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 number of shares which Target is authorized to issue consists of 3,000,000 shares of a single class. There are 3,000,000 shares currently issued and outstanding. The capitalization table of shareholders and their shares held is listed on Schedule 1.02 . The issued and outstanding shares are validly issued, fully paid, and non-assessable and not issued in violation of the preemptive or other rights of any person. As of the Closing Date, no shares of Target’s common stock were reserved for issuance upon the exercise of outstanding options to purchase the common shares; (iv) no common shares were reserved for issuance upon the exercise of outstanding warrants to purchase Target common shares; (v) no shares of preferred stock authorized or issued; and (vi) no common shares were reserved for issuance upon the conversion of outstanding convertible notes, debentures or securities. All outstanding Target common shares have been issued and granted in compliance with (i) all applicable securities laws and (in all material respects) other applicable laws and regulations, and (ii) all requirements set forth in any applicable Contracts.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: did not provide any explanation of how demutualization proceeds can become an asset of a plan that is defunct and has no assets. Consequently, it appears doubtful that the case was correctly decided. We reject the Northern District of Illinois's analysis, and instead follow the 2003 DOL opinion, which addresses how to treat demu-tualization proceeds purchased with the funds of a defunct pension plan. See Dep't of Labor, Office of Pension and Welfare Benefit Programs Op. No.2003-05A, 2003 WL 1901900 (Apr. 10, 2003). ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent, as I disagree with the reasoning and the outcome of the majority opinion. I believe this case is foreclosed by Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 440-41, 119 S.Ct. 755, 142 L.Ed.2d 881 (1999) (<HOLDING>). This case involves a defined benefit plan. Options: A. holding that plan participants in a defined benefit pension plan have no claim to the plans surplus assets B. holding that professionals who advised the plan were not fiduciaries because they had no decision making authority over the plan or plan assets also noting that the power to act for the plan is essential to status as a fiduciary C. holding that plan participants cannot establish standing to seek money damages where the plan has substantial surplus assets or the plan sponsor is financially capable of making up any losses suffered by the plan citing harley 284 f3d at 906 D. recognizing that pension plan administrators have the ability to fashion their own plan formulas E. holding that a subclass of plan participants could sue where the remedy sought by plaintiffs would benefit the plan as a whole and cure any harm that the plan suffered

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that plan participants in a defined benefit pension plan have no claim to the plans surplus assets
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: Objection and Ruling Appellant complains within his first issue that in assessing appellant’s punishment, the trial judge specifically considered the “extraneous offense” injected into the sentencing hearing by the prosecutors’ remarks regarding penetration and therefore imposed a sentence based on misinformation because the State had no evidence of penetration. Appellant’s complaint in this regard asserts an error that occurred after the entry of his plea, and as such the Helms/Young rule does not apply. See Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741, 744 (Tex. Crim.App.1994) (per curiam) (noting that Helms rule did not limit appeal of asserted error “occurring at or after entry of a nonnegotiated guilty plea”); see also Lemons v. State, 953 S.W.2d 825, 827 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1997, no pet.) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). Appellant contends that the Options: A. holding entry of guilty plea waives challenges to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea emphasis added B. holding entry of a guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional issues C. holding that a voluntary guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings D. holding that a defendant must have knowledge of the likely consequences of entering the guilty plea in order for a plea to be voluntary and knowing E. recognizing that a voluntary and understanding guilty plea entered without the benefit of a plea bargain waives all nonjurisdictional defects that occurred before the entry of the plea

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that a voluntary and understanding guilty plea entered without the benefit of a plea bargain waives all nonjurisdictional defects that occurred before the entry of the plea
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 Seller shall comply in all material respects with all applicable laws, rules, regulations and orders, and preserve and maintain its corporate existence, rights, franchises, qualifications and privileges, except to the extent that the failure so to comply with such laws, rules, regulations or orders or the failure so to preserve and maintain such rights, franchises, qualifications and privileges would not have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Compliance With 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: however , with respect to content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the yahoo services , you grant yahoo the following worldwide , royalty-free and non-exclusive license ( s ) , as applicable :

