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: date might result in appropriate sanctions, including dismissal. Moreover, Wrubleski neither explained in the tax court, nor on appeal, why he did not appear at his scheduled trial date, or why he could not have presented evidence at that time. Although Wrubleski filed a pretrial document labeled “praecipe for judicial notice of pending settlement and petition for stay,” in which he requested the court to stay the proceedings pending a settlement between the parties, as discussed below, he presented no evidence showing that a “binding settlement agreement” existed. Thus, similar to Freedson, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Wrubleski’s petition. See Freedson, 565 F.2d at 955; see also Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>). Even if we were to conclude that the tax Options: A. holding that although pro se briefs are liberally construed even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them B. recognizing that although pro se litigants are not entitled to greater rights than represented litigants due process principles permit the imposition of a procedural bar only after consideration of the pro se litigants reasonable expectations about what had occurred C. holding that although a pro se litigants pleadings are construed liberally a pro se litigant must still follow the same rules that govern other litigants including the requirement of constructing and supporting arguments with legal authority D. holding that pro se litigants must follow the kentucky rules of civil procedure E. holding that although pro se litigants are entitled to liberal construction of their pleadings pro se litigants must follow procedural rules

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that although pro se litigants are entitled to liberal construction of their pleadings pro se litigants must follow procedural rules
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 hallmarks of traditional legislation.” Bogan, 523 U.S. at 54-56, 118 S.Ct. 966. Such traditional legislation includes “policymaking decisions] implicating budgetary priories ... and the services the [government] provides to its constituents.” Id. Legislative immunity applies to acts within the “legislative sphere” even w sparse record, the Court cannot state as a matter of law that Defendants are entitled to legislative immunity. See Phillips v. Town of Brookhaven, 216 A.D.2d 374, 375, 628 N.Y.S.2d 723 (2d Dep’t 1995) (stating that “[i]t cannot be determined on the instant record that the individual defendants were acting exclusively in a legislative capacity, which is required for immunity to attach”); see also Moxley v. Town of Walkersville, 601 F.Supp.2d 648, 662 (D.Md.2009) (<HOLDING>). This ruling does not prevent Defendants from Options: A. holding that the burden is on the defendants to establish the existence of absolute legislative immunity B. holding that legislative immunity does not depend on motivation for legislative action even if the motive was to impinge on plaintiffs free speech rights C. holding that the doctrine of legislative immunity is not uniquely asserted on motions to dismiss D. recognizing the authority of the district court to dismiss an action pursuant to 1915d based on the doctrine of qualified immunity E. holding that the federal government does not waive its immunity where there is no private counterpart even when uniquely governmental functions are involved

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the doctrine of legislative immunity is not uniquely asserted on motions to dismiss
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 contains the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter contained herein and supersedes the effectiveness all other prior agreements and understandings between the Parties or between Employee and the Company with respect to such subject matter.

