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: the violation would exist "in perpetuity.” Lake Shore Riding Academy, 38 Ill. App. 3d at 1003, 350 N.E.2d at 20. This analysis comports with earlier decisions of this court. In Armond v. Sawyer (1990), 205 Ill. App. 3d 936, 563 N.E.2d 900, the plaintiffs liquor license was renewed semi-annually for 12 years in violation of a referendum, the existence of which was known to the plaintiff. In holding that the city was not estopped from revoking the plaintiffs license, despite the unauthorized renewals, we refused to characterize the renewals as affirmative acts by the city, especially since the plaintiff was aware of the referendum. Armond, 205 Ill. App. 3d at 939, 563 N.E.2d at 902-03; see also Leong v. Village of Schaumburg (1990), 194 Ill. App. 3d 60, 69, 550 N.E.2d 1073, 1079-80 (<HOLDING>); People ex rel. Satas v. City of Chicago Options: A. holding that the village did not waive its right to revoke the plaintiffs liquor license on the grounds that he had been convicted of a felony even though it renewed the license through a routine procedure whereby renewal notices were sent to all licensed facilities B. holding governments repudiation of license gave patentee right to terminate license C. holding that possession of a drivers license is irrelevant to the offense of failing to present a license which is completed by failing to present the license when requested to do so by an officer D. holding that the commonwealth cannot revoke a drivers license without due process required by the constitution E. holding that department of transportation did not have control of motorists drivers license because although the department of transportation may have had a duty to recall the motorists license this authority to revoke does not involve physical possession or actual control sufficient to bring the license within the ambit of the personal property exception to sovereign immunity

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the village did not waive its right to revoke the plaintiffs liquor license on the grounds that he had been convicted of a felony even though it renewed the license through a routine procedure whereby renewal notices were sent to all licensed facilities
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: its situs.” McRary v. McRary, 228 N.C. 714, 718, 47 S.E.2d 27, 30 (1948) (citations omitted). In the present case, the last sentence in Paragraph 19 of the parties’ agreement states: “This Agreement shall be considered an instrument of conveyance of one-half (1/2) interest in such property of the non-owning party hereunder.” (Emphasis added). The Kansas court incorporated the entire agreement, including Paragraph 19, into the parties’ divorce judgment. In doing so, that court directly attempted to determine title to real property located in North Carolina. Since the Kansas court was without jurisdiction over the subject matter, any judgment attempting to affect the title to that subject matter is void and unenforceable whether entered on the merits or by cons 6 S.E.2d 552, 553 (1983) (<HOLDING>); Courtney v. Courtney, 40 N.C. App. 291, 297, Options: A. holding to the extent that the foreign decree attempts to affect title to property in north carolina it is void B. holding that any part of a foreign decree which attempted to determine ultimate title to north carolina realty is void C. holding that so much of the foreign judgment as attempts to affect the title to north carolina property is a nullity D. holding that north carolina court lacked personal jurisdiction over illinois bank even though some of its customers resided in north carolina and loan proceeds were used in north carolina E. holding that a foreign subsidiary that is not registered to do business in north carolina has no place of business employees or bank accounts in north carolina does not design manufacture or advertise its products in north carolina and does not solicit business in north carolina cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in north carolina even if some of the companys products do enter north carolina through the stream of commerce

