. holding that court must look to statutory definition of acc a predicate offenses

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a court must look through unexplained orders to the last reasoned decision
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: File is a routine background investigative file like the Government suggests, the file was not located in one of the FBI main files designated for such investi gations, such as the files for administrative matters, for special inquiries for the White House, or for the security clearance investigation program. Id. As the in camera review reveals, all of those features of the DeLoach Memorandum are reflective of the “highly unconventional” nature of the investigation at issue. By pointing out those features, and by presenting the Court with substantial external evidence of similar improper conduct by DeLoach and the Hoover FBI, Plaintiff has demonstrated that the allegation of improper conduct by the FBI is “more than a bare suspicion.” See Favish, 541 U.S. at 174, 124 S.Ct. 1570 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, despite the factual imbalance Options: A. holding that the only relevant public interest in disclosure is the extent to which disclosure would serve the core purpose of the foia which is contributing significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government B. holding that the disclosure is a public disclosure within the meaning of the fca if the the prior public disclosure contained enough information to enable the government to pursue an investigation against the defendant C. holding that when the public interest being asserted is to show that responsible officials acted negligently or otherwise improperly in the performance of their duties the requester must establish more than a bare suspicion in order to obtain disclosure D. holding that the presumption is that the trial court acted reasonably in sentencing and that the defendant must show some unreasonable or unjustifiable basis in the record that amounts to an abuse of discretion E. holding that a claim for abuse of process requires a plaintiff to show that the defendants acted with intent to do harm without excuse or justification in order to obtain a collateral objective that is outside the legitimate ends of the process

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that when the public interest being asserted is to show that responsible officials acted negligently or otherwise improperly in the performance of their duties the requester must establish more than a bare suspicion in order to obtain disclosure
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 Indiana Federation of Dentists,” including the quick look approach and the rule of reason). Applying the quick look approach, the FTC first concluded that the conduct was “inherently suspect” because “[t]he challenged conduct is, at its core, concerted action excluding a lower-cost and popular group of competitors,” id. at *25, and “[n]o advanced degree in economics is needed to recognize” that the behavior “is likely to harm competition and consumers, absent a compelling justification,” id. at *26. We affirm the FTC’s mode of analysis and find that its conclusion that the Board’s behavior was likely to cause significant anticompetitive harms is supported by substantial evidence. See Fashion Originators’ Guild of Am., Inc. v. FTC, 312 U.S. 457, 465, 61 S.Ct. 703, 85 L.Ed. 949 (1941) (<HOLDING>); Nw. Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pac. Options: A. holding that as a general rule the prosecution is entitled to prove its case by evidence of its own choice B. holding that the governments lack of direct evidence as to defendants knowledge does not demonstrate that its case was baseless C. holding that direct evidence of a fact is not necessary and that circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient but may also be more certain satisfying and persuasive D. holding that manufacturers boycott of certain retailers has both as its necessary tendency and as its purpose and effect the direct suppression of competition E. holding that a contract was implied where the special employer allowed the claimant to come onto its premises use its equipment and participate in its show under its direction

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that manufacturers boycott of certain retailers has both as its necessary tendency and as its purpose and effect the direct suppression of competition
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: States, 669 F.Supp.2d 32, 44 (D.D.C.2009); see also Gardner v. United States, 213 F.3d 735, 737 n. 1 (D.C.Cir.2000) (“Mr. Gardner’s defamation claim against the United States is barred, because suits for libel or slander are prohibited under the Federal Tort Claims Act.”). Therefore, the plaintiffs defamation and misrepresentation claims are dismissed for this independent basis. Moreover, with respect to the plaintiffs DCHRA claims, “[t]he D.C. Council, not Congress, enacted the DCHRA, and there is no federal statute that evinces Congress’s intent to waive the United States’ immunity from suit under the DCHRA.” Marcus, 813 F.Supp.2d at 17. Accordingly, the plaintiffs DCHRA claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See id.\ see also Jordan v. Evans, 404 F.Supp.2d 28, 31 (D.D.C.2005) (<HOLDING>). IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Options: A. holding that sovereign immunity barred a wrongful death claim against the board and stating that the only question is whether the boards sovereign immunity protection was waived emphasis added B. holding that sovereign immunity bars an attorneys lien against the united states C. holding that sovereign immunity bars dchra claim against the department of commerce D. holding that state sovereign immunity bars state constitutional claims E. holding that sovereign immunity barred claim for compensatory sanctions against the government

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that sovereign immunity bars dchra claim against the department of commerce