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 following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 359 U.S. 115 79 S.Ct. 721 3 L.Ed.2d 673 Jerome S. SPEVACK, petitioner,v.Lewis L. STRAUSS et al. No. 339. Supreme Court of the United States March 23, 1959 Messrs. Carleton U. Edwards II, and Joseph Y. Houghton (Mr. Bernard Margolius, on the brief), for petitioner. Mr. Leonard B. Sand (Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Doub, Messrs. Samuel D. Slade, Lionel Kestenbaum, Loren K. Olson and Roland A. Anderson, on the brief), for respondents. 1 Messrs. Elisha Hanson, Arthur B. Hanson and Calvin H. Cobb, Jr., for the American Chemical Society, as amici curiae. 2 Messrs. Carlton S. Dargusch and Carlton S. Dargusch, Jr., for Engineers Joint Council, Inc., as amici curiae. 3 On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 4 Former opinion, 358 U.S. 871, 79 S.Ct. 112; 79 S.Ct. 577. 5 PER CURIAM. 6 Upon oral argument, it appeared that in the normal course the fee for petitioner's United States patent must be paid by May 25, 1959, and that the patent will issue shortly after payment of the fee. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the District Court and that court is instructed: (1) If petitioner has by May 25, 1959, paid the patent fee for his patent, and has not requested a suspension or delay in the issuance thereof, or has withdrawn any such request theretofore made, to continue the case and the restraining orders entered herein by The Chief Justice until the patent issues, and then to dismiss the complaint as moot; (2) otherwise, on May 25, 1959, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that, apart from the eri ts of the controversy, the grant of the extraordinary equitable relief of an injunction at that stage of the proceedings would not be warranted. Upon the fulfillment of either of these conditions, the proceedings heretofore had in the two lower courts are vacated.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: acts are more appropriately discussed within our analysis of the doctrine of qualified public official immunity. 18 . Our critique of the analysis performed by the Court of Special Appeals in Rice and Tucker is limited to the court's endorsement of an incorrect test for determining the application of absolute judicial immunity; it does not reach other aspects of those opinions. 19 . In this regard, the position of a eourl-appointed trustee is similar to that of a court-appointed master. We stated in State v. Wiegmann, 350 Md. 585, 714 A.2d 841 (1998), that "[a] master is not a judicial officer, and the Maryland Constitution does not vest a master with any judicial powers.” Wiegmann, 350 Md. at 593, 714 A.2d at 845 (citing In re Anderson, 272 Md. 85, 106, 321 A.2d 516, 527 (1974) (<HOLDING>)). We observed in In re Marcus 405 Md. 221, 950 Options: A. holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence B. holding that a masters findings do not become binding until approved by a judge of the court to which he reports C. holding corporate officer liable as aider and abettor in filing of false reports even though reports were not authorized or approved of by officers D. holding that an unapproved settlement agreement is binding on the parties even though not yet approved by the court E. holding that findings by the trial judge are considered binding on appeal when supported by adequate substantial and credible evidence

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a masters findings do not become binding until approved by a judge of the court to which he reports
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: accommodating these often opposing interests. Requiring more would unduly hamper law enforcement. To allow less would be to leave law-abiding citizens at the mercy of the officers’ whim or caprice. Id. (quotation omitted). Thus, probable cause represents an accommodation between the “opposing interests” of police officers and criminal suspects, id., the same interests that we must balance here. Rather than require something beyond probable cause — the “reasonable investigation” Lahm demands — we have long held that probable cause is sufficient grounds for an arrest. We reached a similar decision in a different context when we determined that municipal police officers are shielded from common law tort claims by official immunity. See Everitt v. Gen. Elec. Co., 156 N.H. 202, 219 (2007) (<HOLDING>). We noted in Everitt that the doctrine of Options: A. holding that municipal police officers are immune from personal liability for decisions acts or omissions that are 1 made within the scope of their official duties while in the course of their employment 2 discretionary rather than ministerial and 3 not made in a wanton or reckless manner B. holding that police officers were not entitled to immunity under the itca law enforcement immunity provision where the officers violated their statutory duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all individuals while acting within the scope of their employment C. holding that notice statute applies to both municipal entities and employees of municipal entities acting within the scope of their employment D. holding that statement is admission by partyopponent if made by partys agent or servant concerning matter within course and scope of the agency or employment and made during existence of agency or employment relationship E. holding that a state official can be held individually hable under 1983 for acts taken within the scope of his or her official duties