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New Jersey applicable to contracts executed in and to be performed entirely within that state, except with respect to matters of law concerning the internal corporate affairs of any corporate entity which is a party to or the subject of this Agreement, and as to those matters, the law of the jurisdiction under which the respective entity derives its powers shall govern. The parties irrevocably agree that all actions to enforce an arbitrator’s decision pursuant to Section 11(m) of this Agreement shall be instituted and litigated only in federal, state or local courts sitting in Newark, New Jersey and each of such parties hereby consents to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of such court and waives any objection based on forum non conveniens .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: defendant be advised of the nature of the charge as well as the mandatory minimum penalty, if any, provided by law and the maximum possible penalty. Garcia, 121 N.M. at 548, 915 P.2d at 304 (relying on Rule 5-303(E) NMRA). Another formulation requires that a defendant be advised of the permissible range of sentences. Id. at 549, 915 P.2d at 305. While the maximum possible penalty and any mandatory minimum are generally set forth in the statutes proscribing the offenses, Supreme Court approved forms contain various formulations for non-mandatory minimum penalties, ranging from “a suspended sentence,” Form 9-406 NMRA (paragraph 2), to no statement of a minimum penalty, Form 9-406A NMRA (paragraph 2); Form 9-408A NMRA, to “probation,” Form 9-408 NMRA (paragraph 2 und .E.2d 559, 564 (1974) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by People v. Options: A. holding that a defendants prior juvenile dispositions are valid as prior criminal convictions because floridas juvenile procedures are constitutionally sound B. holding that substantial compliance with rule on admonishments to defendants entering pleas does not include being informed by the court concerning the possible dispositions by way of periodic imprisonment probation conditional discharges in cases of juvenile offenders and fines C. holding that excessive fines clause does not apply to civiljury award of punitive fines D. holding that although the juvenile restitution statute does not expressly require the juvenile court to determine whether the juvenile has the ability to pay the restitution ordered as a condition of probation the policies underlying the adult restitutions command that a trial court make such an inquiry applies with equal force to juvenile courts E. holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that substantial compliance with rule on admonishments to defendants entering pleas does not include being informed by the court concerning the possible dispositions by way of periodic imprisonment probation conditional discharges in cases of juvenile offenders and fines
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: There is no action, suit, notice of violation, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the knowledge of HRD, threatened against or affecting HRD or any of its properties before or by any court, governmental or administrative agency, or regulatory authority (U.S. federal, state, county, local or foreign) (i) that adversely affects or challenges the legality, validity or enforceability of the Transaction Agreements or the HRD Shares or (ii) that could, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have or result in a HRD Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Litigations
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: to the full extent permissible by law , amazon disclaims all warranties , express or implied , including , but not limited to , implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and any amendment hereto or any other agreement (or document) delivered pursuant hereto may be executed in one or more counterparts and by different parties in separate counterparts any may delivered by email or other electronic means. All of such counterparts shall constitute one and the same agreement (or other document) and shall become effective (unless otherwise provided therein) when one or more counterparts have been signed by each party and delivered to the other party.

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: Contractor will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Company and its directors, officers, and employees from and against all taxes, losses, damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and other legal expenses, arising directly or indirectly from or in connection with: any negligent, reckless, or intentionally wrongful act of Contractor or Contractor’s assistants, employees, or agents, any breach by Contractor or Contractor’s assistants, employees, or agents of any of the covenants, warranties, or representations contained in this Agreement, any failure of Contractor to perform the Services in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, or any violation or claimed violation of a third party’s rights resulting in whole or in part from Company’s use of the work product of Contractor under this Agreement.