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: Unless (a) compelled to disclose by judicial or administrative process or by other requirements of Law, (b) disclosed in an action or proceeding brought by a Party in pursuit of its rights or in the exercise of its remedies hereunder, (c) disclosed to such Party’s attorneys, accountants and representatives who agree to keep such information confidential or are bound by fiduciary or other existing obligations of confidentiality, each Party will hold, and will use its best efforts to cause its Affiliates and their respective representatives to hold, in strict confidence from any Person (other than any such Affiliate or representative), all documents and information concerning each other Party or any of its Affiliates furnished to it by such other Party or such other Party’s representatives in connection with this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby, except to the extent that such documents or information can be shown to have been: (x) previously known by the Party receiving such documents or information, (y) in the public domain (either prior to or after the furnishing of such documents or information hereunder) through no fault of such receiving Party, or (z) later acquired by the receiving Party from another source if the receiving Party is not aware that such source is under an obligation to another Party to keep such documents and information confidential.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the facts alleged in the complaint took place. See P.L.1997, ch. 251, § 1 (effective Sept. 19, 1997) (adding "clergy members” to the list of those responsible for reporting child abuse). 5 . In limited circumstances, courts have recognized that an actor may have a duty to warn third parties of the dangerous propensities of another when the actor has a special relationship with the dangerous person and the person threatened is a specific, foreseeable, and identifiable victim of the dangerous person’s threats. See, e.g., Tarasoff v. Regents ofUniv. of Cal., 17 Cal.3d 425, 131 Cal.Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334, 345 (1976); Thompson v. County of Alameda rcumstances to have a duty of care to protect others from harm by third parties are: innke h 925, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 811, 968 P.2d 522, 527-29 (1998) (<HOLDING>); cf. J.E.J. v. Tri-County Big Brothers/Big Options: A. holding that school officials were immune from suit claiming they failed to protect student from an inschool stabbing B. holding that no special relationship existed between the school and student C. holding that a school had no duty to protect pedestrian from student D. holding that university had duty to protect student from reasonably foreseeable fraternity hazing 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 C. holding that a school had no duty to protect pedestrian from student
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 Plan contain the entire agreement and understanding of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter contained herein and supersede all prior communications, representations and negotiations in respect thereto. No change, modification or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be valid unless the same be in writing and signed by the parties hereto, except for any changes permitted without consent under Section 8.6.4 of the Plan or Section 8(c) 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: This Agreement was negotiated and entered into within the State of Indiana. All matters pertaining to this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Indiana applicable to contracts made and to be performed wholly therein, without regard to conflict of laws.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: explained in 4 Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 81.01, at p. 81-2: Degree of disability is calculated under most acts by comparing actual earnings before the injury with earning capacity after the injury. It is at once apparent that the two items in the comparison are not quite the same. Actual earnings are a relatively concrete quantity.... Earning capacity, however, is a more theoretical concept. It obviously does not mean actual earnings, since the legislature deliberately chose a different phrase for the post-injury earnings factor. See also Shiek, 2002 ND 85, ¶ 15, 643 N.W.2d 721 (noting the definition of disability is broader than lost wages, it means loss of earning capacity); Business Ins. Co. v. BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc., 23 P.3d 1261, 1265 (Colo.App.2001) (<HOLDING>); Ruff v. Labor and Industry Review Comm’n, 159 Options: A. recognizing this distinction B. recognizing distinction between actual and per se conflicts of interest C. recognizing distinction between actual wage loss and loss of future earning capacity D. recognizing distinction between two types of waiver E. recognizing distinction between tolling and estoppel

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing distinction between actual wage loss and loss of future earning capacity
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All representations and warranties made hereunder, in the other Loan Documents and in any document, certificate or statement delivered pursuant hereto or in connection herewith shall survive the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the making of the Term Loans and the other extensions of credit hereunder.

assistant: Warranties
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 Employee’s employment by the Employer pursuant to this Agreement is for the period commencing on the Commencement Date and ending thirty-six (36) months thereafter or on such earlier date as is determined in accordance with Sections 10 and 12 of this Agreement or such later date as provided 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH BORROWER AND EACH OTHER CREDIT PARTY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY SUBMITS, FOR ITSELF AND ITS PROPERTY, TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK SITTING IN NEW YORK CITY AND OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF SUCH STATE, AND ANY APPELLATE COURT FROM ANY THEREOF, IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS CREDIT AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER CREDIT DOCUMENT, OR FOR RECOGNITION OR ENFORCEMENT OF ANY JUDGMENT, AND EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY AGREES THAT ALL CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING MAY BE HEARD AND DETERMINED IN SUCH NEW YORK STATE COURT OR, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN SUCH FEDERAL COURT. EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO AGREES THAT A FINAL JUDGMENT IN ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE AND MAY BE ENFORCED IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS BY SUIT ON THE JUDGMENT OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: court would lack authority to review whether the tr ror must first present the issue to the trial court through the appropriate post-judgment motion prior to seeking appellate review. Again, the proper course for an aggrieved party to follow would be to make a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, see Utah R.Civ.P. 60(b)(7) (allowing a motion to be made on the basis of “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment”), or a motion for a new trial, or to amend or alter the judgment, pursuant to Rule 59. See Utah R.Civ.P. 59(a)(5), (a)(6),. (a)(7) (indicating that excessive damages, insufficient evidence, or error in law are proper grounds for such a motion); see also Moon Lake Elec. Ass’n v. Ultrasystems W. Constructors, 767 P.2d 125, 127-28 (Utah App.1988) (<HOLDING>). The aggrieved party could then appeal from a Options: A. holding that defendant was procedurally barred from raising issue on appeal where issue was listed as grounds in motion for new trial B. holding that defendant waived ineffective assistance claim based on trial counsels failure to emphasize certain evidence where amended motion for new trial did not assert claim of ineffectiveness on that ground and no argument related to the asserted ground was made at the motion for new trial hearing C. holding that the movant was not entitled to new trial under rule 59 based on a defense which if properly placed in issue would have affected the course of the jury trial D. holding that rule 59 motion for new trial was procedurally allowable even in case where no trial had yet been held E. holding trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for new trial by operation of law because motion was not properly presented even though a notice of presentment was filed and the docket sheet contained an entry for the motion having been filed