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that municipal police officers are immune from personal liability for decisions acts or omissions that are 1 made within the scope of their official duties while in the course of their employment 2 discretionary rather than ministerial and 3 not made in a wanton or reckless manner
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: Effective as of the Amendment Closing Date, (a) the Existing Credit Agreement is hereby amended by this Eighth Amendment Agreement and for ease of reference restated (after giving effect to this Eighth Amendment Agreement) in the form of Annex A hereto (the Existing Credit Agreement, as so amended by this Eighth Amendment Agreement, being referred to as the “ Amended Credit Agreement ”), (b) Schedules 2.01, 6.10, 6.13, 6.20(a), 6.20(b), 8.01, 8.02 and 8.03 to the Existing Credit Agreement are hereby amended to read as provided on Schedules 2.01 , 6.10 , 6.13 , 6.17 , 6.20(a) , 6.20(b) , 8.01 , 8.02 and 8.03 attached hereto, and (c) Exhibit E to the Existing Credit Agreement is hereby amended to read as provided on Exhibit E attached hereto. Except as expressly set forth above and therein, all Schedules and Exhibits to the Existing Credit Agreement will continue in their present forms as Schedules and Exhibits to the Amended Credit Agreement.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of stay solely because of § 214.1(c)(4), which disallowed extensions of stay to non-immigrant Iranian students. Nothing in the record indicates that the District Director refused to grant Abedi-Tajrishi’s application for an extension of stay, or treated her differently from other aliens in some way, simply because she was an Iranian national. See Ghajar v. INS, 652 F.2d 1347, 1349 (9th Cir.1981). The record does indicate, however, that Abedi-Tajrishi’s application for an extension of stay was not timely filed. Even though no reason for the denial was given, the District Director may have denied her application because of lack of timeliness. Before we can properly review the District Director’s decision, a factual record must be developed. See also Tooloee, 722 F.2d at 1439 n. 8 (<HOLDING>). Petitioner must apply to the district court Options: A. holding that substantial compliance with the requirements for maintaining nonimmigrant student status under 8 cfr 2142f does not constitute substantial compliance with the requirements for obtaining an extension of stay under 8 cfr 2141c B. holding that substantial compliance with the requirements for exempting a lessors personal property from a lien is not enough C. holding factual record necessary to determine if petitioners claim of substantial compliance with various requirements treated differently when asserted by iranian nationals D. holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient E. holding that substantial compliance is sufficient to satisfy the notice requirements of sdcl 3212 and 3

assistant: The best answer is C. holding factual record necessary to determine if petitioners claim of substantial compliance with various requirements treated differently when asserted by iranian nationals
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 court should remand for a new trial on damages only. We agree that damages, if any, arising from Ms. Wilson’s bad faith claim should have been considered by the jury as a part of damages incurred by St. Paul as a result of Mr. Martin’s and Club Services’ negligence. The district court relied primarily on two cases establishing that, in Oklahoma, agents like Mr. Martin and Club Services cannot be hable for breach of the covenant of fair dealing. See Hays v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 105 F.3d 583, 590 (10th Cir.1997) (“Under Oklahoma law, the alleged knowledge and acts of the agent at the time of the application [are] not imputed to the principal for purposes of determining whether the principal acted in bad faith.”); Timmons v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 653 P.2d 907, 912 (Okla.1982) (<HOLDING>). We agree with the district court that Mr. Options: A. holding that an agent as a stranger to an insurance contract cannot be held to breach an implied covenant of fair dealing B. holding that a duty of good faith and fair dealing is implied in insurance contracts in pennsylvania and allows for the award of compensatory damages pursuant to a breach of contract claim in a first party insurance case explaining that the difference between first and third party claims does not matter to the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing C. holding that assumption of defense cannot be basis for claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing where contract had been rescinded D. recognizing that evidence of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing may support punitive damages E. holding that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is limited to performance under a contract

