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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of this Agreement that contemplate performance after the Closing and the obligations of the parties not fully performed at the Closing (other than any unfulfilled closing conditions which have been waived or deemed waived by the other party) shall survive the Closing and shall not be deemed to be merged into or waived by the instruments of Closing.

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 forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 784 (Tex.2005) (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958)); see Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). For the purpose of determining if a nonresident defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Texas, (1) only the defendant’s contacts with the forum are relevant, (2) the contacts must be purposeful rather than random, fortuitous, or attenuated, and (3) the defendant must seek some benefit, advantage, or profit by availing itself of the jurisdiction. Republic Drilling, 278 S.W.3d at 338-39; Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575 (<HOLDING>). A nonresident defendant cannot be subjected Options: A. recognizing that the necessary inquiry is not whether there was a warrant or whether there was time to get one but whether there was probable cause for the arrest B. recognizing there are three parts to a purposeful availment inquiry C. recognizing three exceptions to atwill doctrine D. holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim E. recognizing that a letter in which a defendant states that he is interested in three child pornographic videos might be considered an inquiry rather than an order

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing there are three parts to a purposeful availment inquiry
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 notices required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed effective upon (a) the date of receipt, if sent by personal delivery (including delivery by reputable overnight courier), or (b) the date of receipt or refusal, if deposited in the United States Post Office, by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested, or (c) the date of receipt if sent by e-mail PDF or facsimile transmission to the e-mail address or facsimile number of record of Executive or the Company, or at such other place as may from time to time be designated by either party in writing.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: an employer’s agent and thus a statutory “employer” for purposes of liability, are not personally liable under Title VII and similar state laws. Wathen, 115 F.3d at 405-06. Principal Rybak and Superintendent Schlachter admittedly were Pittman’s “superiors,” but they do not qualify as statutory “employers” for purposes of federal civil rights laws. There is also a limitation on what federal civil rights claims Pittman can bring against CVCC. As an arm of the State, CVCC is immune from claims brought by Pittman pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. CVCC’s immunity stems from the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. A plaintiff is precluded from directly suing a State in federal court on these claims. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 350, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979)(<HOLDING>); see also Hafford v. Seidner, 183 F.3d 506, Options: A. holding that 1983 does not override a states eleventh amendment immunity B. holding that congress did not intend to disturb the states eleventh amendment protection in passing 1983 C. holding that the tia does not abrogate states immunity under the eleventh amendment D. recognizing the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from suing a state E. holding that suits under 42 usc 1983 do not override state immunity

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that 1983 does not override a states eleventh amendment immunity
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: high speed, as Kluge did, “his vehicle has the potential to become a deadly or dangerous weapon.” Kendrick, 423 F.3d at 809. As the Fifth Circuit has noted, the risk of injury to others associated with police pursuits of fleeing suspects “appear[s] to be at least ‘roughly similar’ to that associated with arson,” one of the example crimes in § 4B1.2(a)(2). Harrimon, 568 F.3d at 537 (quoting Begay, 553 U.S. at 143, 128 S.Ct. 1581). Finally, unlike the Minnesota statute at issue in Tyler, Iowa’s fleeing statute only applies to those who “exceed[] the speed limit by twenty-five miles per hour or more.” Iowa Code § 321.279(3); see Tyler, 580 F.3d at 725 (“Neither high speed nor reckless driving is a statutory element of [Minnesota’s fleeing statute].”); see also Harrison, 558 F.3d at 1294 (<HOLDING>). Thus, we hold that eluding under section Options: A. holding that floridas fleeing crime does not involve a high level of risk of physical harm to others because neither high speed nor reckless driving is a statutory element B. holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims because the court may review neither criminal matters nor the decisions of district courts C. holding that the high level of similarity between the charged crime and prior bad acts necessary to prove common scheme or plan does not require evidence of common features to show a unique method of committing the crime D. holding that designation is neither a sentence nor a punishment E. holding that harassment or discrimination does not rise to the level of persecution under the ina unless it is accompanied by physical punishment infliction of harm or significant deprivation of liberty

