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: an offer effectively denies an insured the benefits of the insurance policy should focus “primarily on what [the insurer] knew or should have known at the time the offer was made.” See Morelia, 2013 WL 1562032, at *4. The reasonableness of State Farm’s offer here turns on whether plaintiffs internal bleeding can be traced to plaintiffs use of NSAIDs he took to manage pain resulting from the car accident. If it was unreasonable for State Farm to determine that plaintiffs gastro-intestinal bleeding was unrelated to his use of NSAIDs, then its offer was unreasonable and in violation of IFCA because State Farm offered an amount it knew, in light of the medical evidence it received from plaintiff, was significantly less than the value of plaintiffs claim. See Morelia, 2013 WL 1562032, at *4 (<HOLDING>). Ultimately, the Court finds that there is a Options: A. holding that after learning the information justifying rescission an insurers four month delay in seeking it was unreasonable as a matter of law B. holding that the language of 9133 applies only to insurers and not to the insurers employees C. holding that a claim based on an insurers failure to provide emergency benefits under state law is completely preempted because the factual basis of the complaint was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits D. holding insurers oral promise to settle a claim was an original undertaking and need not be in writing E. holding that as a matter of law an insurers offer was an unreasonable denial of the payment of benefits where it valued the claim internally between 1119480 and 1569480 but offered only 1500 to settle the claim

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that as a matter of law an insurers offer was an unreasonable denial of the payment of benefits where it valued the claim internally between 1119480 and 1569480 but offered only 1500 to settle the claim
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: that a statement "obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight,” is not voluntary); United States v. Leon Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1366 (9th Cir.1988) (same). 9 . Gonzales, 164 F.3d at 1289 n. 1 (citation omitted). 10 . Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 206, 80 S.Ct. 274, 4 L.Ed.2d 242 (1960). 11 . See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 285-88, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). 12 . Raphael v. State, Mem. Op. & J. No. 3799 at 18, 1998 WL 191159 (Alaska App., April 22, 1998) (Mannheimer, J., concurring). 13 . Id. at 18-20 (quoting Morris v. United States, 156 F.2d 525, 532 (9th Cir.1946) (Denman, J., dissenting)). 14 . See Otton v. Zaborac, 525 P.2d 537, 539 (Alaska 1974) (<HOLDING>); Johansen v. State, 491 P.2d 759, 762-67 Options: A. holding that due process encompasses the right to counsel in a civil contempt proceeding B. holding that constitutional due process in civil contempt proceedings requires notice and a hearing but not the right to counsel C. holding one man grand jury that held witness in contempt and sentenced him to prison was contempt proceeding to which there was a right to public access D. holding that a civil contempt defendant has a right to a jury trial when the act of contempt was not committed in the presence of the court and when the incarceration is in part punitive E. holding that vindictive prosecution claims in civil forfeiture proceeding may raise due process questions

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that due process encompasses the right to counsel in a civil contempt proceeding
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 the estate. D.W. NELSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting: As the majority recognizes, the sole issue for consideration in this case is whether the Tax Court erred in holding that the securities law restrictions that attached to shares of stock owned by McClatchy during his lifetime did not affect the federal estate tax liability of McClatehy’s estate. Because I believe that the Tax Court’s decision was correct, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion. The federal estate tax is not assessed against the decedent, but against the decedent’s estate. See 26 U.S.C. § 2001(a) (“A tax is hereby imposed on the transfer of the taxable estate of every decedent who is a citizen or resident of the United States.”); Estate of Curry v. United States, 706 F.2d 1424, 1429 (7th Cir. 1983) ■ (<HOLDING>). In my view, it follows that McClatchy’s stock Options: A. recognizing that exempt property ceases to be property of the estate B. holding that a legal malpractice claim arising from errors by an attorney in rendering estateplanning services is properly brought by the personal representative of the estate when excess estate taxes are paid by the estate in contravention of the decedents intended estate plan C. holding that if dispute involves funds that are not property of estate it cannot be maintained in the bankruptcy court unless it is related to the bankruptcy proceeding which means it is likely to affect the debtors estate D. holding that erisa benefits are not property of the estate E. holding that for estate tax purposes property is to be valued as it exists in the hands of the estate

