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: second argument is based on a comment in Key Tronic Corp. v. United States, 511 U.S. 809, 114 S.Ct. 1960, 128 L.Ed.2d 797 (1994), where in dictum the U.S. Supreme Court observed: “the statute [CERCLA] now expressly authorizes a cause of action for contribution in § 113 and impliedly authorizes a similar and somewhat overlapping remedy in § 107.” Id. at 816, 114 S.Ct. at 1966. To the extent that the Supreme Court refers to an “overlap,” we construe this overlap to consist of the fact that some courts have held that a landowner may bring a direct action under § 107(a)(4)(B) to recover its own clean-up costs from a polluter. Accord, Rumpke of Indiana, Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., 107 F.3d 1235, 1242 (7th Cir.1997); AM Int’l, Inc. v. Datacard Corp. Inc., 106 F.3d 1342, 1347 (7th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Akzo Coatings, Inc. v. Aigner Corp., 30 F.3d Options: A. holding that a landowner who paid less because it knew it was buying into an expensive cleanup was a little less innocent than the landowner described in akzo but still might recover under 107a4b for cleanup of contamination on its property due to a third party spill B. holding that a contractor had no duty of care to a third party under a premises liability theory because the contractor was not a landowner or occupier but expressing no opinion as to whether the contractor owed a duty to the third party under general negligence principles because the third partys legal theory was restricted to premises liability C. holding a plaintiff failed to show an actual injury to challenge an epa rule when the plaintiff alleged he would not have purchased a piece of property or would have paid less because the plaintiffs allegations showed only that the property was worth less to him not that the property was in fact worth less D. holding less than twothirds of the stock E. holding that a company which knew when it issued a policy that the insureds interest in the insured property was less than fee simple could not rely upon a provision rendering the policy void if the insureds interest was less than fee simple

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a landowner who paid less because it knew it was buying into an expensive cleanup was a little less innocent than the landowner described in akzo but still might recover under 107a4b for cleanup of contamination on its property due to a third party spill
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: act. Generally, an employer may be indirectly liable for hostile environment sexual harassment by a superi- or: (1) if the harassment occurs within the scope of the superior’s employment; (2) if the employer assigns performance of a non-delegable duty to a supervisor and an employee is injured because of the supervisor’s failure to carry out that duty; or (3) if there is an agency relationship which aids the supervisor’s ability or opportunity to harass his subordinate. See Restatement (Second) of Agency § 219(1), (2)(e), (2)(d). Subsequent to Meritor, the circuits differ on the appropriate test to apply in a hostile work environment case involving sexual harassment of an employee by the employer’s supervisor. See, e.g., Kauffman v. Allied Signal, 970 F.2d 178, 184 (6th Cir.1992)(<HOLDING>); Paroline v. Unisys Corp., 879 F.2d 100, 104, Options: A. holding that restatement 2191 is inapplicable to alleged sexual harassment by a supervisor was sexual harassment within the scope of antonis employment of course not B. holding that illegal sexual harassment is an illegitimate corporate activity beyond the scope of the supervisors employment C. holding that an employer must remedy situation of sexual harassment D. holding that the plaintiff must establish that a supervisors harassment was within the scope of his employment and that the employer failed to respond adequately and effectively when it learned of the harassment E. holding that a defendants notice of prior harassment against victims other than the plaintiff can give rise to title ix liability so long as the defendant possessed enough knowledge of the harassment that it could reasonably have responded with remedial measures to address the kind of harassment upon which the plaintiffs legal claim is based

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the plaintiff must establish that a supervisors harassment was within the scope of his employment and that the employer failed to respond adequately and effectively when it learned of the harassment
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 consideration for Seller agreeing to remove the Brazil Mill from the Agreement, Buyer shall pay Seller Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000), payable within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date.