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that floridas fleeing crime does not involve a high level of risk of physical harm to others because neither high speed nor reckless driving is a statutory element
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: but also provides the proper framework for analyzing the execution of state search warrants.” (quotation omitted)). 2 . The officers’ brief also suggests that police were involved in a shooting incident with one of Gould, Jr.'s brothers at Gould, Sr.’s home in 1991. The evidence in the record to support this assertion is scant. Furthermore, Gould points to evidence in the record to support his contention that the officers had no knowledge of this incident, if indeed it took place. Inasmuch as the qualified immunity question turns on this issue of fact (whether an incident took place at Gould’s home in 1991, and whether the officers in this case were aware of it), we are without jurisdiction to review it. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 311, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995) (<HOLDING>). WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, dissenting: Today Options: A. holding that defendant may not pursue interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immunity insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a genuine issue of fact for trial B. holding that the existence of genuine issues of material facts render not appealable a pretrial denial of summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity C. holding that an interlocutory appeal lies from a denial of summary judgment on a qualified immunity claim D. holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over statelaw tort claims on an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity E. holding in the context of the assertion of a qualified immunity defense that a trial courts summary judgment order that merely determines that the pretrial record sets forth a genuine issue of fact for trial does not meet the requirements of the federal collateral order doctrine

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that defendant may not pursue interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immunity insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a genuine issue of fact for trial
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: reasons. First, they raise it too late. When the government moved to stay discovery in the district court, the plaintiffs did not file an opposition. See D.P.R. Local Rule 311.5 (stating that “[i]f the respondent opposes a motion, he or she shall file a response within ten (10) days after service of the motion”). Nor did they present in their opposition to the dismissal motion any developed argumentation as to how additional discovery might advance their cause. Consequently, they forfeited the point. See United States v. Slade, 980 F.2d 27, 30 (1st Cir.1992) (“It is a bedrock rule that when a party has not presented an argument to the district court, she may not unveil it in the court of appeals.”); see also Sunview Condo. Ass’n v. Flexel Int’l, Ltd., 116 F.3d 962, 964 (1st Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). In all events, the plaintiffs have not shown Options: A. holding that plaintiffs who fail to preserve their rights below cannot appeal on the ground that they were denied jurisdictional discovery B. holding that while as a general matter discovery should be freely permitted j jurisdictional discovery is justified only if the plaintiff reasonably demonstrates that it can supplement its jurisdictional allegations through discovery C. holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal D. holding that the defendant objected to the evidence on only one ground thus he failed to preserve the additional grounds presented on appeal E. holding that because plaintiff has met defendants affidavit evidence with mere speculation plaintiffs request for jurisdictional discovery must be denied

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that plaintiffs who fail to preserve their rights below cannot appeal on the ground that they were denied jurisdictional discovery
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: See John Borland, File Swapping Shifts Up a Gear (May 27, 2003), available at http://news.com.com/2100-1026-1009742.html, (last visited December 2, 2003). Unlike Napster, which relied upon a centralized communication architecture to identify the .mp3 files available for download, the current generation of P2P file sharing programs allow an internet user to search directly the .mp3 file libraries of other users; no web site is involved. See Douglas Lichtman & William Landes, Indirect Liability for Copyright Infringement: An Economic Perspective, 16 Harv. J. Law & Tech. 395, 403, 408-09 (2003). To date, owners of copyrights have not been able to stop the use of these decentralized programs. See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 259 F.Supp.2d 1029 (C.D.Cal.2003) (<HOLDING>). The RIAA now has begun to direct its Options: A. holding that while the computer program at issue was within the subject matter of copyright the right sought under state law pursuant to a license was not equivalent to the exclusive rights under copyright as such copyright preemption did not apply B. holding grokster not eontributorily liable for copyright infringement by users of its p2p file sharing program C. holding that the plaintiff must prove that the end users directly infringed its patent in order to succeed on its claim of contributory infringement D. holding that conversion and unjust enrichment claims were preempted by the copyright act since they were not qualitatively different from a copyright claim because they contained no extra element beyond those necessary to show copyright infringement E. holding companies contributorily liable for copyright infringement for facilitating users transmissions of unauthorized digital copies of copyrighted works