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that for estate tax purposes property is to be valued as it exists in the hands of the estate
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 capitalized term used but not otherwise defined in this Amendment 2 shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Credit Agreement, and the interpretations set forth in the Credit Agreement shall apply to this Amendment 2.

assistant: Definitions
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: writ system — now abolished in this jurisdiction, Super.Ct.Civ.R. 2 — than with any substantive similarity. In light of the foregoing, it is clear that C.B. Snyder Realty stands only for the well-established proposition that where the parties have a contract governing an aspect of the relation between themselves, a court will not displace the terms of that contract and impose some other duties not chosen by the parties. This is. in accord with eases in this jurisdiction. See Wilderness Soc’y v. Cohen, 267 A.2d 820, 822 (D.C.1970) (“[Recovery under a theory of ... unjust enrichment ... is not available to [plaintiffs], because [forfeiture of the plaintiffs’ deposit with defendant] was expressly covered by the contract terms.”); Kilian v. Better Boxes, 121 A.2d 726, 728 (D.C.1956) (<HOLDING>). The present case, however, was not decided Options: A. holding that where an express contract was in place between plaintiff and defendant that governed the compensation sought by plaintiff plaintiff may not recover under a theory of unjust enrichment B. holding that where a prior agreement fixed the salary of the plaintiff plaintiff could not seek to recover for his services on a theory of unjust enrichment C. holding that there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment D. holding that unjust enrichment claim alleging fraudulent inducement was based on tort theory E. holding that the plaintiff may proceed under a claim for breach of contract and unjust enrichment because the defendant admitted the existence of a contract solely for the purposes of summary judgment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that where a prior agreement fixed the salary of the plaintiff plaintiff could not seek to recover for his services on a theory of unjust enrichment
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 3.1(r) , none of the officers or directors of the Company or any Subsidiary and, to the knowledge of the Company, none of the employees of the Company or any Subsidiary is presently a party to any transaction with the Company or any Subsidiary (other than for services as employees, officers and directors), including any contract, agreement or other arrangement providing for the furnishing of services to or by, providing for rental of real or personal property to or from, providing for the borrowing of money from or lending of money to or otherwise requiring payments to or from any officer, director or such employee or, to the knowledge of the Company, any entity in which any officer, director, or any such employee has a substantial interest or is an officer, director, trustee, stockholder, member or partner, in each case in excess of $120,000 other than for (i) payment of salary or consulting fees for services rendered, (ii) reimbursement for expenses incurred on behalf of the Company and (iii) other employee benefits, including stock option agreements under any stock option plan of the Company.