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that rule 59 motion for new trial was procedurally allowable even in case where no trial had yet been held
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: dismissal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Up until recently, “[t]he Fifth Circuit [had] declined to address the ‘enigmatic question of whether motions to dismiss on the basis of forum selection clauses are properly brought as motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) [or] 12(b)(3).’ ” Haynsworth v. The Corporation, 121 F.3d 956, 961 (5th Cir.1997). Most district courts in the Fifth Circuit followed the direction of Mitsui & Co. (USA), Inc. v. MIRA M/V, 111 F.3d 33 (5th Cir.1997), in which the Fifth Circuit, without commenting on the district court’s procedural choice, affirmed a district court’s granting of a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue based on a forum selection clause See Ambraco, Inc. v. M/V CLIPPER FAITH, no. 06-9966, 2007 WL 1550960 at *1 (E.D.La., May 25, 2007) (<HOLDING>). Very recently, the Fifth Circuit shed some Options: A. recognizing circuit agreement that a motion to dismiss based on an arbitration clause is proper under rule 12b3 B. holding that a motion to dismiss based on a forumselection clause should be treated as a rule 12b3 motion to dismiss for improper venue C. holding that a forumselection clause may be enforced under rule 12b3 as a motion to dismiss on the basis of improper venue D. holding that since the fifth circuit has accepted rule 12b3 as a proper method for seeking dismissal for improper venue based on a forum selection clause the court need not decide whether a rule 12b1 motion is appropriate E. holding that when a forum selection clause designates an arbitral forum the proper remedy is dismissal

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that since the fifth circuit has accepted rule 12b3 as a proper method for seeking dismissal for improper venue based on a forum selection clause the court need not decide whether a rule 12b1 motion is appropriate
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 terms of this Certificate of Designation shall not, by merger, consolidation or otherwise, be amended, waived, altered or repealed without the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the voting power of the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock, voting as a separate class. Any right or preference of the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock set forth in this Certificate of Designation may be waived pursuant to a written instrument signed by the holders of a majority of the voting power of the outstanding shares of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock, voting as a separate class, which written instrument shall specifically set forth the right or preference being waived and the extent of such waiver. For the purposes of this Section 6, each share of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock shall have one (1) vote per share.

assistant: Modifications
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: Captions and titles contained herein are for convenience only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of any provision of the Plan. Except when otherwise indicated by the context, words in the masculine gender used in the Plan shall include the feminine gender, the singular shall include the plural, and the plural shall include the singular.

assistant: Construction
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 representations and warranties of the Company and the agreements and covenants set forth in this Agreement shall survive each Closing hereunder. The Company agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Buyer and all their officers, directors, employees and agents for loss or damage arising as a result of or related to any breach by the Company of any of its representations, warranties and covenants set forth in this Agreement or any of its covenants and obligations under this Agreement, including advancement of expenses as they are incurred.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH PARTY HERETO HEREBY WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN RESPECT OF ANY LITIGATION DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF, UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OF THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS OR ANY SPECIFIED CASH MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT. EACH PARTY HERETO (A) CERTIFIES THAT NO REPRESENTATIVE, AGENT OR ATTORNEY OF ANY OTHER PARTY HAS REPRESENTED, EXPRESSLY OR OTHERWISE, THAT SUCH OTHER PARTY WOULD NOT, IN THE EVENT OF LITIGATION, SEEK TO ENFORCE THE FOREGOING WAIVER AND (B) ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT AND THE OTHER PARTIES HERETO HAVE BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT AND THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS AND SPECIFIED CASH MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS TO WHICH IT IS A PARTY BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATIONS IN THIS SECTION 9.11 .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of its damages are calculable, it does not show a way to calculate damages for American’s claims of loss of goodwill and other intangibles. We agree. As we have already stated, the intangible types of injuries testified to by Balsom are the types of injuries to which a dollar value may not easily be assigned. Martin, 671 S.W.2d at 710. A remedy is not adequate simply because some of the proven damages are calculable. See Tex. Indus. Gas v. Phoenix Metallurgical Corp., 828 S.W.2d 629, 532 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) (“For a legal remedy to be adequate, it must give the applicant complete, final, and equal relief.”); see also Towers v. Grogan, No. 01-97-00946-CV, 1998 WL 191760, at *4 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 23, 1998, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>). We conclude and hold that American proved Options: A. holding that although some breach of contract damages were calculable specific damages for which grogan sought injunctive relief were intangibles incapable of being measured by damages B. holding that generally punitive damages are not available for a breach of contract C. holding that plaintiffs consequential damages were too speculative because no evidence connected damages to defendants breach of contract D. holding that a plaintiff can seek statutory damages even in the absence of actual damages E. holding that damages for a breach of contract to negotiate an agreement are measured by the injury suffered by the plaintiff in relying on the defendant to negotiate in good faith not by expectation damages