assistant: The best answer is B. holding grokster not eontributorily liable for copyright infringement by users of its p2p file sharing program
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: Vesting of the Restricted Shares shall be subject to the Participant satisfying any applicable federal, state, local and foreign tax withholding obligations. The Company shall have the power and the right to deduct or withhold from all amounts payable to the Participant in connection with the Restricted Shares or otherwise, or require the Participant to remit to the Company, an amount sufficient to satisfy any applicable taxes required by law. Further, the Company may permit or require the Participant to satisfy, in whole or in part, the tax obligations by withholding shares of Common Stock upon vesting of the Restricted Shares.

assistant: Tax Withholdings
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 Lenders agree to indemnify the Agent (to the extent not reimbursed by the Borrower and without limiting its obligation to do so), ratably according to the respective principal amounts of the Advances then owed to each of them (or if no Advances are at the time outstanding, ratably according to the respective amounts of their Commitments), from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, actions, judgments, suits, costs, expenses or disbursements of any kind or nature whatsoever that may be imposed on, incurred by, or asserted against the Agent in any way relating to or arising out of this Agreement or any action taken or omitted by the Agent under this Agreement (collectively, the "Indemnified Costs"), provided that no Lender shall be liable for any portion of the Indemnified Costs resulting from the Agent's gross negligence or willful misconduct. Without limitation of the foregoing, each Lender agrees to reimburse the Agent promptly upon demand for its ratable share of any out-of-pocket expenses (including reasonable counsel fees) incurred by the Agent in connection with the preparation, execution, delivery, administration, modification, amendment or enforcement (whether through negotiations, legal proceedings or otherwise) of, or legal advice in respect of rights or responsibilities under, this Agreement, to the extent that the Agent is not reimbursed for such expenses by the Borrower. In the case of any investigation, litigation or proceeding giving rise to any Indemnified Costs, this Section 7.08 applies whether any such investigation, litigation or proceeding is brought by the Agent, any Lender or a third party.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the past sexual conduct of a victim or witness may not be admitted, except: (1) evidence of the victim’s or of a witness’s past sexual conduct with the defendant; (2) evidence which shows that some person other than the defendant committed the act upon which the prosecution is founded; (3) evidence that the victim's pregnancy at the time of trial was not caused by the defendant; or (4) evidence of conviction for a crime to impeach under Rule 609. 6 .The State argues that Oatts waived review of the trial court’s exclusion of this evidence because he did not file a motion proposing to offer this evidence pursuant to Ind. Evidence Rule 412(b)(1). We acknowledge a split on this court regarding whether Oatts waived this issue. Contrast Sallee v. State, 785 N.E.2d 645, 651 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (<HOLDING>), trans. denied; and Graham v. State, 736 Options: A. holding that the defendants failure to comply with ind evidence rule 412b precluded her from presenting evidence of the victims past sexual history and resulted in waiver of the issue on appeal B. holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue C. holding that the defendants failure to comply with the procedural mandate of ind evidence rule 412b was fatal to his attempt to introduce evidence of prior false rape allegations D. holding that plaintiffs failure to object to the improper comments of defendant during closing arguments resulted in waiver of plaintiffs right to argue the issue on appeal because the trial court was not given an opportunity to rule on the issue E. holding that defendants failure to appeal the voluntariness of a plea constitutes waiver of the issue on subsequent appeal

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the defendants failure to comply with ind evidence rule 412b precluded her from presenting evidence of the victims past sexual history and resulted in waiver of the issue on appeal
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 Revolving Line terminates on the Revolving Line Maturity Date, when the principal amount of all Advances, the unpaid interest thereon, any unpaid portion of the Revolving Line and all other Obligations relating to the Revolving Line shall be immediately due and payable.