assistant: Transactions With Affiliates
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: From January 1, 2019 until December 31, 2019, you will receive transition payments at the rate of $10,000 per month. These transition payments will be paid 80% by FVE and 20% by RMR. Subject to any contribution required by you consistent with past practices, FVE will also maintain and provide your current insurance and employee benefits until the Separation Date, except that you will not accrue any vacation time.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise may be provided in paragraph 2 above or the foregoing provisions of this paragraph 4, no portion of this Full Value Award shall become vested after the Participant’s Termination Date except to the extent that it is vested immediately prior to the Participant’s Termination Date. Any portion of this Full Value Award that is not vested on the Participant’s Termination Date shall be immediately forfeited.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: resin additive.” U.S. 6,265,055 C2 col. 3 ll. 34-35. The district court construed "resin additive” to be "a substance that by its properties is not typically by itself formed into a stretch wrap film layer and that is compounded into a resin”' — i.e., a non-resin substance. Multilayer v. Inteplast, 2013 WL 5972195, at *43. Multilayer does not contest this construction on appeal. Because claim 32 merely describes incorporation of a non-resin, it is not evidence that claim 1 should be open to incorporation of an unrecited resin. See Conoco, 460 F.3d at 1360 (noting that "[a]lthough 'consisting of' is a term of restriction, the restriction is not absolute” and may permit impurities or "additional components or steps that are unrelated to the invention”); see also Norian, 363 F.3d at 1331 (<HOLDING>). 6 . While Multilayer also argued in the Options: A. holding that while consisting of limits the claimed invention it does not limit aspects unrelated to the invention B. holding that when insureds counsel repeatedly mentioned um policy limits and the jury awarded the policy limit there was reversible error C. holding that policy limits are not a defense to coverage and that policy limits define the amount of coverage D. holding that claim of mental illness does not fit any exception to the statutes time limits E. holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that while consisting of limits the claimed invention it does not limit aspects unrelated to the invention
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: it spent, to be able to re-sell that property for over one million dollars. 96 . 11 U.S.C. § 522(g)(4) (2015) (emphasis added). 97 . In re Cook, 460 B.R. 911, 912 (Bankr.N.D.Fla.2011), vacated, Centennial Bank v. Cook, No 12-00008-MP-GRI (N.D.Fla. Sept. 26, 2012), on remand, In re Cook, No. 11-50287-KKS (Bankr.N.D.Fla. Dec. 02, 2013) (Doc. 320); In re Garcia, No. 09-33208-LMI, 2010 WL 2697020 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2010). 98 . In re Cook, No. 11-50287-KKS (Bankr. N.D.Fl. Dec. 02, 2013) (Doc. 320, at 8). 99 . In re Garcia, 2010 WL 2697020 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2010) (citing In re Weinstein, 164 F.3d 677, 683 (1st Cir.1999) ("[T]he state's ability to define its exemptions is not absolute and must yield to conflicting policies in the Bankruptcy Code.”); In re Maddox, 15 F.3d 1347, 1351 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); In re Opperman, 943 F.2d 441, 443 (4th Options: A. holding that consumer lien avoidance powers of section 522f cannot be applied retroactively B. holding that in light of the statutory framework created by the code 522f lien avoidance cannot be made subject to any subsequent event C. holding that lien avoidance under 522f is not limited by state exemptions D. holding that a debtors ability to utilize 522f to avoid a judicial lien is not dependent upon the debtor receiving a discharge E. holding that the debtor must have had an interest in the property before the lien attached to take advantage of 522f

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that lien avoidance under 522f is not limited by state exemptions
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 and all notices under this Agreement shall be in writing and sent by hand delivery or by certified or registered mail (return receipt requested and first-class postage prepaid), in the case of Civista, to 100 East Water Street, Sandusky, Ohio 44870, Attention: James E McGookey, General Counsel/Corporate Secretary, and in the case of the Participant, to the last known address of the Participant as reflected in Civista’s records.

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: will not suffice.” 12 Moore et al., § 60.24[2], The analysis of Virginia Lee’s threshold showing of a meritorious claim or defense poses a somewhat unusual question. Whereas the more common application of Rule 60(b) requires the court to analyze the merit of a movant’s claim or defense where there has been a default, as in Augusta es specifically contracted that the settlement document would be “governed by, and construed in accordance with the laws of the United States and, to the extent not preempted, the substantive law of the Commonwealth of Virginia.” (Agmt. at 4.) Such a choice of law clause is presumptively valid, so long as it is not unreasonable. See Allen v. Lloyd’s of London, 94 F.3d 923, 928 (4th Cir.1996); see also Poole v. Perkins, 126 Va. 331, 101 S.E. 240, 242 (1919) (<HOLDING>). A binding settlement in Virginia is judged by Options: A. holding that parties implicitly stipulated to choice of law B. holding that where congressional intent is clear a court must give effect to such intent C. holding that settlement agreements like consent judgments are not given preclusive effect unless the parties manifest their intent to give them such effect D. holding that under texas choice of law principles contractual choice of law provisions are generally upheld E. holding that intent of parties to choice of law must be given effect