assistant: Payments
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: NCAA discriminated against him based on his disability. 3. Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, Ct. Rec. 53, is GRANTED IN PART on the issues of whether Plaintiffs ADA claim has become moot and whether the NCAA cannot be subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 4. Because the Court lacks the authority to grant Plaintiff any relief for his claimed injury under the ADA, Plaintiffs ADA claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 5. Because Plaintiffs due process allegations fail as a matter of law, Plaintiffs claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 6. Because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claim, Plaintiffs claim under the WLAD is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Th ge, 959 F.Supp. 496, 498-99 (N.D.Ill.1997) (<HOLDING>); Stoutenborough v. Nat’l Football League, 59 Options: A. holding ada claim was discharged B. holding that group organizing bike race was not subject to ada C. holding that national football league was not a place and therefore not subject to ada D. holding that a plaintiff would have to show that he was not promoted because of his race not that he was a member of a protected group and was not promoted E. recognizing that certain forms of race consciousness do not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that group organizing bike race was not subject to ada
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: conditions when held by financial institutions, and the monies are escheatable together with “any interest or dividend which the financial institution would pay to the oumer upon claim therefor” (emphasis added)). In this respect, one legal encyclopedia explains that unclaimed property acts are not true escheat statutes ... in that the state does not acquire title to the abandoned property but is merely the custodian of the property, and the owner can reclaim the property at any time. The custodial nature of the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act serves to establish that the rights of the state are merely derivative from the rights of the owners of the abandoned property. 30A C.J.S. Escheat § 2 (2009); accord Smolow v. Hafer, 598 Pa. 561, 571, 959 A.2d 298, 304 (2008) (<HOLDING>); State v. Elsinore Shore Assocs., 249 Options: A. holding that property is not abandoned by operation of law unless the debtor formally scheduled the property before the close of the case B. recognizing that pursuant to pennsylvanias unclaimed property act abandoned property is held in perpetual temporary custody of the state C. holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property D. holding that a debtor must formally schedule the property before the close of the case in order for such property to be abandoned pursuant to section 554c E. recognizing that a temporary use of property does not automatically create an expectation of privacy in that property

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that pursuant to pennsylvanias unclaimed property act abandoned property is held in perpetual temporary custody of the state
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: paternity of the children has been determined legally, poten tially disrupting any stability in their family life, and destroying any confidence they may have in our legal system. In my view, even though permitted to modify a paternity order on a more liberal basis than before, “the discretion to modify or set aside otherwise final orders merely because they are entered in a paternity case is a remedy which must be exercised with the utmost caution.” Jessica G. v. Hector M., 337 Md. 388, 401, 653 A.2d 922, 929 (1995). This caution must include considering the welfare of the child. Maryland has consistently required that the best interest of the child standard be applied in matters affecting the welfare of children. See, e.g., Pangle v. Pangle, 134 Md. 166, 170, 106 A. 337, 338 (1919) (<HOLDING>); Turner v. Whisted, 327 Md. 106, 117, 607 A.2d Options: A. holding that the primary and overarching consideration in custody determination is the best interest of the child B. holding in a paternity action that the selection and change of the childs surname from the name chosen by the mother must be based on the trial courts determination that renaming is in the childs best interests and the record must affirmatively show such a name change is required for the welfare of the minor child C. holding that trial court improperly awarded custody of child to the childs stepmother and grandparents where no pleading in the case was directed at such relief and the childs mother had no notice that the issue would be considered D. recognizing that irrespective of the outcome of the title 9 hearing the court had the authority under njsa 304012 to retain custody of the child because the childs health and welfare would be at risk if returned to the home E. holding that the primary concern in deciding child custody cases is promoting the childs highest welfare

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the primary concern in deciding child custody cases is promoting the childs highest welfare
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: Restricted Stock and Restricted Stock Units shall vest, and any applicable Restricted Period shall lapse, in such manner and on such date or dates or upon such event or events as determined by the Committee; provided, that no Award Agreement shall contain a vesting period of less duration than the Minimum Vesting Period. Except as set forth in Section 13(g) hereto, the Committee shall not accelerate vesting of Restricted Stock or Restricted Stock Units.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All communications hereunder will be in writing and effective only on receipt, and will be mailed, delivered by hand or courier or sent by facsimile and confirmed or by any other reasonable means of communication, including by electronic mail, to the relevant party at its address specified in Exhibit C .