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: are defined as W-2 earnings minus stock and settlement income). The negative figures indicate where women in fact received greater salary increases than men: (,See Madden Report, Table 9; Madden Rebuttal, Table 8R.) The more that the standard deviations depart from zero, the more likely the factor in question played a role in the employer’s decisionmaking process. Adams v. Ameritech Servs., Inc., 231 F.3d 414, 424 (7th Cir.2000). In general, “[t]wo standard deviations is normally enough to show that it is extremely unlikely ... that [a] disparity is due to chance.” Id. However, the Seventh Circuit rejects a bright-line rule that would find statistical evidence of less than two standard deviations inadmissible. See Kadas v. MCI Systemhouse Corp., 255 F.3d 359, 362 (7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Dr. Madden’s revised analysis demonstrates Options: A. recognizing that a 11 evidence must be relevant to be admissible B. recognizing that the federal pleading standard is a less stringent standard than the delaware pleading standard C. holding that medical evidence and a statistical study by the military was sufficient evidence to prove a discriminatory impact D. holding that new evidence is evidence not previously of record and not merely cumulative of other evidence E. holding that statistical evidence of less than two standard deviations may be relevant when corroborated by other evidence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that statistical evidence of less than two standard deviations may be relevant when corroborated by other evidence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and Anderson, the Fourth Circuit in Sevigny v. Dicksey, 846 F.2d 953, 956 (4th Cir.1988), framed the qualified immunity inquiry as proceeding on a general “objective legal reasonableness” level as well as a more specific fact-oriented level. It is beyond peradventure that officials who willfully, intentionally or recklessly keep an inmate in prison past the date he was ordered released are liable under section 1983 for infringing upon the inmate’s personal liberty protected by the substantive due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Johnson v. Mueller, 415 F.2d 354, 355 (4th Cir.1969) (inmate’s allegations that superintendent of prison kept him confined past term of his sentence was actionable under section 1983); Speaks v. McGregor, 355 F.Supp. 1129, 1131-32 (W.D.Va.1973) (<HOLDING>); see also Gay v. Wall, 761 F.2d 175, 178-79 Options: A. holding state is not a proper defendant under 1983 B. holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983 C. holding state university is not a person under 1983 D. holding intentional gender discrimination in public employment by persons acting under color of state law violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment and is actionable under section 1983 E. holding fugitive past allowable time period under state law is actionable under section 1983

assistant: The best answer is E. holding fugitive past allowable time period under state law is actionable under section 1983
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: [*] shall have the sole right, but not the obligation, to enforce [*] against any infringement or misappropriation of [*] by a Third Party, or to defend any declaratory judgment action with respect thereto.

assistant: Enforcements
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: his interest to another.’ “Rule 601, Ala.R.Evid., effective January 1, 1996, states that, ‘Every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules.’ In the Advisory Committee’s Notes to Rule 601, it is stated: “ ‘This rule supersedes any inconsistent statutory grounds of incompetency. Chief among these is Alabama’s Dead Man’s Statute. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-163. Superseding the Dead Man’s Statute means that survivors will be allowed to testify, if their testimony otherwise complies with the rules of evidence, and that the unavailability of the deceased person will be merely a factor for the jury to consider in determining the weight to give the survivor’s testimony. See Beddingfield v. Central Bank of Alabama, N.A., 440 So.2d 1051, 1052 (Ala.1983)(<HOLDING>). In superseding the Dead Man’s Statute, Options: A. recognizing that the waiver rule is wholly consistent with the bias rule of practice as an appellate body B. holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute C. recognizing that the dead mans statute is a survival from an earlier and much broader incompetency statute and characterizing its survival as deplorable D. recognizing the significant body of scholarly criticism of the dead mans statute E. holding that prejudice requires that the difference in sentencing be significant

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing the significant body of scholarly criticism of the dead mans statute
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: without comment. We reverse the denial of claim eight and remand for further proceedings. Nesbitt entered an open plea of guilty to two counts of armed robbery and one count of armed burglary of a conveyance. In claim eight, Nesbitt claims that his two convictions for armed robbery violate his constitutional protection from double jeopardy because they occurred during the same criminal episode and the State charged him with taking the same item — a purse and its contents — in each. In summarily denying the claim, the postconviction court attached a copy of the felony information and found that the convictions did not violate the protection from double jeopardy because each charge of armed robbery identified a different victim. See Hillman v. State, 410 So.2d 180, 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (<HOLDING>) (citing Hearn v. State, 55 So.2d 559 Options: A. holding that the evidence supported two separate convictions and punishments for two attempted robberies of two different victims who suffered separate and distinct harms B. holding unanimity requirement not violated when charge stated two separate counts with two separate and distinct offenses in each case C. holding that two distinct acts of assault with a deadly weapon taking place within a fifteen minute period were a part of the same incident and they could not reasonably be held to constitute two separate offenses each complete in itself and each of which would require a separate charge D. holding that two robberies of different people at the same time are two separate offenses calling for two judgments and two sentences when the defendants were convicted of taking a grandfathers wallet pistol and car and taking a grandsons fishing equipment E. holding that when two underlying offenses are charged in an indictment for capital murder the state need only prove one of the two offenses to support the conviction