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that although some breach of contract damages were calculable specific damages for which grogan sought injunctive relief were intangibles incapable of being measured by damages
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 may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Agreement may be executed by facsimile and electronically transmitted signature (e.g., portable document format) and such signatures shall be deemed to be originals.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: at 684-85 (Lewis, J. dissenting). The plaintiffs cite one state trial court decision rejecting the damages caps of Fla. Stat. § 766.118 as unconstitutional on the ground that Article I, § 26(a) guarantees claimants the right to collect the stated percentages of “all of the damages that a jury could potentially award.” Cavanaugh v. Cardiology Assoc. of Orlando, P.A., No. 06-CA-3814, Div. 40, 2007 WL 5844414 (Fla. 9th Jud. Cir.Ct. Oct. 30, 2007). Although the court has considered the trial court’s ruling in Cavanaugh, it respectfully declines to follow it, as the court’s analysis focuses on an isolated phrase in the provision rather than on the language of the section as a whole. The court also notes it is not bound by the Cavanaugh decision. See Bravo v. United States, 577 F.3d at 1326 (<HOLDING>). Absent authority from the Florida Supreme Options: A. holding that when there is no ruling by the states highest court it is the duty of the federal court to determine as best it can what the highest court of the state would decide B. holding that when applying state law this court follows the decision of the highest state court or in the absence of such a decision and any indication that the highest court would rule differently the decisions of the states intermediate courts C. holding that when making such a guess under erie r r co v tompkins 304 us 64 58 sct 817 82 led 1188 1938 a federal court is bound by an intermediate state appellate court decision unless convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise D. holding that when applying state law a federal court is bound to follow the highest court in the state E. holding federal courts are bound to follow intermediate state appellate court decisions unless there is persuasive evidence that the states highest court would rule otherwise

assistant: The best answer is E. holding federal courts are bound to follow intermediate state appellate court decisions unless there is persuasive evidence that the states highest court would rule 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: 1.3 while we may help facilitate the resolution of disputes , airbnb has no control over and does not guarantee ( i ) the existence , quality , safety , suitability , or legality of any listings or host services , ( ii ) the truth or accuracy of any listing descriptions , ratings , reviews , or other member content ( as defined below ) , or ( iii ) the performance or conduct of any member or third party .

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: this end user license agreement and terms of service ( this `` eula '' ) is a binding contract between you , an individual user ( `` you '' ) and musical.ly , an exempted company duly incorporated with limited liability and validly existing under the laws of the cayman islands d/b/a musical.ly inc. ( `` company , '' `` we , '' `` us '' or `` our '' ) governing your use of all mobile software applications the company makes available for download ( each , an `` app , '' and together , the `` apps '' ) and the related website located at www.musical.ly and/or any other website ( s ) owned or controlled by or on behalf of the company ( collectively , `` sites , '' and collectively with the apps , the `` service '' ) .