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: the form of conducting presentations in the state to'obtain business and to report’ their business activities were neither unilateral activities of.Hoagland or AFFT nor random and fortuitous. See id. at 153. Appellees agreed to attend the Texas meetings. See id. Hoagland presented evidence that appellees made representations during those meetings with regard to their qualifications that form the basis of. Hoagland’s claims, i.e., that because of those representations, Hoagland entered into a business relationship with appellees, entered into the Operating Agreement and agreed to modify it, and agreed to take part-.in infomercials and other inedia events promoting the FairTax Campaign. See Max Protetch, Inc. v. Herrin, 340 S.W.3d 878, 886-87 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, appellees!, contacts were Options: A. holding minimum contacts were necessary for personal jurisdiction over defendant B. holding that when determining whether a nonresident defendant has continuous and systematic contacts with texas sufficient to support general jurisdiction courts examine the defendants contacts and forumrelated activities only up to the time that suit was filed C. holding misrepresentation made by outofstate defendant to texas plaintiff who relied on it in texas satisfied requirement for jurisdiction under longarm statute based on commission of a tort in part in texas D. holding facetoface meeting in texas during which defendant made representations to plaintiff were purposeful contacts that formed a substantial portion of the core of the litigation E. holding that the litigation privilege did not preclude a malicious prosecution claim where the accusatorial statements that led to the plaintiffs arrest were made before the charges against him were filed and were not made during and were unrelated to the judicial proceeding

assistant: The best answer is D. holding facetoface meeting in texas during which defendant made representations to plaintiff were purposeful contacts that formed a substantial portion of the core of the litigation
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: Corp. v. United States Chemical Co., 43 F.3d 244, 250 (6th Cir.1994). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Pierce v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co., 40 F.3d 796, 800 (6th Cir.1994). III. Under the Supremacy Clause, “the Laws of the United States ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land ... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const, art. VI, cl. 2. The Supreme Court summarized ways in which federal law preempts other legislation under thi Supp. 823, 826 (W.D.Mich. 1987) (<HOLDING>). The challenged ordinance was promulgated Options: A. holding that municipal ordinance was preempted by frsa and void under supremacy clause B. recognizing that the supremacy clause does not of its own force create rights C. recognizing that the supremacy clause is not a source of any federal rights D. holding annexation ordinance void E. holding the frsa preemption exception did not cover regulation by municipal ordinance

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that municipal ordinance was preempted by frsa and void under supremacy clause
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: him without the consent of the other partners from any transaction connected with the formation, conduct, or liquidation of the partnership or from any use by him of its property. He claims that the words “hold as trustee” establish an express trust, that all partners are trustees for the rest of the partnership, and that a partner is therefore a fiduciary within the meaning of the act. However, under this statute, the trust arises only when the partner derives profits without consent of the partnership; it is the sort of trust ex maleficio not included within the purview of § 523(a)(4). See Davis, 293 U.S. at 333, 55 S.Ct. at 153-54; Teichman v. Teichman (In re Teichman), 774 F.2d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir.1985). But see Holmes v. Kraus (in re Kraus), 37 B.R. 126, 130 (Bkcy E.D.Mich.1984) (<HOLDING>). California courts, however, have raised the Options: A. holding that when language is exactly the same in two statutory provisions the meaning of that language is also identical B. holding that the law of michigan rather than the forum applied to manufacturers claim of attorneyclient privilege in a products liability suit because the communication took place in michigan and therefore michigan had most significant relationship to communication C. holding that partners are fiduciaries for the purpose of 523a4 relying on michigan statute with identical language D. holding that identical language in montana postconviction relief statute bars application of laches E. holding that the plaintiff bears the burden when relying on the discovery rule