assistant: The best answer is A. holding to the extent that the foreign decree attempts to affect title to property in north carolina it is void
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: During the five-year period prior to the date on which this representation is made or deemed made with respect to any Pension Plan or Multiemployer Plan, no ERISA Event has occurred which would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. Except as would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, neither the Manager nor any of its Subsidiaries has any contingent liability with respect to any post-retirement medical benefits under a Welfare Plan, other than liability for continuation coverage described in Part 6 of Subtitle B of Title I of ERISA or other applicable similar continuation of coverage laws. Except as would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, (i) no Multiemployer Plan is insolvent (as defined in Section 4245 of ERISA) and (ii) no non-exempt prohibited transaction (as defined in Section 406 of ERISA or Section 4975 of the Code) has occurred involving any Employee Benefit Plan.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. As a matter of first consideration, any court has the duty to determine, sua sponte, whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case. Welch v. McDougal, 876 S.W.2d 218, 220 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1994, writ denied). As material to this question, section 65.023(b) of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code requires that an application for an injunction to stay proceedings in a suit or execution on a judgment must be tried in the court in which the suit is pending or the judgment was rendered. This requirement is jurisdictional and does not relate merely to venue. See Butron v. Cantu, 960 S.W.2d 91, 94 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1997, no writ); Home Sav. Ass’n v. Ramirez, 600 S.W.2d 911, 913 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1980, writ refd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>). Because the Gard-ners seek to challenge Options: A. holding that the denial of a postjudgment motion without a hearing thereon is harmless error where 1 there is no probable merit in the grounds asserted in the motion or 2 the appellate court resolves the issues presented therein as a matter of law adversely to the movant by application of the same objective standard of review as that applied in the trial court B. holding that a judgment is subject to collateral attack where the judgment is void for want of jurisdiction with respect to the power of the court to render the particular judgment or decree as where the court exceeds the powers conferred on it by constitutional or statutory provisions C. holding that a dis trict court has no authority to issue injunction restraining enforcement of judgment of the county court where as here the judgment solely resolves who is entitled to immediate possession D. holding that motion to dismiss should not be granted unless the moving party has established that there is no material issue of fact to resolve and that it is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law E. holding that a judgment of another states court is entitled to full faith and credit j when the judgment is considered final under the laws of the rendering state

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a dis trict court has no authority to issue injunction restraining enforcement of judgment of the county court where as here the judgment solely resolves who is entitled to immediate possession
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: A change in ownership of the Company, a change in effective control of the Company, or a change in ownership of a substantial portion of the assets of the Company as such terms are defined in Treasury Regulation §1.409A-3(i)(5)(v), (vi), and (vii), respectively; provided , however , that such a change in ownership of a substantial portion of the assets of the Company shall constitute a “Change In Control” only if all or substantially all of the Company’s assets change ownership in connection therewith.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement, together with the Investment Agreement and the other Transaction Documents (as defined therein), contains the entire agreement among the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes and replaces all other prior agreements, written or oral, among the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive agrees not to disparage or otherwise refer to Company, its Executives, officers or directors in an unfavorable manner before, during and after the term of this Agreement, including verbal remarks in public or private and written remarks in paper or electronic format (e.g., e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, etc). Violation of this provision will result in termination of Employment and any benefits paid hereunder. Company, together with its executives, officers and directors, agrees not to disparage or otherwise refer to Executive in an unfavorable manner before, during and after the term of this Agreement, including verbal remarks in public or private and written remarks in paper or electronic format (e.g., e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, etc).

assistant: Non-Disparagement
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: (quoting Beard, 402 F.3d at 605). Here, despite the complete lack of any reasonable belief than any single student possessed any pills, the Academy searched all 134 of its students. Further, the school required all of the girls to perform the “bra lift” even if nothing revealed during the less intrusive part of the search suggested that the student was hiding contraband in her underwear. A search of the entire student body based on vague tips from unidentified students — where no follow-up investigation was made to determine who the actual perpetrators may be, how many students were estimated to be bringing pills into the school, or the nature and level of danger of the pills — was not an appropriate method of discovering the wrongdoers. See Redding, - U.S. at -, 174 L. Ed. 2d at 362 (<HOLDING>). As summarized by one scholar, Application of Options: A. holding that search of middle school student violated her fourth amendment rights B. holding that the excluded evidence required a finding of reasonable suspicion C. holding that refusal to consent to search cannot support a finding of reasonable suspicion D. holding the required knowledge under the reasonable suspicion standard is that a school administrators search of each student must forecast a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing E. holding that a school district owed the highest degree of care to a student on a school bus such that the district could be liable for the sexual abuse of the student by the school bus driver

