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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Ins. Co., 192 Ga.App. 853, 854, 386 S.E.2d 725 (1989)). 63 . Miller v. Nationwide Ins., 202 Ga.App. 737, 738, 415 S.E.2d 700 (1992). 64 . Vaughns-Liddle Decl. Ex. 2 [Doc. 37-3]. 65 . Vaughns-Liddle Deck ¶ 16 [Doc. 37-3], 66 . See Miller, 202 Ga.App. at 738, 415 S.E.2d 700. 67 . Jones v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 191 Ga.App. 591, 591, 382 S.E.2d 404 (1989); see Dracz v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 427 F.Supp.2d 1165, 1170 (M.D.Ga.2006). 68 . Stegall v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 171 Ga.App. 576, 577, 320 S.E.2d 575 (1984). 69 . Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Law, 223 Ga.App. 748, 750, 479 S.E.2d 357 (1996). 70 . Johnson v. Am. Nat'l Red Cross, 276 Ga. 270, 272, 578 S.E.2d 106 (2003); see Four Seasons Healthcare, Inc. v. Willis Ins. Servs. of Ga. Inc., 299 Ga.App. 183, 186, 682 S.E.2d 316 (2009) (<HOLDING>). 71 . Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Arnold, Options: A. recognizing the cause of action B. holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury C. recognizing negligence cause of action for failure to maintain medical records preservation of which was required by statute D. recognizing cause of action E. recognizing negligent procurement to be a negligence cause of action