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that intent of parties to choice of law must be given effect
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: 614 (1962) (“This insistence on finality and prohibition of piecemeal review discourage undue litigiousness and leaden-foot administration of justice”). Against this doctrinal backdrop, our court has consistently held that “[ojrders granting partial summary judgment are, absent special circumstances, not appeal-able final orders under [section] 1291 because partial summary judgment orders do not dispose of all claims and do not end the litigation on the merits.” Williamson v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 160 F.3d 1247, 1250 (9th Cir.1998), citing Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Local 102 v. County of San Diego, 60 F.3d 1346, 1349 (9th Cir.1995) and Cheng v. Comm’r Internal Revenue Serv., 878 F.2d 306, 309 (9th Cir.1989); see also Way v. County of Ventura, 348 F.3d 808, 809-10 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). In this case, however, the majority casts Options: A. holding that the court lacked appellate jurisdiction over a partial summary judgment on liability in a qualified immunity case B. holding that ninth circuit jurisdiction over summary judgment appeals is limited we may review only the district courts legal conclusion that an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity C. holding that an interlocutory appeal lies from a denial of summary judgment on a qualified immunity claim D. holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over statelaw tort claims on an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity E. holding appellate courts have jurisdiction over the district courts orders rejecting as a matter of law qualified immunity raised in a motion to dismiss

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the court lacked appellate jurisdiction over a partial summary judgment on liability in a qualified immunity 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No failure or delay on the part of any Party hereto in the exercise of any right hereunder shall impair such right or be construed as a waiver of, or acquiescence in, any breach of any representation, warranty, covenant or agreement herein, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any such right preclude other or further exercise thereof or of any other right.

assistant: 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: of law”). Here, a determination of whether Michael committed the acts alleged by Angel would be derived from the evidence, not from applying any rule of law; thus, such a determination would be a finding of fact. Whether the facts found by the court constitute domestic abuse would require the application of law and, thus, would be a conclusion of law. We now examine whether the trial court’s ruling contains such findings of fact and conclusions of law. Michael relies on the court’s statement in its order that the court “finds from the evidence ... that [the domestic abuse action] shall be and the same is hereby dismissed .... ” We think this statement is insufficient to qualify as a finding of fact or a conclusion of law. See State v. Kingman, 77 Wash.2d 551, 463 P.2d 638, 639 (1970) (<HOLDING>); cf. Palmer v. First Minneapolis Trust Co., Options: A. holding that a district court order denying anonymity to the parties is a collateral order B. holding trial court order denying states petition for an order of public use and necessity for good cause appearing did not constitute a finding of fact or a conclusion of law C. holding that the trial courts conclusion regarding an easement of necessity was clearly erroneous D. holding that the oral rendition of an order in open court does not constitute entry of that order E. holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court improperly adopted the states proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order denying the appellants postconviction petition was not preserved for review because the appellant never objected to the circuit courts order

assistant: The best answer is B. holding trial court order denying states petition for an order of public use and necessity for good cause appearing did not constitute a finding of fact or a conclusion of law
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 case being reviewed: 1. "the agency was charged by the legislature with the duty of administering the statute"; 2. the agency's interpretation is one of longstanding; 3. "the agency employed its expertise or specialized knowledge in forming the interpretation"; and 4. the agency's interpretation will provide uniformity and consistency in applying the statute. Harnischfeger, 196 Wis. 2d at 660. Only due weight deference may be required, however, if all four of the above standards are not met. Id. at 660 n.4. A reviewing court under due weight deference "need not defer to an agency's interpretation which while reasonable, is not the interpretation which the court considers best and most reasonable." Id.; see also Margoles v. LIRC, 221 Wis. 2d 260, 265 n.3, 585 N.W.2d (Ct. App. 1998) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 10. Cudahy argues that LIRC's decision in Options: A. holding that under a due weight deference standard a more reasonable interpretation overcomes an agency interpretation B. holding erisa plan interpretation is simply one of contract interpretation C. holding that agency interpretation which is reasonable is entitled to deference D. holding that chevron deference is due only to a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency E. holding that deference to an agency interpretation is not appropriate where a statute is administered by more than one agency