assistant: The best answer is D. holding the required knowledge under the reasonable suspicion standard is that a school administrators search of each student must forecast a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing
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: other than article 42.12, section 5 of the same code. Therein, the legislature stated that matters involving conviction and punishment had to be appealed immediately after the defendant was placed on probation. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 23(b) (Vernon Supp.1999). Once probation is revoked, however, the complainant “may appeal the revocation.” Id. From this it follows that when the legislature said the accused “may appeal the revocation” it meant that he can only appeal matters relating to the revocation itself. See, e.g., Keith v. State, 916 S.W.2d 602, 608 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1996, no pet.) (concluding that the time to appeal the conditions of one’s probation is at the time the complainant is granted probation); Standley v. State, 517 S.W.2d 538, 541 (Tex.Crim.App.1975) (<HOLDING>). And, whether one was granted an opportunity Options: A. holding where party fails to challenge specificity of pleading it waives right to claim that pleading fails to meet legal requirements B. holding right to be fundamental C. holding that a defendant who fails to object to trial error forfeits his right to appellate review unless he can establish fundamental error D. holding that plain error review applies when a party fails to raise a claim before the district court E. holding that absent fundamental error one who fails to appeal when placed on probation waives his right to review

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that absent fundamental error one who fails to appeal when placed on probation waives his right to review
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: Landlord and Tenant represent that, except for Avison Young, representing Landlord, the parties have not dealt with any real estate broker, sales person or finder in connection with this Amendment, and no other real estate broker initiated or participated in the negotiation of this Amendment. Tenant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Landlord from and against any liabilities (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses) and claims for commissions and fees arising out of a breach of the foregoing representation.

assistant: Brokers
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: Eleventh Amendment purposes. The problem with relying now on the decision we made in Mumford is that we nowhere addressed the issue of who would pay for a damage judgment against the court of common pleas. The Supreme Court has now explicitly told us that this is the most important factor bearing on the Eleventh Amendment question. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 430, 117 S.Ct. 900, 137 L.Ed.2d 55 (1997) (stating “that the question whether a money judgment against a state instrumentality or official would be enforceable against the State is of considerable importance to any evaluation of the relationship between the State and the entity or individual being sued”); Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30, 48, 115 S.Ct. 394, 130 L.Ed.2d 245 (1994) (<HOLDING>). This court has followed suit; we now Options: A. recognizing the vulnerability of the states purse as the most salient factor in eleventh amendment determinations B. recognizing that the third factor permanence is the most important C. holding that state agencies are treated as states under the eleventh amendment D. recognizing that the most important factor in determining whether a governmental entity is entitled to eleventh amendment immunity is whether a judgment against it would be paid from the state treasury E. recognizing the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from suing a state

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing the vulnerability of the states purse as the most salient factor in eleventh amendment determinations
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: Other than as set forth on Schedule 4.1.4 attached hereto, there are no actions, suits or proceedings at law or in equity by or before any Governmental Authority or other agency now pending or, to Borrower’s Knowledge, threatened against or affecting Borrower, Mortgage Borrower, Guarantor, the Collateral or the Property, which actions, suits or proceedings, if determined against Borrower, Mortgage Borrower, Guarantor, the Collateral or the Property, would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. Other than as set forth on Schedule 4.1.4 , to Borrower’s Knowledge, there are no actions, suits or proceedings at law or in equity by or before any Governmental Authority or other agency now pending or threatened against CPLV Tenant or CPLV Lease Guarantor, which actions, suits or proceedings, if determined against CPLV Tenant or CPLV Lease Guarantor, would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: procedure of the foreign country or the international tribunal. Based upon these factors, the district court can deny, modify or order discovery as requested. See Intel, 542 U.S. at 265-65, 124 S.Ct. 2466. B. Section 1782(a) Statutory Requirements NextEra does not dispute that the threshold requirements authorizing judicial assistance under § 1782(a) have been satisfied. First, as a party to- the dispute, Mesa Power plainly is an “interested person.” 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). Second, Mesa Power’s application seeks evidence in the form of document production and deposition testimony. As to the third factor, Mesa Power requested evidence for use in NAFTA arbitration, which functionally qualifies as a “foreign or international tribunal” under section 1782. See In re Consorcio, 685 F.3d at 995 (<HOLDING>); In re Application of Winning (HK) Shipping Options: A. holding an arbitral panel in ecuador fell within section 1782s scope B. holding that bad faith handling of an insureds claim fell within the act C. holding that conduct fell within the scope of employment even if it may have been overzealous or one sided D. holding an arbitration tribunal fell within the purview of section 1782 E. holding that the challenged item was within the scope of the search because it reasonably fell within the expressed object of the search even though it turned out to be the defendants personal property