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing negligent procurement to be a negligence cause of action
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: removes a class of offenders from automatic voter restoration eligibility based on the nature of their offenses, thus removing the possibility that voters be forced to “accept part of an initiative proposal which they oppose in order to obtain a change in the constitution which they support.” Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen, re Standards for Establishing Legis. Dist. Boundaries, 2 So.3d 175, 180 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Amend, to Bar Gov’t From Treating People Differently Based on Race in Pub. Educ., 778 So.2d 888, 891 (Fla. 2000)). Therefore, the proposed amendment does not engage in impermissible logrolling. See Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fla. Transp. Initiative for Statewide High Speed Monorail, Fixed Guideway or Magnetic Levitation System, 769 So.2d at 369 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the proposed amendment does not Options: A. holding that there is no impermissible logrolling where the only subject embraced in the proposed amendment is whether the people of this state want to include a provision in them constitution mandating that the government build a high speed ground transportation system B. holding that because the due process clause in the federal constitution is applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment the right is also guaranteed to defendants pursuant to the identical provision in article i section 5 of the hawaii constitution C. holding that there were at least four amendments submitted to the people in a single proposition and for that reason the amendments were not submitted in accordance with the constitution and notwithstanding the action of the legislature in inserting them in the constitution are null and void and form no part of said constitution D. holding that the north dakota constitution is a document of limitations upon the state government unlike the united states constitution which is a grant of power to the federal government E. holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that there is no impermissible logrolling where the only subject embraced in the proposed amendment is whether the people of this state want to include a provision in them constitution mandating that the government build a high speed ground transportation system
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 Executive acknowledges and agrees that there are certain trade secrets and confidential and proprietary information (collectively, “Confidential Information”) which have been developed by the Corporation and which are used by the Corporation in its business. Confidential Information shall include, without limitation: (i) customer lists and supplier lists; (ii) the details of the Corporation’s relationships with its customers, including, without limitation, the financial relationship with a customer, knowledge of the internal “politics”/workings of a customer organization, a customer’s technical needs and job specifications, knowledge of a customer’s strategic plans and the identities of contact persons within a customer’s organization; (iii) the Corporation’s marketing and development plans, business plans; and (iv) other information proprietary to the Corporation’s business. The Executive shall not, at any time during or after her employment hereunder, use or disclose such Confidential Information, except to authorized representatives of the Corporation or the customer or as required in the performance of her duties and responsibilities hereunder. The Executive shall return all customer and/or Corporation property, such as computers, software and cell phones, and documents (and any copies including, without limitation, in machine or human-readable form), to the Corporation when her employment terminates. The Executive shall not be required to keep confidential any Confidential Information which (x) is or becomes publicly available through no fault of the Executive, (y) is already in her possession (unless obtained from the Corporation or one of its customers) or (z) is required to be disclosed by applicable law or regulation, or pursuant to the valid order of a court of competent jurisdiction or an authorized government agency, provided that the Executive shall provide the Corporation written notice of any such order prior to such disclosure to the extent practicable under the circumstances and permitted by applicable law. Further, the Executive shall be free to use and employ her general skills, know-how and expertise, and to use, disclose and employ any generalized ideas, concepts, know-how, methods, techniques or skills, including, without limitation, those gained or learned during the course of the performance of her duties and responsibilities hereunder, so long as she applies such information without disclosure or use of any Confidential Information.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 354 U.S. 393 77 S.Ct. 1098 1 L.Ed.2d 1423 Jesse BLACKBURN, Petitioner,v.STATE OF ALABAMA. No. 426. Argued May 2, 1957. Decided June 17, 1957. Mr. Truman Hobbs, Montgomery, Ala., for the petitioner. Mr. Paul T. Gish, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. of Alabama, Montgomery, Ala., for the respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 The record in this case leaves us uncertain whether petitioner's claim to the protection of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed upon by the Court of Appeals of Alabama. 38 Ala.App. 143, 88 So.2d 199. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the cause to that court in order that it may pass upon this claim. State of Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U.S. 551, 60 S.Ct. 676, 84 L.Ed. 920. 2 Judgment vacated and cause remanded. 3 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom The CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice BRENNAN concur, dissenting. 4 Petitioner has made as strong a showing as possible that he signed the confession when he was insane. Throughout the whole proceeding he has claimed that the confession was involuntary. The Judgment should therefore be reversed. See Chambers v. State of Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 60 S.Ct. 472, 84 L.Ed. 716; Leyra v. Denno, 347 U.S. 556, 74 S.Ct. 716, 98 L.Ed. 948.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 2021-22, 90 L.Ed.2d 445 (1986) (upholding FTC’s ruling that dentists violated antitrust laws by agreeing to withhold x-rays from insurers); Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2, 29-31, 104 S.Ct. 1551, 1567-68, 80 L.Ed.2d 2 (1984) (upholding exclusive contract between anesthesiologists and hospital); Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Soc’y, 457 U.S. 332, 348-49, 102 S.Ct. 2466, 2475, 73 L.Ed.2d 48 (1982) (finding physicians’ price-fixing agreement violative of antitrust laws). Nor can it fairly be said that a health care professional cannot under any circumstances state a cause of action under the Sherman Act against a hospital review committee for denial of staff privileges. Summit Health Ltd. v. Pinhas, 500 U.S. 322, 332, 111 S.Ct. 1842, 1848, 114 L.Ed.2d 366 (1991) (<HOLDING>); cf. Health Care Quality Improvement Act of Options: A. holding that physicians claim against peer review committee satisfied the interstate commerce jurisdictional requirements of the sherman act B. holding that the state privilege should not apply when the peer review records sought directly related to the allegations challenging the peer review process C. holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act D. holding that hospitals may be found liable for conspiring with members of medical staff and that evidence of pretextual sham peer review proceedings presented jury question whether hospitals conspired with peer review committees in violation of sherman act E. recognizing that the interstate nexus requirement is satisfied by proof of a probable or potential impact on interstate commerce

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that physicians claim against peer review committee satisfied the interstate commerce jurisdictional requirements of the sherman act
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: review of a denial of “Special Agriculture Worker” (“SAW”) status except in the context of a deportation order. The statute states: “There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a determination respecting an application for adjustment of status under this section except in accordance with this subsection.” 8 U.S.C. § 1160(e) (as amended by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986). The Court held that this bar did not preclude review of “general collateral challenges to unconstitutional practices and policies used by the agency in processing applications.” McNary, 111 S.Ct. at 896. Rather, it only barred review of individual denials of SAW status. Id. The statute in McNary resembles the CERCLA provision at issue here in two r S.Ct. 2457, 2465, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we conclude that we have jurisdiction Options: A. holding that more expansive language barred all challenges related to statute B. holding that the defendant was precluded from asserting error where the defendant had used all of his peremptory challenges and did not ask for more C. holding that courts should exercise judicial restraint and decide asapplied challenges before facial challenges D. holding that where the appellants listed challenges in the statement of issues but failed to brief them the challenges were waived E. holding that challenges to an arrest warrant are not jurisdictional