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 term of this Agreement shall begin as of the date hereof ("Effective Date") and shall end on the first anniversary date (the "Initial Term") following the Effective Date unless terminated earlier as provided in this Agreement. Following expiration of the Initial Term, this Agreement shall continue for three (3) successive one (1) year term unless either party shall notify the other at least thirty (30) days prior to the end of the then term that such party is terminating this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 101 S.Ct. 1437, 67 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981); Local 246 Utility Workers Union v. Southern California Edison Co., 83 F.3d 292, 297 (9th Cir.1996) (stating that the FLSA's "minimum wage and overtime provisions are guarantees to individual workers that may not be waived through collective bargaining”). 6 . 29 U.S.C. § 255(a); Maj. op. at 545. 7 . McLaughlin v. Richmond Shoe, 486 U.S. 128, 133, 108 S.Ct. 1677, 100 L.Ed.2d 115 (1988); Maj. op. at 545. 8 . See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(c) ("Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.”); Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Worthington, 475 U.S. 709, 714, 106 S.Ct. 1527, 89 L.Ed.2d 739 (1986) (<HOLDING>). 9 . See McLaughlin v. Richmond Shoe, 486 U.S. Options: A. holding that courts of appeals should review the facts necessary to determine whether an exemption to the flsa applies in a particular under the clearly erroneous standard B. holding that the clearly erroneous standard of review applies to 3bllc determinations C. holding that pretext is subject to the clearly erroneous standard D. holding that clearly erroneous standard applies to review district courts determination of dangerousness under 18 usc 4246 E. holding that the clearly erroneous standard of review applies unless judgment is entered on the basis of documentary evidence alone

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that courts of appeals should review the facts necessary to determine whether an exemption to the flsa applies in a particular under the clearly erroneous standard
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: Unless otherwise defined in Exhibit A , capitalized terms used in this Agreement (including the preamble hereto) shall have the meanings provided in Section 1.3 ( Definitions ) of Schedule A ( Common Definitions and Rules of Interpretation ) of the Common Terms Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the foregoing alleged errors warrants reversal, the cumulative effect of all of the errors requires a new trial. In support of that assertion, Andrews merely quotes our decision in United States v. Canales, 744 F.2d 413 (5th Cir.1984), for the rule that "the cumulative effect of severed incidents of improper argument or misconduct may require reversal, even though no single one of the incidents, considered alone, would warrant such a result.” Id. at 430. We are not persuaded that Andrews is entitled to reversal on the basis of cumulative error. See United States v. Moye, 951 F.2d 59, 63 n. 7 (5th Cir.1992) ("Because we find no merit to any of Moye's arguments of error, his claim of cumulative error must also fail.”); cf. Derden v. McNeel, 978 F.2d 1453, 1458 (5th Cir.1992) (en banc) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2928, 124 Options: A. holding that federal habeas relief is not available to correct errors of state law B. holding that errors in state law cannot support federal habeas relief C. holding that federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law D. holding that errors not rising to level of plain error are to be considered in assessing cumulative error E. holding that claim of cumulative error does not entitle state prisoner to habeas corpus relief unless 1 claim of cumulative error refers to errors rather than mere unfavorable rulings or events 2 habeas review is not procedurally barred and 3 the errors more likely than not caused a suspect verdict

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that claim of cumulative error does not entitle state prisoner to habeas corpus relief unless 1 claim of cumulative error refers to errors rather than mere unfavorable rulings or events 2 habeas review is not procedurally barred and 3 the errors more likely than not caused a suspect verdict
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: can only be interpreted as an implied finding that the board’s decision was motivated by the death threats rather than by White’s exercise of protected activity. Indeed, the examiner did not make any finding that White’s complaints about the athletic equipment and evaluation were at all factors in the board’s decision. Therefore, it would seem that White did not even satisfy his burden of proving that his exercise of protected activity was a substantial factor in the board’s decision to terminate him. Our review of the record indicates that the Commission’s conclusion that there was no violation of White’s first amendment rights is not in error. See Hillis v. Stephen F. Austin State University, 665 F.2d 547, 552 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2906, 73 L.Ed.2d 1315 (1982) (<HOLDING>). White offered no evidence that he had Options: A. holding that pretext is subject to the clearly erroneous standard B. holding that the finding of intent to discriminate is a factual determination subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review C. holding that appellate review in a first amendment case of a lower courts finding concerning the motivation behind a decision to terminate a faculty member is governed by the clearly erroneous standard D. holding that a finding of accommodation is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of review instead of under a de novo standard E. holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that appellate review in a first amendment case of a lower courts finding concerning the motivation behind a decision to terminate a faculty member is governed by the clearly erroneous standard
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this letter or its application in a circumstance is restricted, prohibited or unenforceable, the provision shall be ineffective only to the extent of the restriction, prohibition or unenforceability without invalidating the remaining provisions of this letter and without affecting its application to other circumstances.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: 9.4 for experiences , events and other host services , if inclement weather creates an unsafe or uncomfortable scenario for guests , hosts may modify or cancel a host service .