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that partners are fiduciaries for the purpose of 523a4 relying on michigan statute with identical language
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. Forbis, 73 N.M. 445, 448, 389 P.2d 210, 213 (1964) (stating that expert testimony is generally required to establish a causal connection between the alleged malpractice and the injury), modified on other grounds, Pharmaseal Labs., Inc. v. Goffe, 90 N.M. 753, 568 P.2d 589 (1977); Jaramillo v. Kellogg, 1998-NMCA-142, ¶¶ 7, 12, 17, 126 N.M. 84, 966 P.2d 792 (stating that, different from a claim of negligence, a claim of medical malpractice requires deviation from the proper standard of medical practice recognized in the community and that expert testimony is usually required to establish that departure, and determining that the expert failed to establish that standard but instead only opined what he would have done); see also Skodje v. Hardy, 47 Wash.2d 557, 288 P.2d 471, 474 (1955) (<HOLDING>). {38} For the same reasons, Dr. Reid’s Options: A. holding that parents claims of outrage and negligent handling of a body were not subject to the medical malpractice statutes because hospital personnel did not engage in any medical skill or judgment in the disposition of the childs remains B. holding that there was insufficient evidence that alleged victim made statements to forensic nurseexaminer for purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment in part because there was no evidence regarding alleged victims past experience with medical facilities or medical providers C. holding that plaintiffs claim that medical providers did not comply with baker act was not subject to medical malpractice statutes ajlthough a medical diagnosis is necessary in order to involuntarily commit a patient the process of complying with the statute does not require medical skill or judgment D. holding that malpractice was not a jury issue where there was a lack of medical evidence that the defendants alleged failure to correctly diagnose was due to the fact that he failed to use care skill and diligence ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of the medical community cited in the committee comment for uji 131115 E. holding that evidence of prior similar acts was not proof of medical malpractice or whether the doctor lacked the proper degree of knowledge or skill

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that malpractice was not a jury issue where there was a lack of medical evidence that the defendants alleged failure to correctly diagnose was due to the fact that he failed to use care skill and diligence ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of the medical community cited in the committee comment for uji 131115
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: Without the consent of the Grantee, the provisions of this Award may be amended or supplemented (i) to cure any ambiguity or to correct or supplement any provision herein which may be defective or inconsistent with any other provision herein, or (ii) to add to the covenants and agreements of the Company for the benefit of Grantee or to add to the rights of the Grantee or to surrender any right or power reserved to or conferred upon the Company in this Agreement, subject , however , to any required approval of the Company’s stockholders and, provided , in each case, that such changes or corrections shall not adversely affect the rights of Grantee with respect to the Award evidenced hereby without the Grantee’s consent, or (iii) to make such other changes as the Company, upon advice of counsel, determines are necessary or advisable because of the adoption or promulgation of, or change in or of the interpretation of, any law or governmental rule or regulation, including any applicable federal or state securities laws.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Party shall execute and deliver all such future instruments and take such other and further action as may be reasonably necessary or appropriate to carry out the intention of the Parties expressed in this Joinder Agreement and the Trademark License Agreement, as amended hereby.

assistant: Further Assurances
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: 7.2 the content and compilation of content included on the skype websites , ( excluding user submissions ) such as sounds , text , graphics , logos , icons , images , audio clips , digital downloads and software , are the property of skype , its affiliates or licensors and are protected by united states and international copyright laws .