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that more expansive language barred all challenges related to 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: resulted in a discharge. See 11 U.S.C. § 1328(f)(1). Although Chapter 20 cases are permitted, TD Bank and the Trustee encourage this Court to adopt a per se rule making lien stripping in a Chapter 20 case contingent upon the entry of a Chapter 13 discharge. A general review of lien stripping is instructive. “In a ‘strip off the entire lien is removed, whereas in a ‘strip down’ a lien is bifurcated into secured and unsecured claims with only the unsecured claim component being removed.’ ” Johnson v. Asset Management Group, LLC, 226 B.R. 364, 365 n. 3 (D.Md.1998) (citing In re Lam, 211 B.R. 36, 37 n. 2 (9th Cir. BAP 1997)). It is well established that a debtor is precluded from lien stripping in Chapter 7 cases. See Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410, 112 S.Ct. 773, 116 L.Ed.2d 903 (1992) (<HOLDING>); see also Ryan v. Homecomings Financial Options: A. holding that the words allowed secured claim in 506d refer to a claim that is secured by a lien and allowed under 502 B. holding that the meaning of allowed secured claim in 506a does not determine the meaning of allowed secured claim in 506d C. holding that section 506d does not permit the strip down of a partially secured lien D. holding that the lien bond releases the property from the lien but the lien is then secured by the bond E. holding that allowing lien avoidance solely under section 506d would run afoul of dewsnup

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that section 506d does not permit the strip down of a partially secured lien
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 the Executive asserts any claim in any contest (whether initiated by the Executive or by the Company) as to the validity, enforceability or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement, the Company shall pay the Executive’s legal expenses (or cause such expenses to be paid) including, without limitation, his reasonable attorney’s fees, on a quarterly basis, upon presentation of proof of such expenses, provided that the Executive shall reimburse the Company for such amounts, plus simple interest thereon at the 90-day United States Treasury Bill rate as in effect from time to time, compounded annually, if the Executive shall not prevail, in whole or in part, as to any material issue as to the validity, enforceability or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement.

assistant: Expenses
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: For the purposes of this Agreement, notices and all other communications provided for in this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given when personally delivered or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to the respective addresses last given by each party to the other; provided however that all notices to the Employer shall be directed to the attention of the Employer with a copy to the Chief Executive Officer. All notices and communications shall be deemed to have been received on the date of delivery thereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous understandings or agreements, whether written or oral, with respect to the subject matter hereof (including the Prior Agreement). Each Party confirms that it is not relying on any representations, warranties or covenants of the other Party except as specifically set forth herein. No amendment, modification, release or discharge of this Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties unless in writing and duly executed by authorized representatives of both 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: (Emphasis added.) Finally, paragraph 13 of the Restrictions states that “[n]o structure shall be commenced or erected on any of said lots” unless approved, either affirmatively or by default, by the architectural committee, “[pjrovided ... that the design, location and the kind of materials and the building to be built on said lot shall be governed by all of the restrictions herein set forth and said building shall be in harmony with existing buildings and structure 193, 197-98 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1959) (interpreting restrictive covenants to manifest an intent to preserve the residential character of the properties, which included the prohibition of constructing roads, especially roads not bene-fitting the property owners); see also Rush v. Miller, 21 Wash.App. 156, 584 P.2d 960, 963 (1978) (<HOLDING>); Hanley v. Misischi, 111 R.I. 233, 302 A.2d Options: A. holding where exempt organization was in possession of real property under land contract obligating organization to pay the purchase price and use land for exempt purpose the association was the owner of the land within the meaning of the statute B. holding that a roadway benefitting land outside the subdivision was not a residential purpose and was therefore a violation of the restrictive covenant C. holding that a restrictive covenant with a tenyear term was unenforceable D. holding that a restrictive covenant with worldwide restrictions on competition is not reasonable E. holding that a roadway is a structure and its construction would violate the restrictive covenant limiting the land to residential purposes