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an agent as a stranger to an insurance contract cannot be held to breach an implied covenant of fair dealing
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any part of this Agreement, with the exception of Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 14, is held by any tribunal of appropriate jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, that part shall be stricken from this Agreement and all other terms of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the full extent permitted by law. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 14 are the essence of this Agreement and should any part of these paragraphs be deemed invalid or unenforceable, this Agreement shall be null and void and any consideration received under this Agreement shall be returned to Employer.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: complies with applicable regulations must be approved as a matter of right. II. PTL also argues that the board of commissioners lacked legal authority to reject its application for preliminary-plat approval of a permissible land use on the basis that the preliminary plat failed to implement the goals and policies of the county’s comprehensive guide plan. We agree. Compatibility with the public’s health, safety, and general welfare of the local government’s comprehensive land-use plan is an appropriate consideration in approving an application for a conditional use. See Minn.Stat. § 394.22, subd. 7 (2002) (defining conditional use as use that may be allowed on finding that it conforms to county’s comprehensive plan); Hubbard Broad., Inc. v. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757, 763 (Minn.1982) (<HOLDING>); SuperAmerica Group, 539 N.W.2d at 267 Options: A. holding that city councils determination that proposed use was inconsistent with comprehensive plan justified denial of specialuse permit B. holding that provision in comprehensive plan requiring developer to demonstrate that proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plans general intent and purpose was unreasonably vague subjective and did not furnish ground for denial of specialuse permit C. holding that reliance on comprehensive plan as basis for denying conditionaluse permit was improper where zoning ordinance did not list compliance with comprehensive plan as basis for denial D. holding that refusal to zone in accordance with comprehensive plan is evidence that citys action was arbitrary E. holding that disability provision in comprehensive retirement plan constituted a welfare plan

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that city councils determination that proposed use was inconsistent with comprehensive plan justified denial of specialuse permit
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: As of the Closing Date, the Borrower and its Subsidiaries, on a consolidated basis, are, and after giving effect to the incurrence of all Loans and Obligations being incurred in connection herewith will be, Solvent.

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: The Bank hereby agrees to employ Employee, and Employee hereby agrees to serve as an officer of both the Bank and the Company, all upon the terms and conditions stated herein. As an officer of the Bank and the Company, Employee will (i) serve as Executive Vice President and Chief Banking Officer, and (ii) have such other duties and responsibilities, and render to the Bank and the Company such other management services, as are customary for persons in Employee’s position or as shall otherwise be reasonably assigned to him from time to time by the Bank and/or the Company. Employee shall faithfully and diligently discharge his duties and responsibilities under this Agreement and shall use his best efforts to implement the policies established by the Bank and the Company. Employee agrees to devote such number of hours of his working time and endeavors to the employment granted hereunder as the parties hereto shall deem to be necessary to discharge his duties hereunder, and, for so long as employment hereunder shall exist, Employee shall not engage in any other occupation which requires a significant amount of Employee’s personal attention during the Bank’s regular business hours or which otherwise interferes with Employee’s attention to or performance of his duties and responsibilities as an officer of the Bank and the Company except with the prior written consent of the Bank or the Company. However, nothing herein contained shall restrict or prevent Employee from personally, and for Employee’s own account, trading in stocks, bonds, securities, real estate or other forms of investment for Employee’s own benefit so long as said activities do not interfere with Employee’s attention to or performance of his duties and responsibilities as an officer of the Bank and the Company, and provided further, that such activities do not amount, in the Bank’s sole discretion, to direct competition with the Bank.