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: The Audited Financial Statements, copies of which have been furnished to the Lenders, have been prepared in conformity with GAAP applied on a basis consistent with that of the preceding fiscal year end period and present fairly, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries as at such dates and the results of their operations for the periods then ended, subject (in the case of the interim financial statement) to year-end audit adjustments and the absence of footnotes.

assistant: Financial Statements
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 did nothing more than "prevent [Dr.] Norlund from practicing his livelihood." Id. We noted that as long as Dr. Norlund did not contact any of the specified optometrists previously mentioned, then Dr. Faust had no protectible interest. Id. We reasoned that "[If there is no protectable interest involved, an employer may not forbid an employee to subsequently work in his profession in such a large area." Id. Similarly, we have found covenants not to compete that restrict an employee from working in any capacity for an employer's competitor or from working within portions of the business with which the employee was never associated to be unreasonable because such restrictions extend beyond the seope of the employer's legitimate interest. See, e.g., Sharvelle, 836 N.E.2d at 437-438 (<HOLDING>); Pathfinder, 795 N.E.2d at 1114 (holding that Options: A. recognizing an individuals right of privacy in the content of health records and noting that health records are the property of the health care entity maintaining them B. holding that a doctor was qualified under daubert to give an expert opinion on standard of medical care based on thirty years of experience as a practicing boardcertified cardiologist and his review of the medical records C. holding claim that negligent supervision caused assault was health care liability claim because it was inseparable from the health care and nursing services provided D. holding that covenants prohibition on the employeedoctor from practicing health care of every nature and kind was unreasonable where the doctor had been employed to practice in the specialty of ophthalmology E. holding that removal of suit against physicians employed by a federally funded community health center to federal court by the defendants on the ground that they were covered under the public health service act was improper as the department of health and human services had not yet made a determination whether defendants should be deemed to be employees

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that covenants prohibition on the employeedoctor from practicing health care of every nature and kind was unreasonable where the doctor had been employed to practice in the specialty of ophthalmology
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: counters that the Country Club was not a party, and if it was, it was no more than an affiliated successor-in-interest or surrogate of Catalina and had no independent right to excuse the district judge. We resolve the issue in favor of the City though on different grounds. {94} The right of peremptory excusal under Rule 1-088.1 is party specific. That is, each party has a separate right of excusal which cannot be affected by the actions of other parties in a case. Thus, in JMB Retail Props., Co. v. Eastburn, 114 N.M. 115, 118, 835 P.2d 831, 834 (1992) our Supreme Court clarified that only that party who requests a discretionary act of the judge will thereafter be precluded from later exercising a peremptory challenge. Saavedra v. Thomson, 114 N.M. 718, 719, 845 P.2d 812, 813 (1992) (<HOLDING>). {95} Here, the right of peremptory challenge Options: A. holding improper counsels argument that opposing counsel knew why plaintiff delayed in bringing action where opposing counsels knowledge was not in evidence B. holding that hearsay evidence is not acceptable in opposing a summary judgment motion C. holding that laches is an affirmative defense D. holding that not opposing a motion is not an affirmative act requesting discretionary action E. holding that fair use is an affirmative defense

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that not opposing a motion is not an affirmative act requesting discretionary 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: because it was not used to show that Chenault acted in conformity with a bad character. Chenault testified that he had produced more than the 6000 pallets he had on hand, but that they had been stolen and vandalized. Chenault intended this evidence to support his primary defense that even though the documents may have been false, he nevertheless had no culpable intent because he intended to and did use the money to build the pallets, which were then lost through theft and vandalism. The evidence about the disposition of the pallets, of course, directly implicates that attempted defense. It shows that rather than having the benign intent to complete the contract for the government, he intended to defraud the government. See United States v. Ackal, 706 F.2d 528, 531 (5th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Rule 404(b) expressly allows the admission of Options: A. holding on a criminal appeal that prior bad acts evidence is admissible to prove intent to commit the charged crime B. holding that when defendant claimed he was involved in a legitimate business deal evidence of a separate act of extortion was admissible to prove intent to commit fraud C. holding that there was no prejudice when evidence complained of would have been admissible against defendant in separate trial D. holding that extrinsic offense evidence was admissible to prove intent where the prosecutor stated that she anticipated the defendant would deny his intent to be involved in the charged offense and defense counsel did not even mention that he would refrain from contesting the intent issue E. holding that prior battery was admissible to prove defendants intent to injure