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a roadway benefitting land outside the subdivision was not a residential purpose and was therefore a violation of the restrictive covenant
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 the fact that the second occurrence of the term “including” in § 902(13) is followed by the parenthetical “(but not limited to).” Both occurrences of the term “including” were added to § 902(13) in the 1984 amendments to the LHWCA, and it is illogical to assume that Congress intended both to be construed as “including but not limited to” but only chose to modify the second occurrence of the term with a parenthetical. Id. at 479. The court concluded that under § 902(13), “ ‘wages’ equals monetary compensation plus taxable advantages,” and therefore, the value of meals and lodging exempt from taxation under § 119 are not wages or taxable advantages and are excluded from the definition of wages. Id.; accord Wausau Ins. Cos. v. Director, OWCP, 114 F.3d 120, 121-22 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). We subsequently interpreted the holding in Options: A. holding under indiana law that profits are not wages and neither is a fraction of profits wages and so a bonus that is based on the performance of a plant rather than on the time or determinable output of the employee is not wages either B. holding that lodging of a stationary engineer could not be deducted from wages because his residing at the complex was primarily for the benefit of the employer C. holding that the cost of lodging on the ship is not includable as wages for sleeping on the vessel was primarily for the benefit and convenience of the employer D. holding that the value of meals and lodging that are tax exempt under 119 is excluded from wages under the lhwca E. holding that the employer was not required to withhold or pay fica and futa taxes in 1971 with respect to the free meals it furnished its employees because the employer could not have told from the relevant statutes and regulations that the free meals were remuneration and thus wages

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the value of meals and lodging that are tax exempt under 119 is excluded from wages under the lhwca
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. State, 53 So.3d 165, 167 (Ala.Crim.App.2010). Accordingly, “It is well settled that[, when offered for the truth of the matter asserted,] a non-testifying codefendant’s statement to police implicating the accused in the crime is inadmissible against the accused; it does not fall within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule and ... [it] violates the accused’s confrontation rights. See Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 106 S.Ct. 2056, 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986); Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968); R.L.B. v. State, 647 So.2d 803 (Ala.Crim. App.1994); Ephraim v. State, 627 So.2d 1102 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).” Jackson v. State, 791 So.2d 979, 1024 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). See also Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 139, 119 S.Ct. 1887, 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Hillard, 53 So.3d at 169 (holding that a Options: A. holding that the confrontation clause does not require a showing of unavailability as a condition precedent to the admission of the outofcourt statements of a nontestifying coconspirator B. holding that the sixth amendment right of confrontation applies to all three phases of the capital trial and that the admission of hearsay statements of codefendants in the penalty phase violated the confrontation clause C. holding that the admission of prior testimony that had been subjected to crossexamination violated the confrontation clause because the state did not prove that the witness was unavailable D. holding that when deciding whether the admission of a declarants outofcourt statements violates the confrontation clause courts should independently review whether the governments proffered guarantees of trustworthiness satisfy the demands of the clause E. holding that the admission of an accomplices outofcourt confession violated the petitioners confrontation clause rights

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the admission of an accomplices outofcourt confession violated the petitioners confrontation clause rights
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 covenants herein shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. The term "Lender" as used herein includes any successor or assign of the named Lender herein, including without limitation, any co-lender at the time of making the Loan, any purchaser at a foreclosure sale and any transferee pursuant to a deed in lieu of foreclosure, and their successors and assigns, trustees and agents, as well as any single purpose entity established by Lender to take title to the Property by reason of such foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure. The terms "Tenant" and "Owner" as used herein include any successor or assign of the named Tenant and Owner herein, respectively; provided, however, that such reference to Tenant's or Owner's successors and assigns shall not be construed as Lender's consent to any assignment or other transfer by Tenant or Owner.

assistant: Successors
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: Employee has reviewed with his or her own tax advisors the federal, state, local and foreign tax consequences of this investment and the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. Employee is relying solely on such advisors and not on any statements or representations of the Company or any of its agents. Employee understands that he/she (and not the Company) shall be responsible for his/her own tax liability that may arise as a result of the grant of RSUs or the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: (2) he sought to but was unable to obtain complete supporting documents for the years 1975-1986, (3) the figures are documented in part by past tax returns which comport with Debtor's testimony, and (4) Debtor's expert Mr. Fife used a reasonable method to calculate the contributions and interest thereon. 5 . § 522(b)(3)(C); § 522(d)(12). 6 . § 522(b)(4)(B)(i)-(ii). 7 . Although Wilson’s declaration does not attest to whether the IRA was in substantial compliance on the date of the bankruptcy petition, which is the operative date for purposes of this analysis, the parties did not raise this as an issue. 8 . 26 U.S.C. § 408(d) deals with the tax treatment of distributions and will be discussed in the next section. 9 . See Michel v. C.I.R., 58 T.C.M. (CCH) 1019, 1989 WL 154252 (T.C.1989) (<HOLDING>). 10 . The distinction can be found in the IRC Options: A. recognizing a right to contribution B. holding that the subsequent tax treatment of an ira contribution does not affect the validity of the ira C. holding that shepard did not affect the continuing validity of almendareztorres D. holding that a defective acknowledgment does not affect the validity of a mortgage as to the parties E. holding that the invalidity of a provision for a de novo trial in superior court in the appeal section of an act did not affect the validity of the remainder of the appeal section