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that under a due weight deference standard a more reasonable interpretation overcomes an agency interpretation
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 invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of the Plan or this Agreement shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of the Plan or this Agreement, and each provision of the Plan and this Agreement shall be severable and enforceable to the extent permitted by law.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Ground Lease requires the ground lessor to give notice of any default by Borrower to Agent. The Ground Lease, or estoppel letters received by Agent from the ground lessor, further provides that notice of termination given under the Ground Lease is not effective against Agent unless a copy of the notice has been delivered to Agent in the manner described in the Ground Lease.

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: 100, 109 (2002). While the Third Congressional District is not contiguous by land, it is legally contiguous because all segments of the district border the James River. Trial Tr. 74:22-24. Therefore, the Third Congressional Dis trict is legally contiguous under Virginia Law. See Wilkins, 571 S.E.2d at 109; see also Trial Tr. 221:12-14. Yet contiguity and other traditional districting principles are “important not because they are constitutionally required,” but rather “because they are objective factors” courts may consider in assessing racial gerrymandering claims. Shaw I, 509 U.S. at 647, 113 S.Ct. 2816. To show that race predominated, Plaintiffs need not establish that the legislature disregarded every traditional districting principle. See Miller, 515 U.S. at 917, 115 S.Ct. 2475 (<HOLDING>). Rather, we consider irregularities in the Options: A. recognizing that circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to demonstrate a defendants guilt B. holding that circumstantial evidence such as shape does not need to be sufficient standing alone to establish a racial gerrymandering claim C. holding that circumstantial evidence alone may establish discriminatory intent D. holding that circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a cocaine conspiracy conviction E. holding that such circumstantial evidence may be used to prove discrimination

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that circumstantial evidence such as shape does not need to be sufficient standing alone to establish a racial gerrymandering claim
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: misinformation, the analysis differs where the government affirmatively misleads an alien about the availability of relief. Cf. Holmberg v. Armbreckt, 327 U.S. 392, 396-97, 66 S.Ct. 582, 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946) (explaining that equity will toll a statute of limitations because of fraud or concealment). We did not find Copeland’s two-year delay in seeking to exhaust his administrative remedies unreasonable where he had been misinformed by the IJ. This reasoning is equally applicable to Lopez’s failure to seek judicial review in the eighteen months between his final order of deportation and his deportation. Deportation, now removal, is a civil proceeding with its own administrative procedures. See, e.g., INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1048-50, 104 S.Ct. 3479, 82 L.Ed.2d 778 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Because it is an administrative process, Options: A. holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to civil deportation proceedings and noting the rules incompatibility with the streamlined administrative nature of such proceedings B. holding that the exclusionary rule generally does not apply to immigration proceedings C. holding that exclusionary rule does apply to civil forfeiture proceedings D. holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings E. holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to proceedings other than criminal trials

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to civil deportation proceedings and noting the rules incompatibility with the streamlined administrative nature of such proceedings
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 Award under this Plan shall be evidenced by an Agreement setting forth the terms and conditions applicable to such Award. No Award shall be valid until an Agreement is executed by the Company and, to the extent required by the Company, either executed by the Company and, to the extent required by the Company, either executed by the recipient or accepted by the recipient by electronic means approved by the Company within the time period specified by the Company. Upon such execution or electronic acceptance, such award shall be effective as of the effective date set forth in the Agreement.

assistant: 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: The term of this Sublease (the “ Term ”) shall commence on the date Sublessor receives the written consent of the Master Landlord to this Sublease (“ Commencement Date ”) and shall expire on August 30, 2034, i.e., one (1) day prior to the expiration of the Master Lease. The renewal or extension of the Master Lease or this Sublease shall be governed by Section 11 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: (a) The Company and each Subsidiary will comply with all Requirements of Law with respect to it or its assets, except where the failure to do so, individually or in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither the Company nor the Subsidiaries or any related entities (i) is required to register as a “broker” or “dealer” in accordance with the provisions of the Exchange Act or (ii) directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls or is a “person associated with a FINRA member” or “associated person of a FINRA member” (within the meaning of Article I of the Bylaws of the FINRA).