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that when defendant claimed he was involved in a legitimate business deal evidence of a separate act of extortion was admissible to prove intent to commit fraud
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 notices required or permitted hereunder shall be sent using any means (including personal delivery, courier, messenger service, facsimile transmission or electronic transmission), if to the Key Person, at the address set forth below or such other address as the Key Person may designate in writing to the Company, or to the Key Person’s home address if no other address has been provided to the Company and, if to the Company, at the address of its headquarters in Chicago, Attention: General Counsel, or such other address as the Company may designate in writing to the Key Person. Such notice shall be deemed duly given when it is actually received by the party for whom it was intended.

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: Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the Borrower may request the issuance of Letters of Credit denominated in Dollars for its own account, in a form reasonably acceptable to the Administrative Agent and the Issuing Bank, at any time and from time to time during the period from the Effective Date to the tenth Business Day prior to the Revolving Credit Termination Date. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the terms and conditions of any form of letter of credit application or other agreement submitted by the Borrower to, or entered into by the Borrower with, the Issuing Bank relating to any Letter of Credit, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: case closely follows the statutory form of the crime, and the indictment is consistent with the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-102.” Smith, 2014 WL 3954062, at *7. The charge of aggravated assault in this case consists of three elements: (1) intentional or knowing mens rea; (2) the assailant “attempts to cause dr causes bodily injury or commits or attempts to commit an assault”; and (3) the assailant has been “enjoined or restrained by an order, diversion or probation agreement” from committing the offense as described within element (2). See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-102(c). The indictment in this case stated that the mens rea was “unlawfully and knowingly,” which is sufficient to charge the requisite mens rea under the statute. See id.-, Sledge, 15 S.W.3d at 95 (<HOLDING>). The indictment also alleges that the Options: A. holding that a mens rea of unlawfully in the indictment was sufficient because the indictment referenced the applicable statute which required a reckless mens rea B. holding that under california law section 28002 requires a reckless mens rea C. holding that an indictment that omitted the mens rea element was sufficient because it cited the applicable statutes which informed the defendant of the elements of the charged offenses D. holding that conditional intent sufficient to satisfy specific intent mens rea in federal carjacking statute E. holding that conditional intent sufficient to satisfy specific intent mens rea in federal car jacking statute

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a mens rea of unlawfully in the indictment was sufficient because the indictment referenced the applicable statute which required a reckless mens rea
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 acknowledges and agrees that each of the Restrictive Covenants is reasonable and valid in time and scope and in all other respects. The parties agree that it is their intention that the Restrictive Covenants be enforced in accordance with their terms to the maximum extent permitted by law. Each of the Restrictive Covenants shall be considered and construed as a separate and independent covenant. Should any part or provision of any of the Restrictive Covenants be held invalid, void, or unenforceable, such invalidity, voidness, or unenforceability shall not render invalid, void, or unenforceable any other part or provision of this Agreement or such Restrictive Covenant. If any of the provisions of the Restrictive Covenants should ever be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to exceed the scope permitted by the applicable law, such provision or provisions shall be automatically modified to such lesser scope as such court may deem just and proper for the reasonable protection of the Company’s legitimate business interests and may be enforced by the Company to that extent in the manner described above and all other provisions of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The term of this Agreement shall extend from the Effective Date until the sooner of (a) the expiration of the Termination Protection Period, (b) the Key Employee’s Date of Termination, except in the case of a Qualified Termination (as defined in subparagraph 3a., below), or (c) the date on which the parties agree in writing to terminate this Agreement.