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: All representations and warranties made under this Agreement and in any other Loan Document or other document delivered pursuant hereto or thereto or in connection herewith or therewith shall survive the execution and delivery hereof and thereof. Such representations and warranties have been or will be relied upon by Agent and each Lender, regardless of any investigation made by Agent or any Lender or on their behalf and notwithstanding that Agent or any Lender may have had notice or knowledge of any Default or Potential Default at the time of any Credit Extension, and shall continue in full force and effect as long as any Commitment remains in effect or any Loan, LC, or any other Obligation under this Agreement shall remain unpaid or unsatisfied.

assistant: Warranties
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: component of the res judicata doctrine. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the original criminal proceedings in Krahn were insufficient to invoke collateral estoppel in the later malpractice case because the claimed error by Krahn’s criminal lawyer in plea negotiations was not “ ‘actually and necessarily litigated and determined’ in the denial of her motion to vacate the criminal judgment against her.” Krahn, 43 Ohio St.3d at 108, 538 N.E.2d 1058, quoting Goodson v. McDonough Power Equip., Inc. (1983), 2 Ohio St.3d 193, 195, 2 OBR 732, 443 N.E.2d 978. The Supreme Court by no means suggested that collateral estoppel was completely inapplicable in the context of a criminal conviction when, as here, matters genuinely were litigated and determined. Id. at 107, 538 N.E.2d 1058 (<HOLDING>). Decisions in Ohio other than Krahn relative Options: A. recognizing the doctrine of collateral estoppel in agency proceedings B. holding that the facts prevent the invocation of collateral estoppel as a bar to krahns cause of action in this case C. holding collateral estoppel elements met considering changed circumstances in the context of an exception to the general rule of collateral estoppel D. recognizing the cause of action E. holding that collateral estoppel applies to 1983 claims

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the facts prevent the invocation of collateral estoppel as a bar to krahns cause of action in this case
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: participate in his detention or questioning. The Court finds that there are factual disputes regarding whether Kukowski participated in Nathan Smith’s detention and whether she allowed him to remain handcuffed in violation of his constitutional rights. The Court therefore believes that, based on the record before it, summary judgment on Nathan Smith’s claims against Kukowski is not appropriate. A. THERE IS A FACTUAL DISPUTE WHETHER KUKOWSKI PARTICIPATED IN NATHAN SMITH’S DETENTION AND QUESTIONING. As an initial matter, the Court notes that, in their Response, the Plaintiffs make no attempt to dispute Kukowski’s factual assertions that she did not hear, observe, or experience the detention of Nathan Smith in any way, that she did not speak to or question Nathan Smith, (8th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). “The district court has discretion to go Options: A. holding that the court has an affirmative obligation to ensure that it is acting within the scope of its jurisdictional authority B. holding that the district court has no affirmative obligation to plumb the record to procure material facts C. holding that a failure to advise even when the defendant has an affirmative obligation to do so is not the same as engaging in affirmative misconduct D. holding that the court had no obligation to search large record extract E. holding state has affirmative duty to disclose favorable and material evidence to defense