assistant: The best answer is A. holding an arbitral panel in ecuador fell within section 1782s scope
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: 1225-28. Because the Appeals Office was not required to provide Wrubleski with verification that proper procedures were followed in assessing his deficiencies for tax years 1998 through 2000, and because the computer-generated records that the Commissioner attached to its motion for summary judgment detailed the record of each assessment and, thus, was sufficient under § 6203, at least where Wrubleski failed to present contradictory evidence, these arguments were without merit. To the extent Wrubleski alternatively is claiming that the t ccompanying regulations, are exclusively and strictly construed. Id. at 1153 (citing Botany Worsted Mills v. United States, 278 U.S. 282, 288-89, 49 S.Ct. 129, 131-32, 73 L.Ed. 379 (1929)); see also Creel v. C.I.R., 419 F.3d 1135, 1141 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Even if we were to consider the “Affidavit of Options: A. holding that the governments attorney had the implicit authority to bind the government although the contracting officer had the express authority B. holding that even if the agents comments could be construed as an implied promise that cordovaperez would not be prosecuted in federal court cordovaperez is not entitled to the relief he seeks because he has not established that the ins agent was authorized to bind the united states attorney C. holding that appellant was not harmed where defendant never asserted that he was not a us citizen and no evidence in the record suggested he was not a us citizen D. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge E. holding that the us attorneys actions would not bind the government even if he intended to compromise a taxpayers civiltax liability if the us attorney did not have authority to reach a compromise

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the us attorneys actions would not bind the government even if he intended to compromise a taxpayers civiltax liability if the us attorney did not have authority to reach a compromise
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: any revisions to these terms and conditions will become effective the earlier of ( i ) the end of such 7-day period or ( ii ) the first time you access or use the service after such changes .

assistant: Contract by using
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: peripheral to a claim against the manufacturer). (b) The Nature Of The Core Claims The Kohs have no claim against MCSC for infringing the ’830 patent unless the Kohs are first able to obtain a ruling that the Microtek entities are liable for patent infringement. If the Kohs are not able to obtain such a ruling, i.e., if the ImageDeck product does not infringe the ’830 patent, then MCSC will have committed no infringing act in distributing and selling the ImageDeck. On the other hand, if the Kohs obtain an infringement verdict against the Microtek entities, and the Kohs collect royalties from Microtek or MEI, the Kohs cannot in turn collect royalties from MCSC, to whom Microtek or MEI sell ImageDeck units. See Intel Corp. v. ULSI Sys. Tech., Inc., 995 F.2d 1566, 1568-69 (Fed.Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the Kohs’s patent infringement claims Options: A. holding that after reading the patent a person of skill in the art would not understand the patentee to have invented a generic method where the patent only disclosed one embodiment of it B. holding a nonparty to a patent infringement suit who funded an unsuccessful challenge to a patent could not file a subsequent lawsuit again challenging the patent C. holding that knowledge of the patent is required for willful infringement D. holding that a patentee can collect only one royalty from a patent infringement E. holding in a patent infringement case that plaintiff lacked standing where it held a conditional right to license a patent and enforce license agreements but did not have the right to transfer the patent