assistant: Employment
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: v. Weitzel, 27 Ariz. 117, 230 P. 1106 (1924), for the proposition that a debt owed by a non-Arizona corporation was located here because the corporation was subject to Arizona service. But Weitzel was decided half a century before Shaffer, and expressly relied on the Harris fiction. Id. at 121, 230 P. 1106, 230 P. at 1107. Moreover, Weitzel involved a post-judgment garnishment. In such circumstances, the defendant’s liability has already been established. The relevant jurisdictional analysis in such eases properly focuses on whether the garnishee is subject to the specific or general jurisdiction of the forum state, not whether the intangible res is located there under the Harris fiction. See State ex rel. Dep’t of Rev. v. Control Data Corp., 300 Or. 471, 713 P.2d 30, 32 (1986) (<HOLDING>); see also Shaffer, 433 U.S. at 210 n. 36, 97 Options: A. holding that garnishment is a distinct civil action B. holding that a garnishment proceeding is an action against the consumer C. holding without resort to the harris fiction that a postjudgment garnishment could reach wages owed to the judgment debtor in the hands of control data a third party that unquestionably is present in oregon D. holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant E. holding that garnishment of wages is a deprivation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding without resort to the harris fiction that a postjudgment garnishment could reach wages owed to the judgment debtor in the hands of control data a third party that unquestionably is present in oregon
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 Guaranty shall not terminate until such time, if any, as (i) all Obligations shall be finally and irrevocably paid in full in cash, (ii) no Notes shall remain outstanding, (iii) all commitments to lend under the Purchase Agreement shall have terminated and (iv) there shall exist no other outstanding payment or reimbursement obligations (other than contingent indemnification obligations for which no claims shall have been asserted) of the Borrower or the Guarantors to the Agent under any of the Transaction Documents. Thereafter, but subject to the following, Agent, on its behalf and as agent for Purchasers, shall take such action and execute such documents as the Guarantors may request (and at the Guarantors’ cost and expense) in order to evidence the termination of this Guaranty. Payment of all of the Obligations the owing from time to time shall not operate as a discontinuance of this Guaranty. Each Guarantor further agrees that, to the extent that any Company makes a payment or payments to Purchasers or Agent on the Obligations, or Purchasers or Agent receive any proceeds of collateral securing the Obligations or any other payments with respect to the Obligations, which payment or receipt of proceeds or any part thereof is subsequently invalidated, declared to be fraudulent or preferential, set aside or required to be returned or repaid to any Company, its estate, trustee, receiver, debtor in possession or any other person or entity, including, without limitation, the Guarantors, under any insolvency or bankruptcy law, state or federal law, common law or equitable cause, then to the extent of such payment, return or repayment, the obligation or part thereof which has been paid, reduced or satisfied by such amount shall be reinstated and continued in full force and effect as of the date when such initial payment, reduction or satisfaction occurred, and this Guaranty shall continue in full force notwithstanding any contrary action which may have been taken by any Purchaser or Agent in reliance upon such payment, and any such contrary action so taken shall be without prejudice to any Purchaser’s or Agent’s rights under this Guaranty and shall be deemed to have been conditioned upon such payment having become final and irrevocable.

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: No Borrower is a party to any agreement or instrument or subject to any restriction which might materially and adversely affect any Borrower, any Property, the Collateral, or such Borrower’s business, properties or assets, operations or condition, financial or otherwise. No Borrower is in default with respect to any order or decree of any court or any order, regulation or demand of any Governmental Authority, which default might have consequences that would materially and adversely affect the condition (financial or other) or operations of such Borrower or its properties or might have consequences that would adversely affect its performance hereunder. No Borrower is in default in any material respect in the performance, observance or fulfillment of any of the obligations, covenants or conditions contained in any Permitted Encumbrance or any other agreement or instrument to which it is a party or by which it or any Property is bound.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of any cause or claim under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(4). This Circuit has expressly held that the above provision of the REAL ID Act eliminates habeas jurisdiction over FARR Act claims. Kiyemba v. Obama, 561 F.3d 509, 511 (D.C.Cir.2009), reh’g denied (July 27, 2009), r Cir.2007) (distinguishing St. Cyr on the grounds that there existed “a plausible reading of the statutes before the [Supreme] Court under which habeas review ... was not barred,” whereas § 2242(d) clearly precluded “consideration of CAT and FARR Act claims on habeas review”); see also O.K. v. Bush, 377 F.Supp.2d 102, 118 n. 17 (D.D.C.2005) (<HOLDING>); Al-Anazi v. Bush, 370 F.Supp.2d 188, 194 Options: A. holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand B. holding that the farr act is expressly limited to claims arising out of a final order of removal and does not confer any legal rights outside of the removal setting C. holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct D. holding that a final order of removal is sufficient by itself to establish the requisite custody E. holding that term order of removal does not include aliens ineffective assistance of counsel claim concerning attorneys actions taken after order of removal becomes final