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: firearms in Razzano were pursuant to a department policy rather than in connection with a court order. Razzano, 765 F.Supp.2d at 185. 7 . To the extent that the Defendants instead refer to Panzella's state-law claims, those claims cannot serve as a basis of jurisdiction, This is because the Defendants did not seek immunity from suit on those claims, and hence cannot seek an interlocutory appeal from the denial of immunity. 8 . The County also argues that its adherence to New York law regarding the treatment of the firearms did not constitute a "policy” as required for a county to be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S, 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). See Vives v. N.Y.C., 524 F.3d 346, 353-56, 358 (2d Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>). Leaving aside the fact that we are here Options: A. holding that a city manager was the final policymaker for purposes of section 1983 liability because of provisions in the norfolk city code requiring that all orders rules and regulations applicable to the entire police department must be approved by the city manager other than some police standard operating procedures B. holding that a jurys finding that a city had delegated its final policymaking authority in the area of law enforcement to a city police chief was supported by the evidence and warranted imposing liability upon the city C. holding that citys enforcement of the entire state penal code would not constitute a city policy because the city was required to follow state law D. holding that a city may be held liable on account of the unconstitutional conduct of city officials only if the citys policy or custom played a part in the violation E. holding that city attorneys promise in an oral settlement agreement for city to annex and rezone land was within the legal authority of the city of joliet to accomplish and were not absolutely void acts per se therefore city could be estopped from avoiding enforcement of contract

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that citys enforcement of the entire state penal code would not constitute a city policy because the city was required to follow state law
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: . Capitol Entm't Servs., 25 A.3d at 22 & n. 4 (citing D.C.Code § 51-110(b)(I) — (2)). 12 . Id. at 27 (footnote omitted). 13 . D.C.Code § 51-110(b)(3). [14] 14. 7 DMCR § 312.3. The regulations also provide illustrative examples of what gross misconduct may include, such as sabotage, arson, dishonesty, insubordination, repeated disregard of reasonable orders, use or possession of a controlled substance, willful destruction of property, and repeated absence or tardiness following warning. Id. §312.4. 15 . Id. §312.5. 16 . Id. 17 . Odeniran v. Hanley Wood, LLC, 985 A.2d 421, 424 (D.C.2009). 18 . Capitol Entm't Servs., Inc. v. McCormick, 25 A.3d 19, 24 (D.C.2011). 19 . Id. 20 . Hamilton v. Hojeij Branded Food, Inc., 41 A.3d 464, 476 (D.C.2012); see also Capitol Entm’t Servs., 25 A.3d at 27 (<HOLDING>); Bowman-Cook v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Options: A. holding that an employees ordinary negligence in failing to perform work in accordance with the employers standards rules or expectations is not misconduct gross or otherwise B. holding that employers policy which required employee to work without pay in violation of federal law was unreasonable and employees refusal to comply was not misconduct C. holding that employees conviction for possession of a controlled substance constituted gross misconduct D. holding that employers are not liable for conduct of ordinary employees because an ordinary employees conduct will normally be so unrelated to the employers business that it cannot be deemed in furtherance thereof E. holding in a case in which the alj found the employer had failed to establish a rule violation under 7 dcmr 3127 but nevertheless determined the employer had established the employees gross misconduct that because there was scant evidence as to the employers written requirements pertaining to employee behavior this court could not conclude that there was substantial evidence that the employee had violated the employers rules in a manner that amounts to gross misconduct under 7 dcmr 3123