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a patentee can collect only one royalty from a patent infringement
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 Employer shall pay Employee an annual base salary of Two Hundred Forty-One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($241,500) (the “ Base Salary ”). The Base Salary shall be paid in substantially equal installments in accordance with the Employer’s compensation policies and procedures on the payroll dates established by the Employer for its senior officers.

assistant: Base Salary
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 failure to exercise and no delay in exercising, on the part of the Administrative Agent, the Collateral Agent or any Lender, any right, remedy, power or privilege hereunder or under the other Loan Documents shall operate as a waiver thereof; nor shall any single or partial exercise of any right, remedy, power or privilege hereunder preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, remedy, power or privilege. The rights, remedies, powers and privileges herein provided are cumulative and not exclusive of any rights, remedies, powers and privileges provided by law.

assistant: No Waivers
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: value of the [debtor’s] assets.” Id. However, that Court further observed: None of this implies that debtors in bankruptcy may violate federal law with impunity, selling patented products or, say, going into the cocaine distribution business. Damages for wrongs done during the bankruptcy proceeding are administrative claims, and thus paid in full most of the time. The bankruptcy judge may enjoin ongoing wrongs, or release the automatic stay to allow another court to consider claims that debtors are violating the law. Public agencies may seek redress under § 362(b)(4). But the bankruptcy court is the clearinghouse for private actions .... Id. at 977 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). See also Advanced Computer Services of Michigan, Inc. v. MAI Sys. Corp., 161 B.R. 771 (E.D.Va.1993) (<HOLDING>). The patent infringement claims asserted in Options: A. holding that creation of a postpetition tax levy based on a prepetition assessment was barred by the automatic stay B. holding that the eleventh amendment does not prevent private individuals from bringing suit against state officials for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief for ongoing violations of federal law C. holding that the automatic stay barred a suit for injunctive relief to prevent postpetition antitrust violations D. holding that although the automatic stay only applies to proceedings against the debtor counterclaims seeking affirmative relief against a debtor implicate the automatic stay E. holding that the plaintiff had standing even though automatic stay had terminated and his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot because he also sought actual damages for violation of the automatic stay

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the automatic stay barred a suit for injunctive relief to prevent postpetition antitrust violations
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 a second-tier subcontractor's quantum meruit claim against a general contractor where it alleged that the general contractor had received compensation from the United States pursuant to its contract but had paid neither the subcontractor nor the plaintiff for the services rendered). 20 . In re Virginia Block Co., 16 B.R. 771, 774 (W.D.Va.Bankr.1982) (refusing to impose an implied contract on behalf of third party that contravened insured’s and insurer’s express contract under which dividends were to be paid to insured). 21 . See, e.g., Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Quality Hotels & Resorts, Inc., No. 90-2391, 1991 WL 30211, at *4 (4th Cir. Mar. 11, 1991) (unpublished); Virginia Block Co., 16 B.R. at 774; Rosenbaum v. Price Const. Co., 117 W.Va. 160, 184 S.E. 261, 263-64 (1936) (<HOLDING>). 22 .See, e.g., Raymond, Colesar, 961 F.2d at Options: A. holding that plaintiffs express contract with the surety company precludes an implied contract with defendant B. holding that putting implied restrictions on an employmentatwill contract would be inconsistent with the express terms of the contract which allowed for termination at any time C. holding that the plaintiffs express atwill agreement precluded the existence of an implied contract requiring good cause for termination D. holding that an implied contract may not be found if there is an express contract between the same parties on the same subject matter quoting 42 cjs implied and constructive contracts 34 p 33 E. holding that there can be no implied contractual term at variance with an express term of a contract