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the subsequent tax treatment of an ira contribution does not affect the validity of the ira
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: held in Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op. of Florida, findings satisfying both prongs of our standard are essential before dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. 864 F.2d 101, 102-03 (11th Cir.1989). And, although “we occasionally have found implicit in an order the [findings necessary to support dismissal], we have never suggested that the district court need not make that finding.” World Thrust Films, Inc., 41 F.3d at 1456 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We rigidly require the district courts to make these findings precisely “[b]ecause the sanction of dismissal with prejudice is so unsparing,” Mingo, 864 F.2d at 103, and we strive to afford a litigant his or her day in court, if possible. Flaksa v. Little River Marine Constr. Co., 389 F.2d 885, 888 (5th Cir.1968) (<HOLDING>). Thus, in Mingo, where the district court Options: A. recognizing the importance except in the most flagrant circumstances of resorting to sanctions that do not deprive a litigant of his day in court B. holding that it is error to conduct most of the jury selection process in the absence of the defendant C. recognizing that it is not enough merely to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way leaving the court to do counsels work D. holding that a litigant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute if the law is unconstitutional as applied to that particular litigant E. holding that court had no obligation to inform pro se litigant of procedural requirements due to clear evidence in record including inter alia defendants mention of requirements in summary judgment motion that litigant knew requirements

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing the importance except in the most flagrant circumstances of resorting to sanctions that do not deprive a litigant of his day in court
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as provided in Sections 4 and 5, subject to the Holder’s continuous employment through the Determination Date, the number of Earned Units determined pursuant to Section 2 shall vest on the Determination Date.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: at C2-3, with his central canal and right neural foramen within normal limits. (Tr. 508). Dr. Adler opined Plaintiff had minimal narrowing at C3-4, but his central canal was within normal limits. (Tr. 508). Dr. Adler found Plaintiff had no evidence of disc bulge or focal disc profusion at C4-5, and Plaintiffs central canal and neural for-aminals were within normal limits'. (Tr. 508). Plaintiffs central, canal was within normal limits at C5-6, with “minimal” joint hypertrophy and mild bilateral neural fora-minal narrowing. (Tr. 509). In cessation cases, the burden is on the Commissioner to prove that the claimant is no longer disabled as of the cessation date because the Plaintiff had experienced “medical improvement.” See Simpson v. Schweiker, 691 F.2d 966, 969 (11th Cir. 1982) (<HOLDING>), superceded by statute on other grounds as Options: A. holding that claimant moving for summary judgment on its claim must conclusively prove all the essential elements of the claim and that claimant has the burden to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that claimant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law B. holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant C. holding that the alj erred in determining that the claimant was disabled when a retrospective diagnosis along with all other medical evidence supported a finding of disability D. holding that in cessation of disability cases medical improvement standard places burden on government to prove that the claimant is no longer disabled as of cessation date E. holding that because a suspension admittedly is a concession that disability is continuing claimant need only show that the work provided by the employer on which the suspension is based is no longer available to claimant whereupon total disability payments must be reinstated as of the date of termination of that employment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that in cessation of disability cases medical improvement standard places burden on government to prove that the claimant is no longer disabled as of cessation date
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: elements of the tort of fraud or deceit in Maryland where the tort is committed by a defendant who knows that his representation is false, include the type of deliberate wrongdoing and evil motive that has traditionally justified the award of punitive damages. Id. at 235, 652 A.2d 1117. The buyers maintain that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support a finding, by a clear and convincing standard, that Wood acted with conscious knowledge of the falsity of the impressions she was giving the buyers, not merely with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of those impressions, and therefore with “actual malice”; and thus it was a jury question whether punitive damages were warranted against her and hence against Irwin. See Embrey v. Holly, 293 Md. 128, 137, 442 A.2d 966 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, they maintain that the evidence Options: A. holding that punitive damages may be imposed against employer for tortious conduct of employee B. recognizing that an award of treble damages for an antitrust violation and punitive damages for common law tortious interference with business relations based on same conduct would be duplicative holding that punitive and treble damages cannot both be awarded and indicating that a special jury verdict in this situation would be appropriate C. holding that when an employee is injured by his employers tortious conduct his employer owes him damages and compensation under the act D. holding a court may not award punitive damages E. holding that erisa did not permit employee to bring claim for punitive damages against employer