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that two robberies of different people at the same time are two separate offenses calling for two judgments and two sentences when the defendants were convicted of taking a grandfathers wallet pistol and car and taking a grandsons fishing equipment
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, together with the Plan, represents the final, complete and total agreement of the parties hereto respecting the shares of Restricted Stock and the matters discussed herein and this Agreement supersedes any and all previous agreements and understandings, whether written, oral or otherwise, relating to the shares of Restricted Stock and such matters.

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: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior oral or written agreements, commitments or understandings with respect to the matters provided for herein, with the exception of any written agreements between the parties regarding Retention Payments signed on or about the same date.

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: (a) Parachute Payments . In the event that (i) any severance payment, insurance benefits, accelerated vesting, pro-rated bonus or other benefit payable to Executive shall constitute a “parachute payment” within the meaning of Code Section 280G (“ Parachute Payment ”) and be subject to the excise tax imposed by Code Section 4999 (the “ Excise Tax ”), and (ii) if the payments to Executive were reduced to the minimum extent necessary so that such payments did not constitute Parachute Payments, the net benefits retained by Executive after the deduction of any federal, state or local income taxes would be greater than the net benefits retained by Executive if there was no such reduction after the deduction of Excise Tax and any federal, state or local income taxes, then such payments shall be so reduced. Such reduction shall be accomplished in any manner deemed appropriate by Playa Management after consultation with Executive. For purposes of making the foregoing determination: (1) Parachute Payments provided under arrangements with Executive other than this Agreement, if any, shall be taken into account in determining the total amount of Parachute Payments received by Executive so that the amount of Parachute Payments that are attributable to provisions of this Agreement is maximized; and (2) Executive shall be deemed to pay federal, state and local income taxes at the highest marginal rate of taxation for Executive’s taxable year in which the Parachute Payments are includable in Executive’s income for purposes of federal, state and local income taxation. The determination of whether the Excise Tax is payable, and the amount of any reduction necessary to make the Excise Tax not payable, as well as whether such a reduction would result in greater after-tax benefits to Executive, shall be made in writing in good faith by a nationally-recognized independent certified public accounting firm approved by Playa Management and Executive, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld (the “ Accounting Firm ”). For purposes of making the calculations required by this Section 11(a) , to the extent not otherwise specified herein, reasonable assumptions and approximations may be made with respect to applicable taxes and reasonable, good faith interpretations of the Code may be relied upon. Playa Management and Executive shall furnish such information and documents as may be reasonably requested in connection with the performance of the calculations under this Section 11(a) . Playa Management shall bear all costs incurred in connection with the performance of the calculations contemplated by this Section 11(a) .

assistant: Miscellaneous
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: limitations apply , including restrictions on the number of offline titles per account , the maximum number of devices that can contain offline titles , the time period within which you will need to begin viewing offline titles and how long the offline titles will remain accessible .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: (S.D.Tex.2009). In Fisher, the plaintiffs deposed Keith Richard, a former employee of defendant Halliburton. Id. at *1. Richard’s attorney instructed Richard not to answer questions concerning documents Richard reviewed in preparation for his deposition. Id. The Court declined to extend work product privilege to “the identity of the documents [the deponent] reviewed in preparation for his deposition,” on the grounds that “imbuefing] ever compilation of documents reviewed by a witness before testifying — at trial or at deposition — with work product privilege protection would all but write Rule 612 of the Federal Rules of Evidence out of existence.” Id. at *1-2; see also In re Int’l Sys. & Controls Corp. Sec. Litig., 693 F.2d 1235, 1240 (5th Cir.1982) (quoting Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)) (<HOLDING>). Since the advent of the controversy involving Options: A. holding that fedrcivp 26b3 does not require absolute protection for opinion work product and noting that these materials may be discovered and admitted when mental impressions are at issue in the case and the need for the materials is compelling B. holding that although plaintiffs claims were masked in various legal theories they were premised on a single claim of product liability and therefore fell under north carolinas product liability statute C. holding that materials prepared by an investigative audit committee were not work product because they were not the mental impressions conclusions opinions or legal theories of an attorney D. holding opinion work product may be discovered when mental impressions are at issue and need for material is compelling E. holding that cover letters from counsel to an expert that do not contain mental impressions opinions or conclusions of counsel are discoverable but written notes that contained the lawyers mental impressions were protected