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: No. 120], The court has also considered the procedural history and previous court filings in the main bankruptcy case, including: (a) Voluntary Petition [Dkt, No. 1] (the “Petition”); (b) Disclosure of Compensation of Attorney for Debtor(s) [Dkt. No. 7]; (a) Schedules A-J [Dkt. No. 15] (the “Schedules”); and (d) Discharge of Debtor [Dkt. No. 37]. Though the foregoing items do not constitute an exhaustive list of the filings in the underlying bankruptcy case and the Adversary, the court has taken judicial notice of the contents of the docket in this matter. See Levine v. Egidi, Case No. 93C188, 1993 WL 69146, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 8, 1993) (authorizing a bankruptcy court to take judicial notice of its own docket); In re Brent, 458 B.R. 444, 455 n. 5 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2011) (Goldgar, J.) (<HOLDING>). While the court’s standard final pretrial Options: A. recognizing such a claim under 1983 B. recognizing such an exception C. recognizing exception D. recognizing doctrine E. recognizing same

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing same
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 an injury exists. ii. Qualified Immunity Officers Smith and Herring plead the defense of qualified immunity. The standard for that defense is that governmental officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity, which shields them from civil damages, provided their conduct did not violate a clearly-established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. Hoard v. Sizemore, 198 F.3d 205, 211 (6th Cir.1999) (citation omitted). To defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead and prove that the defendant violated such a right. Id. In general, there is, and was at the time in question, no clearly-established right for an arrested person to be free of tight handcuffs. See Nemeckay, 894 F.Supp. at 314-18 (<HOLDING>). However, it is long-established that where Options: A. holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where defendant officers could have reasonably believed that they were given sufficient third party consent to search B. holding that defendants claiming qualified immunity to 1983 action were entitled to summary judgment where factual disputes were not material C. holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity despite their ignoring the arrestees complaints that the handcuffs were too tight D. holding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that speech was public concern E. holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity despite their ignoring the arrestees complaints that the handcuffs were too tight
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: may well result in a different social recognition of social groups opposed to gang violence, even if the gang in question is the same. 8 . The Third and Seventh Circuits invalidated the pre W-G-R-/M-EV-G- "particularity” and "social visibility” requirements on the ground that they were inconsistent with prior BIA precedent and therefore were not entitled to Chevron deference. See Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Att'y Gen. of U.S., 663 F.3d 582, 604 (3d Cir.2011) ("Since the ‘social visibility' requirement is inconsistent with past BIA decisions, we conclude that it is an unreasonable addition to the requirements for establishing refugee status where that status turns upon persecution on account of membership in a particular social group.”); Gatimi v. Holder, 578 F.3d 611, 615 (7th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). 9 . The IJ failed to grant Pirir-Boc relief Options: A. holding that deference is owed to an agencys interpretation of its own categorical exclusion regulations so long as that interpretation is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation B. holding interpretation may not be inconsistent with regulation C. holding that the interpretation of social visibility is inconsistent with previous decisions and makes no sense D. holding erisa plan interpretation is simply one of contract interpretation E. holding that the defendants ability to give directions and make decisions on a course of action for himself was inconsistent with the intoxication defense

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the interpretation of social visibility is inconsistent with previous decisions and makes no sense
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 services are copyright © 2016 microsoft corporation and/or its suppliers , one microsoft way , redmond , wa 98052 , u.s.a. all rights reserved .