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that punitive damages may be imposed against employer for tortious conduct of employee
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: similar to the plaintiff in the Shanlde case. After reviewing the case law, Judge Poliak held: This is an easy case. Giordano was a fairly low-level employee of Pep Boys earning a relatively low wage of $400.00 per week at the time of his termination. He avers that he could not afford the filing fees and arbitrators’ costs for which he would be responsible pursuant to the agreement and the AAA’s rules. Giordano is similar to the plaintiffs in Cole and Shankle and unlike the wealthier employees in [other cases].... 2001 WL 484360, at *6. As Judge Poliak noted in Giordano, many of the cases finding cost-splitting provisions enforceable involved “highly paid employees,’’ relatively speaking. See, e.g., Bradford v. Rockwell Semiconductor Sys., Inc., 238 F.3d 549, 558 n. 6 (4th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). 10 . To those who would complain that Options: A. holding that litigant with annual base salary of 115000 and average yearly bonuses in three previous years of 53000 was not deterred from arbitration by risk of incurring costs B. holding the party seeking to invalidate an arbitration agreement because of prohibitive arbitration fees bears the burden of proof and the possibility of such party incurring prohibitive costs is too speculative to invalidate an arbitration agreement where the record reveals only that the agreement is silent on the subject of arbitration costs C. holding that use of annual salary rate created fact issue as to whether the employment contract was atwill or for a specific term D. holding that arbitration agreement requiring litigant to pay onehalf of arbitration costs failed to provide an accessible forum in which litigant could resolve his statutory rights E. holding that where an arbitration agreement between an employer and employee does not specifically provide for the handling of arbitration costs california courts should interpret the arbitration agreement as providing that the employer must bear the arbitration forum costs

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that litigant with annual base salary of 115000 and average yearly bonuses in three previous years of 53000 was not deterred from arbitration by risk of incurring costs
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 agent, broker, investment banker or other firm or Person is or will be entitled to any broker’s or finder’s fee or any other commission or similar fee in connection with any of the Transactions as a result of any action taken by Licensor or any Additional Party.

assistant: Fees
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: Title and risk of loss to Products shall pass from the Company to Aron as Products pass the Products Intake Point. Aron shall retain title and risk of loss through the Included Product Pipelines and in the Included Product Tanks. Title and risk of loss to Products shall pass from Aron (i) to the Company as Products pass at a Products Delivery Point or (ii) in the case of sales of Product by Aron under the Marketing and Sales Agreement, to the Company or third parties (as the case may be) at a Products Offtake Point, including tank to tank transfer.

assistant: Titles
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 notice or other communication to the parties shall be sent to the addresses set out above, or such other places as they may from time to time specify by notice in writing to the other party. All notices or other communications required to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be effective (i) if mailed, seven (7) business days after mailing with registered mail, (ii) if sent by messenger, upon receipt, and (iii) if sent via facsimile, upon transmission and electronic confirmation of receipt or (if transmitted and received on a non-business day) on the first business day following transmission and electronic confirmation of receipt.

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: there are competing public interests. On the one hand, there is a public interest in protecting the integrity of the patent system and therefore, granting an injunction to ensure that a patentee has an exclusive right to its patent. On the other hand, in cases where the infringing product is valuable to the public-at-large, there may be a public interest in denying the injunction. The Federal Circuit has said: Typically, in a patent infringement case, although there exists a public interest in protecting rights secured by valid patents, the focus of the district court’s public interest analysis should be whether there exists some critical public interr est that would be injured by the grant of preliminary relief. Hybritech Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 849 F.2d 1446, 1458 (Fed.Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Wesley-Jessen Division of Schering Corp. v. Options: A. holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to enjoin some products but not others B. holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony C. holding that lower courts application of a some effort standard was an abuse of discretion D. holding not an abuse of discretion to deny funds E. holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to enjoin some products but not others
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH PARTY KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY, AND INTENTIONALLY WAIVES ITS RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW IN ANY ACTION OR OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT AND THE TRANSACTIONS IT CONTEMPLATES. THIS WAIVER APPLIES TO ANY ACTION OR OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDING, WHETHER SOUNDING IN CONTRACT, TORT, OR OTHERWISE. EACH PARTY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT HAS RECEIVED THE ADVICE OF COMPETENT COUNSEL.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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: privacy in one’s bodily integrity. See Bell, 441 U.S. at 558, 99 S.Ct. 1861. This lesser degree of privacy would result from the needs of prison officials to check intimate areas of a prisoner’s body for weapons or drugs. See id. The theory underlying this principle is that once a person has been subject to such searches, one does not expect to retain such privacy. This logic breaks down when applied and extended to probationers who have not served time in this environment and have not experienced this repeated searching. See id. In addition, the logic is not applicable to a person released and no longer subject to such searches. The intrusion past one’s bodily surface implicates the most grave privacy rights. See Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 769-70, 86 S.Ct. 1826; Nicholas, 430 F.3d at 658 (<HOLDING>). In the context of a warrantless and Options: A. holding that presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt standard are constitutionally required in criminal cases B. recognizing the difference between the physical intrusion required to take a fingerprint and the intrusion required to draw a blood sample is constitutionally significant C. holding that resentencing is required D. holding that more than notice to a defendant is required E. recognizing difference between tolling and equitable estoppel