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the farr act is expressly limited to claims arising out of a final order of removal and does not confer any legal rights outside of the removal setting
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement, and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral, among the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement is not intended, and shall not be deemed, to confer any rights or remedies upon any person other than the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns or to otherwise create any third-party beneficiary hereto. This Agreement shall not be effective unless and until (i) the Company Board of Directors has voted to approve the Merger Agreement, (ii) the Merger Agreement is executed by all the parties thereto, and (iii) this Agreement is executed by all the parties hereto.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All communications hereunder will be in writing and effective only on receipt, and, if sent to the Representatives, will be mailed, delivered or telefaxed to Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, 1585 Broadway, New York, NY 10036, Attention: Convertible Debt Syndicate Desk, with a copy to the Legal Department, and Barclays Capital Inc., 745 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019, Attention: Syndicate Registration, Facsimile: (646) 834-8133; or, if sent to the Company, will be mailed, delivered or telefaxed to 408-317-0310 and confirmed to it at 1 Wayside Road, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803, attention of the Legal Department with a copy to Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, 1700 K Street, NW Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20006, telefax 212-999-5899, Attention: Robert Sanchez.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: A Participant's Plan Termination Benefit shall be the benefit in paragraph (1) below prior to the Participant's Separation from Service. Upon the Participant's Separation from Service, it shall be the benefit in paragraph (2) below unless prior to Separation from Service, the Participant has applied in writing to receive the benefit in paragraph (1) below in lieu of the benefit in paragraph (2) below and the Committee has approved such request; provided that no such request shall become effective until 12 months after the date it is received by the Committee.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each capitalized term which is defined in the Credit Agreement, but which is not defined in this Eighth Amendment, shall have the meaning ascribed such term in the Credit Agreement. Unless otherwise indicated, all article, section and exhibit references in this Eighth Amendment refer to articles, sections and exhibits of the Credit Agreement.

assistant: Defined Terms
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: Board of Review and Best International Green Film at Berlin’s Cinema for Peace. See Berlinger Decl. ¶ 18. 27 . Mastro Decl. Ex. G, at 1. 28 . Berlinger Decl. ¶ 33. 29 . Mastro Decl. Ex. G, at 2. 30 . Id. Ex. G, at 3. 31 .Id. Ex. G, at 4. 32 . Chevron Mem. at 3. 33 . Id. 34 . 28 U.S.C. § 1782. 35 . Schmitz v. Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 376 F.3d 79, 83 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting In ers granting Chevron § 1782 applications). 53 . No. M-19-70, 2009 WL 3754191 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2009). 54 . Id. at *1. 55 . 28 U.S.C. § 1782. 56 . Gonzales v. Nat'l Broadcasting Co., 194 F.3d 29, 32 (2d Cir.1999); see also von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 142 (2d Cir.1987). 57 . Gonzales, 194 F.3d at 35. 58 . Chevron Reply Mem. at 10. 59 . von Bulow, 811 F.2d at 142; see Gonzales, 194 F.3d at 35 (<HOLDING>). 60 . Gonzales, 194 F.3d at 36. Under In re Options: A. recognizing privilege under federal rules B. holding that there is no statutory deliberative process privilege in arizona and declining to create such a privilege under the common law C. holding that journalists privilege attached to nbc dateline footage D. recognizing privilege E. holding that production of documents without a claim of privilege waives the right to later claim that privilege