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the district court has no affirmative obligation to plumb the record to procure material facts
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: their legal duty of affirmative, reasonable care to Roque and the public, or to conclude that A.R.S. § 4-311(A) does not allow for consideration of the employees’ ameliorative acts as related to duty, the question, then, is whether the tavern’s act of serving alcohol to Roque and her consumption of the alcohol may be held to be a proximate cause of Patterson’s injury and property damage. See A.R.S. § 4-311(A); Herzberg, 49 Ariz. at 321, 66 P.2d at 257; Chavez v. Tolleson Elem. Sch. Dist., 122 Ariz. 472, 475, 595 P.2d 1017, 1020 (App.1979) (“The well-settled standard of liability is based upon a duty owed to the plaintiff and a breach of the duty which is the proximate cause of the injury.”); see also W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 42, at 273-74 (5th ed.1984) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 18 In Ontiveros, our supreme court stated Options: A. recognizing that limitations on the scope of a defendants liability may be analyzed under the rubric of proximate cause B. holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury C. holding proximate cause required for claim of breach of special duty D. holding where reasonable difference of opinion as to whether the defendants act was the or a proximate cause of the injury the matter is for the jury to decide E. holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that limitations on the scope of a defendants liability may be analyzed under the rubric of proximate cause
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 limitations in section 15(b)); Sonja A. Soehnel, Annotation, What Constitutes a Transaction, a Contract for Sale, or a Sale Within the Scope of UCC Article 2, 4 A.L.R.4th 85 (1981) (listing cases applying Article 2 to mixed sale-security contract actions in section 19(a) of the annotation, and cases declining to apply Article 2 in section 19(b)). The majority of jurisdictions applies Article 2 to such actions, reasoning “a deficiency suit is more closely related to the sales aspect of a combination sale and security interest than to the security aspect.” Richard H. Nowka, The Secured Party Fiddles While the Article 2 Statute of Limitations Clock Ticks — Why the Article 2 Statute of Limitations Should Not Apply to Deficiency Actions, 7 Fla. St. U. Bus. Rev. 1, 5 (2008); id. at 39 (<HOLDING>). Conversely, the minority of jurisdictions Options: A. holding that where the issue is one of arbitrability the federal presumption in favor of arbitration shifts to favor a court determination B. holding that when deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings the court must construe the material allegations in the complaint in favor of the nonmoving party as true C. recognizing that a court must balance the policy in favor of hearing a litigants claims on the merits with the policy in favor of finality D. recognizing the tally of cases deciding the issue is greatly in favor of applying article 2 E. recognizing the power of federal courts to decide cases is restricted by the cases and controversies clause of article iii

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing the tally of cases deciding the issue is greatly in favor of applying article 2
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 controversy, claim or dispute between the parties relating to Executive's employment or termination of employment, whether or not the controversy, claim or dispute arises under this Agreement (other than any controversy or claim arising under Section 7 or Section 8), shall be resolved by arbitration in New York County, New York, in accordance with the Employment Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (" Rules ") of the American Arbitration Association through a single arbitrator selected in accordance with the Rules. The decision of the arbitrator shall be rendered within thirty (30) days of the close of the arbitration hearing and shall include written findings of fact and conclusions of law reflecting the appropriate substantive law. Judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof in the State of New York. In reaching his or her decision, the arbitrator shall have no authority (a) to authorize or require the parties to engage in discovery (provided, however, that the arbitrator may schedule the time by which the parties must exchange copies of the exhibits that, and the names of the witnesses whom, the parties intend to present at the hearing), (b) to interpret or enforce Section 7 or Section 8 of the Agreement (for which Section 19 shall provide the sole and exclusive venue), (c) to change or modify any provision of this Agreement, (d) to base any part of his or her decision on the common law principle of constructive termination, or (e) to award punitive damages or any other damages not measured by the prevailing party's actual damages and may not make any ruling, finding or award that does not conform to this Agreement. Each party shall bear all of his or its own legal fees, costs and expenses of arbitration to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, and one-half (1/2) of the costs of the arbitrator.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: v. Douglas, No. Civ. 95-307 BB/DJS, slip op. at. 9-10 (Amended Order, February 14, 1996).) Rather than rejecting the existence of the privilege, Magistrate Svet properly concluded that the self-critical analysis privilege did not apply to a report prepared in anticipation of litigation. Finally, while a magistrate judge in the District of New Jersey roundly rejected the privilege in Spencer, he did so in the context of a discovery dispute over a report by the Plaintiff Bank’s loan review committee, not in light of the life saving discussions conducted during a morbidity and morality conference. 960 F.Supp. 835. Moreover, another magistrate judge in that district recognized the privilege only one year earlier. See Harding v. Dana Transport, Inc., 914 F.Supp. 1084, 1100 (D.N.J. 1996) (<HOLDING>). These authorities lend only limited support Options: A. holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law B. recognizing existence of selfcritical analysis privilege but finding it not applicable to protect investigative materials from discovery C. recognizing a selfcritical analysis privilege for materials related to hospital morbidity and mortality conferences D. recognizing privilege E. recognizing trial courts decision on discovery issues implies a finding that requested discovery was not reasonably available