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that materials prepared by an investigative audit committee were not work product because they were not the mental impressions conclusions opinions or legal theories of an attorney
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the documents and agreements referenced herein constitute the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and cancels and supersedes any prior understandings and agreements between the parties hereto with respect thereto, whether verbal or in writing. There are no other written or verbal representations, warranties, terms, conditions, undertakings or collateral agreements, express, implied or statutory between the parties.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: action is said to accrue when ‘the last element constituting the cause of action occurs.’ ” Maggio v. Dep’t of Labor & Employment Sec., 910 So.2d 876, 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting § 95.031, Fla. Stat. (2002)). Damages are an element of a cause of action for negligence. Monroe v. Sarasota County Sch. Bd., 746 So.2d 530, 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“[W]e continue to hold, as a general rule, that bodily injury or property damage is an essential element of a cause of action in negligence.”). Either party, through the use of expert scientific testimony, may be able to establish the time of origin of the mold or bacteria. However, at this early stage of the proceedings and on this record, Panorama has not conclusively shown that the Schornbergs cannot prevail. See Fatherly, 703 So.2d at 1102 (<HOLDING>). We reverse the summary judgment and remand Options: A. holding that a nonmovant cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment merely on the basis of conjecture or surmise B. holding that once movant established right to summary judgment burden shifts to nonmovant to demonstrate otherwise C. holding that if the movant cannot demonstrate conclusively that the nonmovant cannot prevail summary judgment is precluded D. holding that in summary judgment proceeding movant may prevail by averring that nonmoving party cannot establish an element essential to her case E. holding that in order for the movant to prevail on a summary judgment motion movant must either factually refute the affirmative defenses or establish that they are legally insufficient

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that if the movant cannot demonstrate conclusively that the nonmovant cannot prevail summary judgment is precluded
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 “ Reportable Event ” as such term is defined in ERISA under any Plan, or the appointment by an appropriate Tribunal of a trustee to administer any Plan, or the termination of any Plan within the meaning of Title IV of ERISA, and any of the foregoing results in a material liability to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation; or any Plan fails to satisfy the “minimum funding standards” of ERISA or is determined to be in “at risk” status (within the meaning of ERISA).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to dispose of the instant appeal. Even adopting the most generous construction of this phrase, as did the district court, we find that Fioto’s trial testimony established only that he missed work in order to visit his mother at the hospital while she was admitted there for cancer surgery. He did not testify to an intent to provide her with psychological or physical care, nor did he testify to providing his mother with actual care during his hospital visit. His testimony that h ted the inference that he intended to visit his mother while she was hospitalized. For the reasons discussed by the district court, standing alone, an employment termination on account of such an incident cannot give rise to an FMLA claim. Cf. Marchisheck v. San Mateo County, 199 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). We review for abuse of discretion a district Options: A. holding inter alia that mothers act of taking leave in order to relocate her son to live abroad while motivated by concern for her sons physical and psychological condition did not constitute care within the meaning of fmla because she had no plans to seek medical or psychological treatment for her son abroad B. holding that debtor who was separated from her husband and who testified that she would only return to the marital home if her husband vacated the house or died or if she was required to care for him or her adult son there or if the couple reconciled was an abandonment of the marital home as her homestead C. holding that because a claimant testified that she had no insurance and could not afford treatment her failure to take medication for her symptoms is not a clear and convincing reason for discrediting her symptom testimony D. holding that trial court properly terminated fathers obligation to support his seventeenyearold daughter who refused to live with father but instead chose to reside in her own apartment after her mother moved out of state where daughter offered no justifiable reason for not living with her father daughter only contended that her stepmother was too neat for her and that she wanted to live closer to her friends E. holding that an employee who did not present evidence that she could have returned to work prior to the expiration of her fmla leave allowance was not entitled to additional leave merely because her employer had not properly provided her with notice that the leave was designated as fmla leave