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that journalists privilege attached to nbc dateline footage
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All Taxes levied on account of a payment pursuant to this Agreement will be subject to the withholding and remittance provisions of Section 8.12 (Withholding). Except as otherwise provided, each Party will be responsible for its own taxes, fees, duties or similar amounts levied on account of any payments made to it under this Agreement.

assistant: Taxes
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: Cir.2005). The undisputed evidence in this case reveals that neither Arbaney, Lakey, nor Couch was similarly situated to Ramon. Ramon was younger and not as close to being eligible for retirement as were Arbaney and Lakey, and there is no evidence that Continental uncovered any wrongdoing by Couch. These differences between Ramon’s situation and that of her comparators justified the differential treatment, and Ramon cannot demonstrate that she was “similarly situated” to them. See Wyvill v. United Cos. Life Ins.. Co., 212 F.3d 296, 305 (5th Cir.2000) (affirming summary judgment where “the striking differences between the two men’s situations more than account for the different treatment they received”); see also Nelson v. Gen. Elec. Co., 2 Fed. Appx. 425 (6th Cir.2001) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>); Thomas v. Hilts, No. 224690, 2002 WL 234757, Options: A. holding that plaintiff was not similarly situated to another employee who also engaged in protected activity for purposes of plaintiffs retaliation claim B. holding that a similarly situated employee is one who is comparable to plaintiff in all material respects C. holding that employee who violated a different policy of the store than plaintiff was not similarly situated D. holding that potential class members are similarly situated to the named plaintiffs if they are similarly situated with respect to their job requirements and pay provisions E. holding that younger employee not similarly situated to older employee who committed similar infraction and was allowed to remain on job for a few extra months and obtain retirement eligibility

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that younger employee not similarly situated to older employee who committed similar infraction and was allowed to remain on job for a few extra months and obtain retirement eligibility
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: harsher than he hoped when he committed the crime. [Id. at 952.] [I]f the Justice Department issues guidelines for the enforcement of a federal statute that it administers (as it did in the 1984 Department of Justice Merger Guidelines, for example), this is the performance of an interpretive function that every law enforcement agency has; it is not the enactment of a law____ If the law is unchanged and no legislative regulations are promulgated, a mere change in enforcement methods, priorities, or policies, written or unwritten-a change within the scope of the executive branch’s discretion in enforcing the laws passed by Congress-does not activate the prohibition against ex post facto laws. [Id. at 954 (citations omitted).] See also, Shabazz v. Gabry, 123 F.3d 909, 916 (6th Cir.1997), (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1120, 118 S.Ct. 1061, Options: A. holding that an employee accepted as a matter of law changes to an employment agreement by continuing employment with the company after he received notice of the changes B. holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony of two witnesses that confirmed but did not elaborate upon the victims testimony would have had only minor impact on the jury because there was little to undermine the victims credibility C. recognizing impact of child support guidelines D. holding that no liberty interest was implicated where the public reason for employees dismissal was that their services did not meet the expectations of the public employer E. holding that changes in the administration and enforcement of statutes have little impact on public expectations

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that changes in the administration and enforcement of statutes have little impact on public expectations
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 any amendments, waivers, consents or supplements hereto may be executed in counterparts (and by different parties hereto in different counterparts), each of which shall constitute an original, but all taken together shall constitute a single contract. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page to this Agreement by facsimile or in electronic (i.e., “pdf” or “tif”) format shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Agreement. This Agreement and the Royalty Interest Purchase Agreement constitute the entire contract among the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede all previous agreements and understandings, oral or written, with respect thereto.