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing existence of selfcritical analysis privilege but finding it not applicable to protect investigative materials from discovery
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: no margin for error — all flawed assumptions, see discussion infra part one, section IV), 15% of African Americans share those markers. 24 In fact, Cellmark did not stand by the technique with any sort of validation study and Dr. Word, the State's own expert, testified pretrial that the technique is only "sometimes possible" even when there are only two contributors to the mixture and is impossible when there are more than two contributors. She neglected to mention in what circumstances such analysis is possible. See discussion supra at 161-163, 699 A.2d at 617. 25 Additionally, this error might have prevented the penalty-phase jury's formation of "residual doubt" and thus influenced the death sentence meted out. See State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 172, 690 A.2d 1 (1997) {Marshall III) (<HOLDING>); State v. Harris, 141 N.J. 525, 580, 662 A.2d Options: A. recognizing concept of joint employer when separate entities share or eodetermine conditions of employment B. recognizing in union democracy context potential adverse impact of requiring candidates to qualify long before election C. recognizing impact of child support guidelines D. recognizing concept of residual doubt and its potential impact on penaltyphase delibera tions E. recognizing cause of action under section 504 based on claims of disparate impact

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing concept of residual doubt and its potential impact on penaltyphase delibera tions
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement, the Offered Units by the Company and the consummation by the Company of the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby will not (i) conflict with or result in a violation of any provision of the Certificate of Incorporation or By-laws, or (ii) violate or conflict with, or result in a breach of any provision of, or constitute a default (or an event which with notice or lapse of time or both could become a default) under, or give to others any rights of termination, amendment, acceleration or cancellation of, any agreement, indenture, patent, patent license or instrument to which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is a party, or (iii) result in a violation of any law, rule, regulation, order, judgment or decree (including federal and state securities laws and regulations and regulations of any self-regulatory organizations to which the Company or its securities are subject) applicable to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries or by which any property or asset of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is bound or affected (except for such conflicts, defaults, terminations, amendments, accelerations, cancellations and violations as would not, individually or in the aggregate, have a Material Adverse Effect). Neither the Company nor any of its Subsidiaries is in violation of its Certificate of Incorporation, By-laws or other organizational documents and neither the Company nor any of its Subsidiaries is in default (and no event has occurred which with notice or lapse of time or both could put the Company or any of its Subsidiaries in default) under, and neither the Company nor any of its Subsidiaries has taken any action or failed to take any action that would give to others any rights of termination, amendment, acceleration or cancellation of, any agreement, indenture or instrument to which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is a party or by which any property or assets of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is bound or affected. The Company and its Subsidiaries are unaware of any facts or circumstances which might give rise to any of the foregoing. There are no required consents, authorizations or orders of, or filings or registrations with, any court, governmental agency, regulatory agency, self regulatory organization or stock market or any third party in order for it to execute, deliver or perform any of its obligations under this Agreement, to issue the Common Stock. All consents, authorizations, orders, filings and registrations which the Company is required to obtain pursuant to the preceding sentence have been obtained or effected on or prior to the date hereof.