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that plaintiffs express contract with the surety company precludes an implied contract with defendant
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 Company and the Subsidiaries have, or have rights to use, all patents, patent applications, trademarks, trademark applications, service marks, trade names, trade secrets, inventions, copyrights, licenses and other intellectual property rights and similar rights necessary or required for use in connection with their respective businesses as described in the SEC Reports, except where the failure to possess such rights would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect (collectively, the “Intellectual Property Rights”). None of, and neither the Company nor any Subsidiary has received a notice (written or otherwise) that any of, the Intellectual Property Rights has expired, terminated or been abandoned, or is expected to expire or terminate or be abandoned, within two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, except where the failure to possess such rights would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. Neither the Company nor any Subsidiary has received, since the date of the latest audited financial statements included within the SEC Reports, a written notice of a claim or otherwise has any knowledge that the Intellectual Property Rights violate or infringe upon the rights of any Person, except as would not have or reasonably be expected to not have a Material Adverse Effect. To the knowledge of the Company, all such Intellectual Property Rights are enforceable and there is no existing infringement by another Person of any of the Intellectual Property Rights. The Company and its Subsidiaries have taken reasonable security measures to protect the secrecy, confidentiality and value of all of their intellectual properties, except where failure to do so would not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Intellectual Property
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: omitted). In that context, with intention-based constitutional claims in mind, the Supreme Court held that a supervisor’s “mere knowledge of his subordinate’s discriminatory purpose” does not amount to the supervisor’s violating the constitution. Id. at 1949. However, “the factors necessary to establish a Bivens [v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) ] violation will vary with the constitutional provision at issue.” Id. at 1948. Here, the underlying constitutional right of the inmate is to be free from the use of excessive force by his jailers. In such a case, I conclude that the traditional Colon categories of supervisory liability still apply. See Jackson v. Goord, 664 F.Supp.2d 307, 324 & n. 7 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (<HOLDING>). Following Iqbal, other judges in the Second Options: A. holding that deliberate indifference standard for imposing supervisory liability based on an eighth amendment violation is consistent with iqbal and collecting cases B. holding that iqbal eliminated supervisory liability previously permitted by colon in situations where the supervisor knew of and acquiesced to a constitutional violation committed by a subordinate C. holding colon standard is unaffected by iqbal in deliberate indifference case because iqbal involved discriminatory intent D. holding that the plaintiffs complaint was insufficient under twombly and iqbal because most of the facts alleged were actually legal conclusions or elements of the cause of action which may be disregarded on a motion to dismiss E. holding that at a minimum the deliberate indifference standard of estelle v gamble must be met

assistant: The best answer is C. holding colon standard is unaffected by iqbal in deliberate indifference case because iqbal involved discriminatory intent
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: does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view - during a lawful traffic stop, generally does not implicate legitimate privacy interests”) (citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied); Simmons, 283 Ga. App. at 143 (“[t]he use of a drug sniffing dog to conduct a free air search around the exterior of a vehicle during the course of a lawful traffic stop does not implicate the Fourth Amendment under the United States Constitution”) (punctuation omitted). 13 The entire stop, from the moment the officers first spoke to St. Fleur to the moment he was arrested, took approximately eight minutes. See Salmeron v. State, 280 Ga. 735, 737 (1) (632 SE2d 645) (2006); Hayes, 292 Ga. App. at 731 (2) (e) (ten-minute delay); Wilson, 293 Ga. App. at 138 (<HOLDING>); Davidson v. State, 257 Ga. App. 260, 264 (1) Options: A. holding that a threeminute delay between the completion of a traffic citation and the retrieval of a drug dog did not impermissibly extend the detention at a traffic stop B. holding that a traffic stop is valid under the fourth amendment if the stop is based on an observed traffic violation or if the police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation has occurred or is occurring C. holding that a traffic stop is reasonable under the fourth amendment when police have probable cause to believe a traffic infraction has occurred D. holding that a dog sniff of the outside of a car subsequent to a valid traffic stop did not constitute a search E. holding that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to exit the car pending completion of the stop