assistant: 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: of contract for the purchase and sale of property, this court said: ‘...whichever of the parties first desired to enforce performance was bound to regard his part of the contract as a condition precedent, and perform or offer performance in order to enable him to proceed to enforce the contract.’ This doctrine was reiterated by this court in Heights Land Co. v. Swengel’s Estate et al., 319 Pa. 298, 179 A. 431, 432, where it said: ‘It is equally well established that a tender of performance on the part of plaintiff is prerequisite to a decree for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate; he who seeks equity must do equity.’ Cohn, 51 A.2d at 743-44 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Cf. Moser v. Jacob Brown Building & Loan Ass’n, 182 A. 531, 533-34 (Pa. 1936) (<HOLDING>). A second reason why tender of payment of the Options: A. holding that there was no presumption of a gift where the wifes money was used to make the purchase but title was placed in the name of the husband and finding the facts sufficient to establish a purchase money resulting trust in favor of the wife B. holding the insurer liable for failing to settle the claim when time was of the essence C. holding optionees acceptance of option without tender of purchase price created mutually binding contract entitling optionee to specific performance D. holding that in an agreement of sale in which time was of the essence and tender of deeds and of purchase money were expressly waived waiver of time is of the essence of the agreement would not result from a failure to tender because the parties had agreed that neither tender of deed nor tender of purchase money was required to put the other in default E. holding that the state is not required to tender a nameclearing hearing prior to disclosing the charges or discharging the employee

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that in an agreement of sale in which time was of the essence and tender of deeds and of purchase money were expressly waived waiver of time is of the essence of the agreement would not result from a failure to tender because the parties had agreed that neither tender of deed nor tender of purchase money was required to put the other in default
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: states that judicial review as provided in this chapter is the exclusive method of review of the commission’s actions. Therefore, the proper standard of review in the instant case is determined by the Act. ¶ 41. As further support of their position on the standard of review, CDS refers this Court to an identical Nevada standard of review. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 463.3666 (Supp.1998). The “any evidence” standard has also been applied by the Nevada Supreme Court. M & R Inv. Co. v. Nevada Gaming Comm’n, 93 Nev. 35, 559 P.2d 829 (1977) (court’s function is to review the evidence presented to the Commission and to determine if there is any evidence to support the decision of the Commission); see also Nevada Gaming Comm’n v. Consolidated Casinos Corp., 94 Nev. 139, 575 P.2d 1337 (1978) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 42. Therefore, the circuit court improperly Options: A. holding that if a trial court reaches the right result but for the wrong reasons it will be upheld if there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record B. holding that a courts role in reviewing an administrative agency decision is limited to determining if there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the agencys findings and conclusions and to determine if the administrative decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law C. holding that the authority to determine the appropriate penalty is with the supervisor of liquor control and not the administrative hearing commission or the reviewing court D. holding that a reviewing courts task is to determine whether there was substantial evidence before the administrative agency on the record as a whole to support the agencys conclusions E. holding that in reviewing a gaming commission decision the court will examine the record to determine if there is any evidence to support the commissions order

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that in reviewing a gaming commission decision the court will examine the record to determine if there is any evidence to support the commissions order
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 set forth in Schedule 4.7, there are no actions, suits, or proceedings pending or, to any Credit Party’s knowledge, threatened against the Borrower or any Subsidiary, at law, in equity, or in admiralty, or by or before any Governmental Authority, which could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Change. Additionally, except as disclosed in writing to the Administrative Agent and the Lenders, there is no pending or, to the knowledge of any Credit Party, threatened action or proceeding instituted against the Borrower or any Subsidiary which seeks to adjudicate the Borrower or any Subsidiary as bankrupt or insolvent, or seeking liquidation, winding up, reorganization, arrangement, adjustment, protection, relief, or composition of it or its debts under any law relating to bankruptcy, insolvency or reorganization or relief of debtors, or seeking the entry of an order for relief or the appointment of a receiver, trustee or other similar official for it or for any substantial part of its Property.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, whether oral or written, with respect to the same, except for the Employment Agreement, and benefit, retirement, equity and incentive plans.