assistant: The best answer is A. holding inter alia that mothers act of taking leave in order to relocate her son to live abroad while motivated by concern for her sons physical and psychological condition did not constitute care within the meaning of fmla because she had no plans to seek medical or psychological treatment for her son abroad
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: by insured; insured not directed by government to remediate site; action against insured by those remediating the property pursuant to government cleanup directive; held: suit for "damages"). Under Hills, there is insurance coverage in connection with this second category of sites. ¶ 7. The third category presents a situation where the insured is responsible for at least part of the contamination of a site that it does not own, and has been directed by a government to remediate the site, but has not done so. The insured is sued by the government to recover money it spent to clean up the site. There is no insurance coverage in connection with the scenarios encompassed by category three. Regent Ins. Co. v. City of Manitowoc, 205 Wis. 2d 450, 463, 556 N.W.2d 405 (Ct. App. 1996) (<HOLDING>). Johnson Controls argues that the supreme Options: A. holding that an action by plaintiffs who had a legal obligation to conduct cleanup pursuant to a 106 order and then sought costs for cleanup from other prps was the quintessential action for contribution B. holding that cleanup costs incurred pursuant to a consent decree were not incurred voluntarily and must be sought through a 113f contribution action C. holding that the plaintiffs suit for workrelated costs incurred pursuant to a consent decree was a contribution action under 113f D. holding plans suit against law firm for constructive trust was a suit for appropriate equitable relief E. holding that where the government sues an insured to recover incurred cleanup costs under 107a4a of the cercla or to impose a plan for remediation that action is not a suit for damages but is rather a suit for equitable monetary relief

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that where the government sues an insured to recover incurred cleanup costs under 107a4a of the cercla or to impose a plan for remediation that action is not a suit for damages but is rather a suit for equitable monetary relief
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: Whenever used in the Plan, including Article I and this Article II, the following capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth below (unless otherwise indicated by the context). Other capitalized terms where indicated shall have the meanings set forth in the Qualified Pension Plan.

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: and I cannot concur in a refusal to consider the viability of that ground based upon the unnecessary statement in Greene that there are no permissible non-statutory bases for vacating an arbitration award. The “manifest disregard of the law” principle stems from the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Wilko v. Swan, 346 U. S. 427, 436 (74 SC 182, 98 LE2d 168) (1953), overruled on other grounds, Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, 490 U. S. 477, 485 (III) (109 SC 1917, 104 LE2d 526) (1989), indicating that, although the arbitrator’s erroneous interpretation of the law would not subject an award to reversal, his or her clear disregard of the law would. See also First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan, 514 U. S. 938, 942 (II) (115 SC 1920, 131 LE2d 985) (1995) (<HOLDING>). Since then, it appears that all of the Options: A. holding that an award of arbitration cannot be set aside for mere errors of judgment either as to the law or the facts if the award is within the scope of the submission and the arbitrators are not guilty of the acts of misconduct set forth in the statute the award operates as a final and conclusive judgment and however disappointing it may be the parties must abide by it B. holding that manifest disregard of the law is one of the very unusual circumstances in which a federal court can set aside an arbitration award C. recognizing that a trial court can set aside verdict D. holding that errors of law without accompanying fraud or misconduct not enough to set aside arbitration award E. holding that the court may set aside agency action only in extremely limited circumstances

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that manifest disregard of the law is one of the very unusual circumstances in which a federal court can set aside an arbitration award
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: which concerns “a whole range of easily identifiable and constitutionally proscribable conduct.” Shepard, 983 P.2d at 4. We therefore cannot agree with Shell’s claim of overbreadth. C. We also are unpersuaded by Shell’s assertion that the court lacks jurisdicti 0 N.E.2d 753, 756 (Ind.1986) (same). In keeping with these decisions and our mandate to regulate the practice of law in Colorado, we construe our ban on the unauthorized practice of law to include the practice of law in Colorado federal courts. It is certainly true that the Colorado federal courts can allow individuals to engage in legal practice in federal courts who would not otherwise be allowed to practice law in Colorado state courts. See Sperry v. Florida ex rel. Fla. Bar, 373 U.S. 379, 83 S.Ct. 1322, 10 L.Ed.2d 428 (1963) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court made clear in Options: A. holding out admission to practice law when not admitted to practice B. holding that state court could regulate the practice of law in federal courts located in the state C. holding that ban on unauthorized practice of law did not implicate the first amendment D. holding that under the supremacy clause a state court could not enforce a prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law against an individual who was permitted to practice law under the rules of a federal court located in the states jurisdiction E. holding that the unauthorized practice of law constitutes violation of code