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a threeminute delay between the completion of a traffic citation and the retrieval of a drug dog did not impermissibly extend the detention at a traffic stop
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 BORROWER, AGENT AND THE LENDERS HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES ANY AND ALL RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LEGAL ACTION OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THE FINANCING DOCUMENTS OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED THEREBY AND AGREES THAT ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE TRIED BEFORE A COURT AND NOT BEFORE A JURY. EACH BORROWER, AGENT AND EACH LENDER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THIS WAIVER IS A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT TO ENTER INTO A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP, THAT EACH HAS RELIED ON THE WAIVER IN ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT AND THE OTHER FINANCING DOCUMENTS, AND THAT EACH WILL CONTINUE TO RELY ON THIS WAIVER IN THEIR RELATED FUTURE DEALINGS. EACH BORROWER, AGENT AND EACH LENDER WARRANTS AND REPRESENTS THAT IT HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY OF REVIEWING THIS JURY WAIVER WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, AND THAT IT KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVES ITS JURY TRIAL RIGHTS.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you waive any rights you may have under california civil code § 1542 , or any other similar applicable statute or law of any other jurisdiction , which says that : a general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release , which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor .

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: the premium services provide you access to certain enhanced products , services , features and functionality ( e.g. , premium graphs and analysis , an ad-free browsing experience ) .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: finding that the statute was preempted by ERISA, and (2) that third-party administrators providing services to ERISA plans fall within ERISA’s zone of interest, even if unenumerated therein. Korioth, 993 F.2d at 484; see also 29 U.S.C. § 1002(14)(A)-(B) (ERISA defines a “party in interest” as a person providing services to employee benefit plans. Here, plaintiffs indisputably provide services to such plans through their HMOs and PPOs). In NGS American, Inc. v. Barnes, 998 F.2d 296 (5th Cir.1993) (“NGSII”), affg 805 F.Supp. 462 (W.D.Tex.1992) (“NGSI”), the court again agreed that a third party administrator of an ERISA plan had standing to seek a declaration against the state that a state statute was preempted by ERISA. NGSII, 998 F.2d at 298 n. 2; see also NGSI, 805 F.Supp. at 465 (<HOLDING>). In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. Options: A. recognizing that an employer had a dual role as administrator of plan and as employer and only the role of administrator was held to a fiduciary standard B. recognizing that benefit plans must designate a fiduciary to serve as the plan administrator C. holding that district courts order remanding an erisa benefits determination to a plan administrator was nonfinal and therefore not appealable after the remand to plan administrator plan participant still could appeal the district courts decision that erisa preempted her state law claim and if successful she would be able to pursue punitive damage D. holding that even if a thirdparty administrator is not a fiduciary under erisa such an administrator still has standing pursuant to 1331 E. holding that an erisa plan administrator is not bound by an ssa disability determination when reviewing a claim for benefits

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that even if a thirdparty administrator is not a fiduciary under erisa such an administrator still has standing pursuant to 1331
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 Section 5 hereof and Section 2 of the Notice, if prior to the Vesting Date (i) the Grantee has a Separation from Service or (ii) there occurs a material breach of the Notice or these Terms and Conditions by the Grantee, all rights of the Grantee to the Restricted Stock Units that have not vested in accordance with Section 3 as of the date of such termination shall terminate immediately and be forfeited in their entirety.

assistant: Forfeitures
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 v. Moede, 48 F.3d 238, 241-42 (7th Cir.1995). Next, Helfand challenges the district court’s finding that the fraud amounted to a $21,000 loss, which formed the basis of the restitution order and a 4-level upward adjustment to his offense level under the guidelines. Helfand points out that Flagstar purchased the McGill property for the full amount then due on the mortgage at the sheriffs foreclosure sale instead of letting it go to the next highest bidder (he does not disclose what that bid would have been). Thus, he contends that any subsequent loss Flagstar suffered was its own doing and his fraud caused no loss. But a fraud victim’s effort to mitigate its losses does not lessen the wrongdoer’s liability. United States v. Vitek Supply Corp., 144 F.3d 476, 488-89 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Rather, the touchstone of a fraud loss Options: A. holding that delay caused by or consented to by a defendant is not unreasonable B. holding that costs of measures to rectify harm caused by defendant properly considered when calculating fraud loss C. holding that an award of restitution is only for the loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction D. holding under the policy language that diminution of market value is not a cause of loss but a measure of a loss caused by something else E. holding that an intended loss cannot exceed the loss a defendant could have occasioned if his or her fraud had been entirely successful