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: 152 . The Supreme Court has noted the wisdom of not following a rule simply because it was "laid down in the time of Henry IV.” Keeler v. Harford Mut. Ins. Co., 672 A.2d 1012, 1017 n. 6 (Del.1996) (quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 Harv. L.Rev. 457, 469 (1897)). 153 . Pls.’ Br. in Opp’n 46; see also Oral Arg. Tr. 102:13-18 (plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledging that majority-of-the-minority conditions have been used to block going private transactions). 154 . Oral Arg. Tr. 80:2-4. 155 . 8 Del. C. § 251(b)-(c) (requiring that mergers be approved by the board of directors and the stockholders of each merging corporation). 156 . In re Cox Commc'ns, Inc. S’holders Litig., 879 A.2d 604, 618 (Del.Ch.2005). 157 . See, e.g., Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 814-15 (Del.1984) (<HOLDING>); Weinberger v. UOP, Inc., 457 A.2d 701, 709 n. Options: A. holding that directors and officers are fiduciaries B. holding that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the directors of a corporation C. holding that where a defendant controlled the board of directors it is manifest then that there can be no expectation that the corporation would sue him and if it did it can hardly be said that the prosecution of the suit would be entrusted to proper hands D. holding that directors of an insolvent corporation are trustees for the creditors E. holding that independent directors can be entrusted with the decision to sue other directors on behalf of the corporation

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that independent directors can be entrusted with the decision to sue other directors on behalf of the corporation
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: was denied. Colo. RPC 8.4(h) provides that "[it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law." A violation of Colo. RPC 8A(h) requires proof of conduct, the totality of which establishes that the lawyer engaged in conduct which reflects that he or she lacks the personal or professional moral and/or ethical qualifications required of those authorized to practice law. Conduct involving violence, lack of honesty, violation of trust, serious interference with the administration of justice, criminal endeavors, or comparable misconduct is required to establish a violation of Colo. RPC 84(h). See People v. Egbune, No. GC98A13, slip op. at 10 (PDJ Colo.1999), 28 Colo. Law. 132, 134 (September, 1999)(<HOLDING>); People v. Theodore, 926 P.2d 1237, 1242-43 Options: A. holding that court must examine totality of circumstances to determine whether substantial evidence supports issuance of search warrant B. holding that parties intent to create or extend agency relationship may be inferred from their conduct viewed in light of all circumstances surrounding transaction C. holding that the attorneys conduct must be viewed in light of the totality of the cireumstances to determine whether that conduct constitutes a violation of colo rpc 8ah D. holding that the jury must determine whether the partys conduct was reasonable under the cireumstances E. holding that a totality of the circumstances review applies to determining whether police conduct constitutes a seizure

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the attorneys conduct must be viewed in light of the totality of the cireumstances to determine whether that conduct constitutes a violation of colo rpc 8ah
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: In order to preserve Holder’s rights under this Award in the event of a change in control of the Company (as defined by the Committee), the Committee in its discretion may at any time take one or more of the following actions: (i) provide for the acceleration of any Vest Date, (ii) provide for payment to the Holder of cash or other property with a Fair Market Value equal to the amount that would have been received with respect to the Shares had the Award fully vested upon the change in control, (iii) adjust the terms of this Award in a manner determined by the Committee to reflect the change in control, (iv) cause the Award to be assumed, or new rights substituted therefor, by another entity, or (v) make such other provision as the Committee may consider equitable to the Holder and in the best interests of the Company.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: [person], as the result of conduct to which the reasonable [person] would strongly object.” Swarthout, 632 N.W.2d at 745 (emphasis added). Therefore, while an individual may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in nude photographs of herself or in her private medical information, she does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in discussing termination of her employment. See Lake, 582 N.W.2d at 235 (stating that “[o]ne’s naked body is ... generally known to others only by choice” and “is a type of privacy interest worthy of protection”); Swarthout, 632 N.W.2d at 745 (reversing summary judgment on an intrusion upon seclusion claim involving private medical information); Groeneweg v. Interstate Enterprises, Inc., No. A04-1290, 2005 WL 894768, at *6 (Minn.Ct.App. Apr. 19, 2005) (<HOLDING>). In Nelson, Rasmusson, and Kampschroer v. Options: A. holding that the driver of a borrowed car had the requisite legitimate expectation of privacy to support standing for fourth amendment purposes B. holding that the plaintiff had no legitimate expectation of privacy at a meeting with coworkers in which her termination was discussed C. holding bank clients had no legitimate expectation of privacy in banking information revealed to a third party D. holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building E. holding that testimony of plaintiff and her coworkers regarding cause of her injury was pure conjecture

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the plaintiff had no legitimate expectation of privacy at a meeting with coworkers in which her termination was discussed