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: 915 S.W.2d 420 (Tenn.1996); Bervoets v. Harde Ralls Pontiac-Olds, Inc., 891 S.W.2d 905 (Tenn.1994); 2. cases in which joint and several liability continues to apply under doctrines such as the family purpose doctrine, cases in which tortfeasors act in concert or collectively with one another, cases in which the doctrine of re-spondeat superior permits vicarious liability due to an agency-type relationship, or in the “appropriate” products liability case, see Resolution Trust Corp. v. Block, 924 S.W.2d 354 (Tenn.1996); Camper v. Minor, 915 S.W.2d 437 (Tenn.1996); Owens v. Truckstops of Amen, 915 S.W.2d 420 (Tenn.1996), or 3. in the “appropriate case” in which “fairness demands,” see Owens, 915 S.W.2d at 430 (allowing contribution when “fairness demands”); Bervoets, 891 S.W.2d at 907 (<HOLDING>). The third circumstance, however, is not a Options: A. holding defendants were fiduciaries because they had discretion to determine the extent of the companys annual contribution to the plan and whether the contribution would be made in stock or cash B. holding that contribution will lie where no statute precludes recovery from the joint tortfeasor against whom contribution is sought C. recognizing contribution in the appropriate case D. recognizing that prior to 1949 when the statute permitting contribution among joint tortfeasors was enacted no right of contribution existed between jointtortfeasors in delaware E. recognizing a right to contribution

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing contribution in the appropriate case
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: but evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine, (see, e.g., Docket No. 149, at 45), but only point to case law pertaining to the "voluntary cessation” exception in their briefing on the issue, (see id. at 46). As their arguments seem to align more closely with the voluntary cessation doctrine, the court addresses only that exception to the mootness doctrine in detail. Suffice it to say that the result would more than likely be the same if Plaintiffs had properly raised an argument regarding the "capable of repetition, but evading review” exception. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ arguments would still fail on the likelihood of recurrence requirement which is equally applicable to the “capable of repetition” analysis. See Libertarian Party v. Dardenne, 595 F.3d 215, 217 (5th Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). , 6 . Certain circuits have explicitly Options: A. holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action B. holding that unconstitutional government action can only be challenged by a person directly affected it cannot be challenged by one invoicing the rights of third parties C. holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged D. holding that a physical or theoretical possibility that the government actor would repeat challenged actions is insufficient to demonstrate that the challenged action is capable of repetition E. holding that a sentencing decision will be affirmed if challenged factor is permissible and other factors are not challenged

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a physical or theoretical possibility that the government actor would repeat challenged actions is insufficient to demonstrate that the challenged action is capable of repetition
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. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal.4th 937, 945, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 282, 189 P.3d 285 (Cal.2008) (stating that “today in California,” under section 16600, “covenants not to compete are void, subject to several exceptions”), it is not clear that this general prohibition extends to non-solicitation clauses. Compare Dowell v. Biosense Webster, Inc., 179 Cal.App.4th 564, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 10-11 (2009) (Second District) (refusing to reach the open question in California law of whether “section 16600 bars a court from specifically enforcing (by way of injunctive relief) a contractual clause” designed to protect trade secrets by “purporting to ban a former employee from soliciting former customers”) with Ret. Grp. v. Galante, 176 Cal.App.4th 1226, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 585, 593 (2009) (Fourth District) (<HOLDING>). Further, even if the non-solicitation clause Options: A. recognizing that customer lists may be protectable trade secrets B. holding that the loss of trade secrets cannot be measured in money damages C. holding that eleventh amendment does not bar federal suit against state official for prospective injunctive relief D. holding that section 16600 does bar injunctive relief enforcing nonsolicitation clauses designed to protect trade secrets but does not bar injunctive relief to enjoin tortious use of trade secrets E. holding that supplier lists can be trade secrets under indianas uniform trade secrets act which uses the same definition of a trade secret as montana

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that section 16600 does bar injunctive relief enforcing nonsolicitation clauses designed to protect trade secrets but does not bar injunctive relief to enjoin tortious use of trade secrets