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: Each of the Administrative Agent and the Lenders agrees to maintain the confidentiality of the Information (as defined below), except that Information may be disclosed (a) to its Affiliates and to its and its Affiliates’ respective managers, administrators, trustees, partners, directors, officers, employees, agents, advisors and other representatives (it being understood that the Persons to whom such disclosure is made will be informed of the confidential nature of such Information and instructed to keep such Information confidential), (b) to the extent requested by any regulatory authority purporting to have jurisdiction over it or its Affiliates (including any self-regulatory authority, such as the National Association of Insurance Commissioners), (c) to the extent required by applicable laws or regulations or by any subpoena or similar legal process, provided , however , that, except in the case of disclosure to bank regulators or examiners in accordance with customary banking practices, if legally permitted, written notice of each instance in which Information is required or requested to be disclosed shall be furnished to the Borrower not less than 30 days prior to the expected date of such disclosure or, if 30 days’ notice is not practicable under the circumstances, as promptly as practicable under the circumstances, (d) to any other party hereto, (e) in connection with the exercise of any remedies hereunder or any action or proceeding relating to this Agreement or the enforcement of rights hereunder, (f) subject to an agreement containing provisions substantially the same as those of this Section 9.19, to (i) any assignee of or participant in, or any prospective assignee of or participant in, any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement or (ii) any actual or prospective party (or its managers, administrators, trustees, partners, directors, officers, employees, agents, advisors and other representatives) to any swap or derivative or similar transaction under which payments are to be made by reference to the Borrower and its obligations, this Agreement or payments hereunder, (iii) any rating agency, or (iv) the CUSIP Service Bureau or any similar organization, (g) with the consent of the Borrower or (h) to the extent such Information (x) becomes publicly available other than as a result of a breach of this Section or (y) becomes available to the Administrative Agent or any Lender or any of their respective Affiliates on a nonconfidential basis from a source other than the Borrower. In addition, the Administrative Agent and the Lenders may disclose the existence of this Agreement and information about this Agreement to market data collectors, similar service providers to the lending industry and service providers to the Administrative Agent and the Lenders in connection with the administration of this Agreement and the other Loan Documents.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any portion or provision of this Agreement shall to any extent be declared illegal or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, then the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such portion or provision in circumstances other than those as to which it is so-declared illegal or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each portion and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.

assistant: Enforceability
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: money is incapable of being ‘described or identified in the same manner as a specific chattel’ ..., it is not the proper subject of a conversion action.” Id. (internal citation omitted). In its conversion cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s “intentional unauthorized use of coins ... resulted in loss and damage to the City of Syracuse[.]” See Dkt. No. 22 at ¶ 182. Plaintiff does not specifically allege how much money was allegedly converted by Defendant and, in its prayer for relief, simply requests a “[j]udgment against defendant!] for compensatory [damages], in an amount to be determined at trial.” This conclusory allegation is insufficient to support a claim for conversion. See In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Securities LLC, 458 B.R. 87, 133 (Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y.2011) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Plaintiff fails to allege that Options: A. holding prejudgment interest is to be determined on the entire amount of compensatory damages and then reduced by the amount of interest which would have accrued at present value on the settlement amount determined before trial B. recognizing that an action will lie for conversion of money when its identification is possible and there is an obligation to deliver the specific money in question or otherwise particularly treat the specific money C. holding that although the trial courts failure to determine amount of fees does not render underlying order nonfinal the fee award itself is not reviewable until the amount is determined D. holding that new york law did not preclude an arbitrators award of punitive damages despite a new york choice of law provision because there was no indication in the contract that the parties intended to limit their remedies in arbitration E. holding that because the complaint does not seek a specific amount of money converted from a particular account but rather an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial it fails to state a claim for conversion under new york law