assistant: No Conflicts
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: argument that pool did not fall within the HRUS requiremerits because it was not open to the general public); Stout v. United States, 696 F.Supp. 538, 539 (D.Haw.1987) (stating that the “statute appears to apply even if the military base was closed to the general public”). The fact that Holder Dock was closed to everyone except the instructors and students of the sailing course on the day of Howard’s injury does not strip the Government of its HRUS immunity. The Government limited access to the dock on that day to prevent injury to novicé sailors and/or because of the rough weather conditions. The Government can exercise such control and discretiori over who uses its land for recreational purposes without forfeiting the immunity that the HRUS provides. See Stout, 696 F.Supp. at 539 (<HOLDING>). C. Applicability of HRUS Immunity to Business Options: A. holding that whether the public invitee may have some commercial purpose in mind was irrelevant to recreational immunity instead by opening up the lands for recreational use without a fee the landowner brought itself under the protection of the immunity statute B. holding contractors could not claim recreational immunity because they had no continuing authority to determine whether the land should be open to the public C. holding that for purposes of initial seizure warrant in forfeiture action the government may seize land according to the description contained in the deed D. recognizing that land owners using industrialzoned land for other uses have not given up their right to any of the heavy industrial uses so come tomorrow they could flip a switch and start operating a sawmill if they so chose E. recognizing that a landowner cancontrol who uses his land for recreational purposes and that sjuch discretion should not result in the forfeiture of the immunity that thehrus provides

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that a landowner cancontrol who uses his land for recreational purposes and that sjuch discretion should not result in the forfeiture of the immunity that thehrus provides
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: reasons, or is agreed upon by both the named insured and the insurer .... Iowa Code § 515D.4(2) (emphasis added). Significantly, section 515D.4(2) allows the parties to an insurance contract to exclude a person “from the policy.” (Emphasis added.) The statutory authorization is not limited to the liability coverage of the insurance policy. Thus, our legislature has made a policy decision that exclusions such as the one at issue here are not contrary to the public good. In view of the legislature’s authorization of named driver exclusions and its decision to require UIM coverage only for drivers protected by the liability coverage of the policy, we conclude the named driver exclusion in Progressive’s policy does not violate the public policy of this state. See Schneck, 813 A.2d at 834 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we reject the plaintiffs’ argument Options: A. holding nearly identical exclusion did not violate public policy noting there is no clear legislative pronouncement of public policy requiring umuim coverage for a named driver exclusion B. holding second sentence of a nearly identical exclusion did not limit the scope of the exclusion C. holding nearly identical exclusion of any claim unambiguously operates to bar recovery of uim benefits under policy when driver is excluded D. holding location of named driver exclusion in endorsement did not make it ambiguous exclusion applied to all coverage afforded by the policy including the um coverage E. holding nearly identical named driver exclusion was plain and unambiguous and excluded claim brought under um coverage

assistant: The best answer is A. holding nearly identical exclusion did not violate public policy noting there is no clear legislative pronouncement of public policy requiring umuim coverage for a named driver exclusion
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 justice by encouraging clients to consult with counsel free from the apprehension of disclosure, then courts must work to apply the privilege in ways that are predictable and certain. In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 100 (2d Cir.1987). An uncertain privilege is a privilege that is little better than no privilege at all. Id.; Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc. v. Home Indent. Co., 32 F.3d 851, 862 (3d Cir.1994). Courts have followed three general approaches in deciding whether the inadvertent production of a document ’ that contains a confidential attorney-client communication waives the privilege. Some courts have found that inadvertently producing the document does waive the privilege. See, e.g., International Digital Sys. Corp. v. Digital Equip. Corp., 120 F.R.D. 445, 449-50 (D.Mass.1988) (<HOLDING>); Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc., 397 Options: A. recognizing privilege B. holding that alleged infringer waived privilege with respect to all documents pertaining to the infringement of the patent C. holding that production of documents without a claim of privilege waives the right to later claim that privilege D. holding that the production of mislabeled documents or ones from which the label was mistakenly removed waived the privilege E. holding that the denial of an element or factor of ones opponents case does not operate as a waiver of the section 62210 privilege