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing the difference between the physical intrusion required to take a fingerprint and the intrusion required to draw a blood sample is constitutionally significant
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 disputes between or among any Persons arising out of or in any way connected with the Plan, this Agreement, the Shares or the RSUs shall be solely and finally settled by the Committee, acting in good faith, the determination of which shall be final. Any matters not covered by the preceding sentence shall be solely and finally settled in accordance with the Plan, and the Participant and the Company consent to the personal jurisdiction of the United States Federal and state courts sitting in Wilmington, Delaware as the exclusive jurisdiction with respect to matters arising out of or related to the enforcement of the Committee’s determinations and resolution of matters, if any, related to the Plan or this Agreement not required to be resolved by the Committee. Each such Person hereby irrevocably consents to the service of process of any of the aforementioned courts in any such suit, action or proceeding by the mailing of copies thereof by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, to the last known address of such Person, such service to become effective ten (10) days after such mailing.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any taxes or other legally required withholdings from distributions to Participants under the ERA will be deducted and withheld from the Participant's vested Accounts by the Employer, benefit provider or funding agent as required pursuant to applicable law. A Participant will be provided with a tax withholding election form for purposes of federal and state tax withholding, if applicable. A Beneficiary will be responsible for payment of his own federal, state and local taxes.

assistant: 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 Executive covenants and agrees that all prior agreements relating to confidentiality of proprietary Company information ("Confidential Information") and trade secrets of which the Executive has gained knowledge through his employment shall remain in effect and survive this Agreement. The terms Confidential Information and "trade secrets" shall not be deemed to include information that is accessible to or otherwise known by the public.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower will not, nor will it permit any Subsidiary to, enter into or suffer to exist any Sale and Leaseback Transaction other than the sale and leaseback of real property so long as, giving effect thereto, the Borrower is in pro forma compliance with Sections 6.12 and 6.13 and no Default exists or would result therefrom.

assistant: Sales
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 displaying a total lack of competence in the law.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 7. Further, in addition to charging that the judge has violated federal law “hundreds of times,” thus demonstrating his “heinous criminal nature,” plaintiffs state: “Of course, it don’t make no never mind to [the district judge, he] is so far above the law, [he] cain’t [sic] see the law, but then, [the judge] makes it up as he goes along anyway.” Aplt. Reply Br. to Aplee. Smith at 3. Referring to one of the defendants’ attorneys, plaintiffs wrote: “but hey— when you get to he like hell to gain advantage as [the attorney] has done — well go ahead and lie! Who cares?” Id. at 4. These statements come perilously close to forfeiting plaintiffs’ right to appellate review. See Garrett, 425 F.3d at 840 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, we have carefully reviewed the Options: A. holding plaintiffs scurrilous briefs that failed to address substance of claims forfeited appeal B. holding that the supreme court will not address an argument on appeal if a party has failed to obtain a ruling below C. holding that when an application letter included a statement referring to the appellate division briefs the claims in the briefs were fairly presented to highest state court because the fair import of this statement was that petitioner was requesting the new york court of appeals to review the same claims that were advanced in the appellate division D. holding that an appellant abandons an issue for purposes of appeal where he fails to argue it in his briefs E. holding that a habeas petitioner abandons the claims he does not address on appeal

assistant: The best answer is A. holding plaintiffs scurrilous briefs that failed to address substance of claims forfeited appeal