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that because the complaint does not seek a specific amount of money converted from a particular account but rather an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial it fails to state a claim for conversion under new york 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: the alternative method of demonstrating scienter— motive — has not been established. Plaintiffs contend that the Andersen defendants were motivated to participate in the fraud because of personal gain. However, they have alleged no gain other than the fact that the Andersen firm was compensated for its professional services. It would defy common sense to hold that the motive element of the Beck scienter analysis would be satisfied merely by alleging the receipt of normal compensation for professional services rendered, because to do so would effectively abolish the requirement, as against professional defendants in a securities fraud action, of pleading facts which support a strong inference of scienter. Cf. Wilson v. Saintine Exploration and Drilling Corp., 872 F.2d 1124 (2d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Section 10(b) claim is Options: A. holding that a professional owes no duty to third persons unless the professional had actual knowledge that those persons would rely on his rendering of professional services B. holding professional malpractice claim not contractual C. holding that ijnsurance policies are contracts and as such they are to be enforced according to their provisions and ijnsurance companies must be able to rely on their statements of coverage exclusions disclaimers definitions and other provisions in order to receive the benefit of their bargain D. holding that professional defendants who merely perform their usual professional functions and receive their normal compensation are not liable under the draconian provisions of section 122 E. holding that 1 principal shareholder and chief executive officer of chapter 11 debtor in liquidation is not entitled to compensation beyond normal salary for performing duties required of the debtor 2 professional is a term which is not narrowly construed but applies to anyone the nature of whose services meet the criteria of a professional person 3 a professional license is not dispositive and 4 factors include form of compensation time of retention pre or postpetition and whether employment is full time or parttime

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that professional defendants who merely perform their usual professional functions and receive their normal compensation are not liable under the draconian provisions of section 122
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: at trial. Specifically, this Court “mandate[d] that trial courts make an independent pretrial determination of the accuracy of transcripts, and give a cautionary instruction to the jury regarding the limited use to be made of the transcript, prior to employment of these demonstrative aids during trial.” McCoy, 853 So.2d at 405. A trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to follow the McCoy mandates. Davis, 121 So.3d at 491. The claim that the trial court failed to make an independent pretrial determination of the accuracy of the transcript is preserved for review because Pasha argued in his motion to suppress that the transcript was “altered,” and this claim is fairly equivalent to a claim that the transcript is not “accurate.” See Wilcox v. State, 143 So.3d 359, 373 (Fla. 2014) (<HOLDING>). However, we find that any error in the Options: A. holding that although pro se litigants are entitled to liberal construction of their pleadings pro se litigants must follow procedural rules B. recognizing that courts generally afford pro se litigants leniency in technical matters C. holding that leniency should be accorded to pro se litigants when the defect in a complaint is merely procedural and there are potential grounds for relief D. recognizing that although pro se litigants are not entitled to greater rights than represented litigants due process principles permit the imposition of a procedural bar only after consideration of the pro se litigants reasonable expectations about what had occurred E. recognizing that courts freely grant pro se litigants leave to amend

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that courts generally afford pro se litigants leniency in technical matters
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: ... affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned.” 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (emphasis added). Third, because the Hobbs Act contains a jurisdictional element, Foster’s argument that the government has not shown the required nexus to interstate commerce is merely a challenge to the sufficiency of the government’s proof of an element of the offense, and not a challenge to the constitutionality of the statute. The Court’s holding in Lopez does not affect the interstate commerce requirements of the Hobbs Act, and therefore Lopez does not support Foster’s as applied constitutional challenge. See also United States v. Farmer, 73 F.3d 836, 843-44 (8th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). For the reasons stated, we conclude the Hobbs Options: A. holding after lopez that the interstate nexus element of the hobbs act still requires the government to show only a minimal connection to interstate commerce B. holding the limitations to congresss commerce clause authority recognized in lopez have no effect on the establishment of the interstate commerce element of the hobbs act C. holding that the government can satisfy the hobbs act interstate commerce requirement by showing that the robbery resulted in the closure of a business engaged in interstate commerce D. holding that the district court properly denied defendants motion to dismiss based upon a lack of jurisdiction when defendant challenged the interstate commerce element of the hobbs act E. holding the meaning of commerce element in a different federal statute the hobbs act to be a question of law

assistant: The best answer is B. holding the limitations to congresss commerce clause authority recognized in lopez have no effect on the establishment of the interstate commerce element of the hobbs act