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that under the supremacy clause a state court could not enforce a prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law against an individual who was permitted to practice law under the rules of a federal court located in the states jurisdiction
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the date hereof, the authorized common stock of the Company consists of 19,995,000,000 authorized shares of Common Stock, $0.0001 par value per share, of which 11,411,218,709 (Pre-Reverse stock split) shares are issued and outstanding; and 3,494,505 shares are reserved for issuance upon conversion of the Note. All of such outstanding shares of capital stock are, or upon issuance will be, duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any Persons or circumstances shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement or the application of such term or provision to Persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable shall not be affected thereby, and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.

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: to the Commissioner under the statutory and constitutional mandates that already apply to him rather than to give him detailed and rigid directives through rules. See Diaz v. State of Florida, 945 S2d 1136, 1143 (Fla. 2006) (“In light of the exigencies inherent in the execution process, judicial review and oversight of the Department of Corrections’] procedures is preferable to [APA] administrative proceedings.”), overruled on other grounds by Darling v. State, 45 S3d 444, 453 (Fla. 2010). See also Brown v. Vail, 237 P3d 263, 270 (Wash. 2010) (“The [execution] protocol itself is not an order or directive subjecting a person to a penalty or sanction, but rather a procedure for carrying out an already imposed penalty.”); Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman v. Bredesen, 181 SW3d 292, 312 (Tenn. 2005) (<HOLDING>). Rather than adopting a detailed rule Options: A. holding that the management of executions is ill suited to apa rulemaking B. holding that claimant is entitled to ongoing medical treatment if such is geared toward management of the claimants injury C. holding cafeteria management fee is not taxable even if it is bundled with the sales price of food D. holding that a seaman is entitled to maintenance and cure even if he falls ill or is injured while ashore as long as he is subject to the call of duty E. holding the lower court properly opened the confessed judgment but erred in setting aside the executions and the attachments stated plaintiff is fairly entitled to this security pending the proceedings upon the opened judgment unless security equivalent to it and approved by the court is substituted for it

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the management of executions is ill suited to apa rulemaking
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: as far as I can surmise, is to bar successive petitions when lower courts, but not the Supreme Court, have held a rule not to be “new” under Teague because dictated by their own precedent, cf. Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F. 3d 970, 993-995 (CA9) (en banc) (O’Scannlain, J., dissenting) (rejecting proposition that lower court decisions can establish rule for Teague purposes), cert. denied, 525 U. S. 1033 (1998); Clemmons v. Delo, 124 F. 3d 944, 955, n. 11 (CA8 1997) (assuming, without deciding, that only Supreme Court precedent may dictate rule so that it is not new for Teague purposes), cert, denied, 523 U. S. 1088 (1998), or when lower courts have themselves adopted new rules and then determined that the Teague retroactivity factors apply, see Smith v. Groose, 205 F. 3d 1045, 1054 (CA8) (<HOLDING>), cert, denied sub nom. Gammon v. Smith, 531 U. Options: A. holding prosecutions suppression of favorable material evidence violates due process B. holding that use of inherently factually contradictory theories violates the principles of due process C. holding that circuit rule that prosecutions use of contradictory theories violates due process would fall within teagues watershed exception D. holding that the knowing use of false testimony to obtain a conviction violates due process E. holding that the prosecutions suppression of evidence material to guilt or punishment violates due process regardless of the prosecutions good or bad faith

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that circuit rule that prosecutions use of contradictory theories violates due process would fall within teagues watershed exception
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 amendment or modification to or waiver of any provision of this Security Agreement, nor consent to any departure by any Grantor from its obligations under this Security Agreement, shall in any event be effective unless the same shall be in writing and signed by the Lender and the Grantors and then such waiver or consent shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose for which given.

assistant: Amendments