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that costs of measures to rectify harm caused by defendant properly considered when calculating fraud loss
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) The term of Executive’s employment under this Agreement (the “ Term ”) shall be effective as of April 27 , 2017 (the “ Effective Date ”) and shall continue until December 31, 2018 (the “ Term Expiration Date ”). Executive’s employment under this Agreement may be terminated earlier than the Term Expiration Date at any time pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 below.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the Executive’s employment pursuant to this Agreement shall begin on the date indicated above (the “Effective Date”) and ending on the first anniversary of the Effective Date (the “Expiration Date”), unless terminated earlier by the Company or the Executive pursuant to Section 4 of this Agreement (the “Term”). This Agreement shall renew automatically for another one-year Term on the anniversary of the Effective Date each year, unless either the Company or Executive notifies the other, in writing and in accordance with Section 17 herein, at least sixty (60) days prior to the Expiration Date, that either the Company or Executive wishes to terminate this Agreement (in which case this Agreement shall terminate in accordance with Section 4(a) herein).

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: 639 A.2d 1379, 1382 (R.I.1994), we declared that “[t]he purpose of an injunction is to prevent imminent, irreparable injury. * * * To require exhaustion of administrative remedies before seeking injunctive relief would destroy the effectiveness of such relief* * *.” If respondent were serious in his contention that he was fired because of his age, he could have asserted age and/or disabili ty discrimination as an additional ground for injunctive relief, notwithstanding his lack of a right-to-sue letter. We are satisfied that it was respondent’s own choices, not the operation of a formal barrier, that prevented Plunkett from litigating all his issues in one lawsuit. In Narragansett Electric Co. v. Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights, 118 R.I. 457, 459, 374 A.2d 1022, (2d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). These decisions have rested upon a plaintiffs Options: A. holding age discrimination claim barred B. holding race and gender discrimination claim barred C. holding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to gender discrimination and retaliation claims where she had only asserted discrimination based on race and disability in her eeoc complaint D. holding that a plaintiff could not assert a 1981 claim based on gender discrimination E. holding disability discrimination claim barred

assistant: The best answer is B. holding race and gender discrimination claim barred
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: no more doubt.” (Transcript of state court proceedings, pages 32-33). The witness O’Hara tentatively identified Pilón at the lineup and positively identified him at trial. He had been approximately twenty feet from the robber and had seen him twice, once headed toward the pharmacy and once headed away. The pharmacy customer, Vanderpol, saw the robber briefly and while she did not identify him at the lineup, she identified him in court at the time of trial. Because the record fairly supports the conclusion that the identifications were reliable, the district court correctly denied relief without a hearing even after assuming for the purpose of argument that the encounter at the suppression hearing was suggestive. See United States v. Love, 746 F.2d 477, 478 (9th Cir.1984) (per cu-riam) (<HOLDING>); Ponce, 735 F.2d at 336 (assuming Options: A. holding that appellate court may only review issues actually presented to and considered by the trial court B. holding that the district court did not err in relying on hearsay evidence where the government offered reasons why its hearsay evidence had indicia of reliability and the court considered the reliability of the evidence in deciding the weight to give the hearsay evidence C. recognizing that court may assume suggestiveness arguendo and review reliability D. holding that the trial court was not clearly erroneous in accepting expert testimony on the issue of reliability and rank order scoring that happened to include a component reliability estimate E. holding experts experience knowledge and training is considered in determining reliability

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that court may assume suggestiveness arguendo and review reliability