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the production of mislabeled documents or ones from which the label was mistakenly removed waived the privilege
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: However, it was Alexander’s understanding that Lamar could not make the purchase until the divorce was final. Alexander told Lamar prior to the divorce proceeding the price for which he would sell the condominium and told Lamar that, if he got another offer, he would give Lamar a chance to match the offer. Ultimately, no one made an offer, and Lamar signed the contract on May 10, 2002. The trial court declined to set aside the decree and ruled that Lamar had not committed fraud in connection with his purchase of the condominium. The court further declared that the condominium was not marital property but that, even if it was, an unequal division of it should be made to Lamar “based upon the Court specifically finding that the evidence indicates that the condominium was acquired by th ) (<HOLDING>). Further, a contract for the sale of real Options: A. holding that lack of closing date in option contract did not preclude enforcement by specific performance B. holding as a matter of law that mere fact that a contract definite in material respects contains some terms which are subject to further negotiation will not bar a decree for specific performance if in the courts discretion specific performance should be granted C. holding that immunity from suit precluded claim for breach of contract for sale of county property and request for specific performance of contract D. holding that an action for specific performance lies in equity E. recognizing that a buyer may sue for specific performance of a realestate contract

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that a buyer may sue for specific performance of a realestate contract
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the internal laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Both parties agree to exclusive venue in the state (Middlesex County) or federal courts located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In consideration of the Company’s payment to Executive of $250,000 (representing a portion of Executive’s severance payments payable under Section 2(a) of this Agreement and not, for the avoidance of doubt, an additional payment), less all applicable state and federal tax withholdings and other lawful deductions (the “ ADEA Consideration ”) payable in accordance with Section 2(a), Executive hereby agrees that she shall sign and return to the Company the ADEA release attached hereto as Exhibit B (the “ ADEA Release ”) in accordance with its terms within thirty (30) days following the Separation Date. Executive acknowledges and agrees that the effectiveness of the ADEA Release shall have no effect on the effectiveness of this Agreement and that this Agreement shall be in full force and effect and binding upon the Parties upon and from its date of execution. Executive acknowledges and agrees that she would not otherwise be entitled to receive the ADEA Consideration in the absence of Executive’s execution (and non-revocation) of the ADEA Release.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither the Participant, his Designated Beneficiary, nor his legal representative shall have any rights to sell, assign, transfer, or otherwise convey the right to receive the payment of any Pension Benefit or Non-Pension Benefit due hereunder, which payment and the right thereto are expressly declared to be nonassignable and nontransferable.

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: violation and is not a continuing violation. As persuasively explained in New York v. Niagara Mohawk, 263 F.Supp.2d at 661: A given construction or modification project occurs only once. If a permit is not obtained for that particular project, then the preconstruction permit requirement of the Clean Air Act has been violated. However, the requirement to secure a preconstruction permit applies prior to construction or modification. Once the construction or modification is complete, the window in which to apply for and obtain a preconstruction permit is gone. Thus, a violation of the Clean Air Act’s preconstruction permit requirement is singular in nature, and does not constitute an ongoing violation. See also Sierra Club v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 663 F.Supp.2d 983, 991-92 (D.Or.2009) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Illinois Power Co., 245 Options: A. holding 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and tenday appeal period applies and collecting cases B. recognizing distinction made by majority C. recognizing the majority rule D. recognizing rule E. recognizing majority rule and collecting cases

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing majority rule and collecting cases
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: amazon 's trademarks and trade dress may not be used in connection with any product or service that is not amazon 's , in any manner that is likely to cause confusion among customers , or in any manner that disparages or discredits amazon .

assistant: None