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an employees ordinary negligence in failing to perform work in accordance with the employers standards rules or expectations is not misconduct gross or otherwise
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: against aiders and abettors of § 22(a) violations. To be sure, § 13(a) was amended in 1983 to remove language that limited its applicability to administrative proceedings, but we do not believe this alteration justifies construing the statute in such a way as to eviscerate the exclusivity proviso in § 22(a)(2). Rather, the better interpretation of this amendment is that it granted additional power to the CFTC to bring judicial, as well as administrative, proceedings against those who aid and abet violations of § 22(a). Plaintiffs argue that aiding and abetting liability under § 13(a) should be inferred into the statute in the same manner as responde-at superior liability has been imputed to principals through § 2(a)(1) of the CEA. See Bosco v. Serhant, 836 F.2d 271, 280 (7th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1056, 108 S.Ct. 2824, Options: A. recognizing respondeat superior liability B. holding that the liability reform act preempted in part the common law doctrine of respondeat superior C. holding that a municipality cannot be liable on a respondeat superior theory D. holding that employees defamatory statements made at work about matters relating to work were within the scope of their employment for purposes of respondeat superior and recognizing that californias respondeat superior doctrine imposes a broad rule of liability on employers E. holding that county liability under 1983 cannot rest on a theory of respondeat superior

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing respondeat superior liability
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 first court of appeals decision to construe the term “repeatedly” as it appeared in the unamended 29 U.S.C. § 666(a), we held that a violation is “repeated” if (1) the employer had violated the same standard on at least two previous occasions; and (2) the employer “flaunted” the requirements of the Act. Bethlehem 540 F.2d at 162. In determining whether an employer had “flaunted” the requirements of the Act, the Bethlehem court considered the following factors: the number, proximity in time, nature and extent of violations, their factual and legal relatedness, the degree of care of the employer in his efforts to prevent violations of the type involved, and the nature of the duties, standards, or regulations violated. Id. at 162. The Commission found that the 1995) (expla h Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Cf. also Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, Options: A. holding a threejudge panel may not reexamine normally controlling circuit precedent in the face of an intervening united states supreme court decision unless the reasoning or theory of our prior circuit authority is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority B. holding that threejudge panel cannot disregard or overrule circuit precedent C. holding that a threejudge panel may depart from circuit precedent that has not been expressly overruled when an intervening en banc or supreme court decision has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable D. holding that a three judge panel is free to reexamine the holding of a prior panel when the supreme court has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable E. holding that a threejudge panel may reexamine circuit precedent where congress has retroactively clarified the meaning of the statute at issue

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a threejudge panel may reexamine circuit precedent where congress has retroactively clarified the meaning of the statute at issue
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: that an agency invoking Exemption 7 show that the investigatory activity that gave rise to the documents is “related to the enforcement of federal laws” and there is a “rational nexus” between the investigation at issue and the agency’s law enforcement duties. Pratt, 673 F.2d at 420-21. But, that court did not require such a showing when considering requests for non-investigatory materials, instead holding that IRS “internal agency material relating to guidelines, techniques, and procedures for law enforcement investigations and prosecutions outside of the context of a specific investigation” facially meet the Exemption 7 threshold and require further analysis under Exemption 7(E). Tax Analysts, 294 F.3d at 78. See Sack v. U.S. Def't of Def., 823 F.3d 687, 693-94 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>); Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108, 1128-29 (D.C. Options: A. holding reports on the efficacy of polygraph examinations were compiled for law enforcement purposes B. holding that expert reports were not required to mention the defendant hospital because reports were based upon the actions of hospital physicians C. holding that records pertaining to the investigation of an inmateoninmate assault were compiled for law enforcement purposes because they were created in connection with the bops responsibility to protect inmates staff and the community internal quotation marks and citations omitted D. holding that records concerning polygraph examination procedures and other law enforcement techniques are protected from disclosure under exemption 7e E. holding that exemption b7c covers investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes to the extent that they constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and protects the identities of investigative agents

assistant: The best answer is A. holding reports on the efficacy of polygraph examinations were compiled for law enforcement purposes
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: In the event that the Receiving Party or anyone to whom it discloses the Confidential Information receives a request to disclose all or any part of the Confidential Information or Discussion Information under the terms of a subpoena or other order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction or by another governmental agency, the Receiving Party shall if permitted pursuant to applicable law (a) promptly notify the Company of the existence, terms and circumstances surrounding such a request,

assistant: Yes
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: if applicable and available , certain suppliers offer the opportunity for reservations to be paid ( wholly or partly and as required under the payment policy of the accommodation ) to the supplier during the reservation process by means of secure online payment ( all to the extent offered and supported by your bank ) .

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 Participant shall not, without the prior written consent of the Employer Group, use or disclose, or negligently permit any unauthorized person to use, disclose, or gain access to, any Confidential Information, except in connection with any dispute that arises between the Employer Group and the Participant, in which case such disclosure may be made to the extent necessary to the Participant’s personal legal advisers and to courts having jurisdiction over such matters.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No failure or delay on the part of any party in exercising any right, power, or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any such right, power, or remedy preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, power, or remedy. The remedies provided for herein are cumulative and are not exclusive of any remedies that may be available to a party at law or in equity or otherwise.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: I covenant and agree that if I violate any of the covenants or agreements under this Section 7, Company shall be entitled to an accounting and repayment of all profits, compensation, commissions, remunerations, or benefits which I directly or indirectly have realized and/or may realize as a result of, growing out of or in connection with any such violation; such remedy shall be in addition to and not in limitation of any injunctive relief or other rights or remedies to which Company is or may be entitled at law or in equity or under this Agreement.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 377 U.S. 158 84 S.Ct. 1186 12 L.Ed.2d 213 Catherine CLINTONv.VIRGINIA. No. 294. Supreme Court of the United States May 4, 1964 Calvin H. Childress, Norfolk, Va., for petitioner. D. Gardiner Tyler, Richmond, Va., for respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion to strike the supplemental brief on behalf of the respondent is denied. The judgment is reversed. Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505; Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23. Mr. Justice CLARK, concurring: 2 Since the Court finds that the 'spiked' mike used by the police officers penetrated petitioner's premises sufficiently to be an actual trespass thereof, I join in the judgment. 3 Mr. Justice WHITE dissents.

assistant: 1
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 capitalization of the Company is as set forth on Schedule 3.1(g) . The Company has not issued any capital stock and/or Common Stock Equivalents not set forth in the SEC Reports. No Person has any right of first refusal, preemptive right, right of participation, or any similar right to participate in the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents. Except as a result of the purchase and sale of the Securities or as described on Schedule 3.1(g) , there are no outstanding options, warrants, scrip rights to subscribe to, calls or commitments of any character whatsoever relating to, or securities, rights or obligations convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for, or giving any Person any right to subscribe for or acquire any shares of Common Stock, or contracts, commitments, understandings or arrangements by which the Company or any Subsidiary is or may become bound to issue additional shares of Common Stock or Common Stock Equivalents. The issuance and sale of the Securities will not obligate the Company to issue shares of Common Stock or other securities to any Person (other than the Purchasers) and will not result in a right of any holder of securities of the Company to adjust the exercise, conversion, exchange or reset price under any of such securities. All of the outstanding shares of capital stock and other securities of the Company are duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable, have been issued in material compliance with all federal and state securities laws, and none of such outstanding shares was issued in violation of any preemptive rights or similar rights to subscribe for or purchase securities. No further approval or authorization of any stockholder, the Board of Directors or others is required for the issuance and sale of the Securities. Except for the Company’s certificate of incorporation, there are no stockholder’s agreements, voting agreements or other similar agreements with respect to the Company’s capital stock to which the Company is a party or, to the knowledge of the Company, between or among any of the Company’s stockholders.

assistant: Capitalization