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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This instrument constitutes and contains the entire Agreement and final understanding between the parties covering the services provided by the Consultant. It is intended by the parties as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of their agreement. It supersedes all prior negotiations and agreements, proposed or otherwise, whether written or oral, between the parties concerning consulting services provided by the Consultant. Any representation, promise or agreement not specifically included in this Agreement shall not be binding upon or enforceable against either party. This is fully integrated document. This Agreement may be modified only with a written instrument duly executed by each of the parties. No person has any authority to make any representation or promise on behalf of any of the parties not set forth herein and this Agreement has not been executed in reliance upon any representations or promises except those contained herein.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: decision was motivated in part by a discriminatory animus, even though other factors besides the discrimination influenced the employer’s decision. See Sher v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 488 F.3d 489, 508 n.22 (1st Cir. 2007) (“In a mixed motive case, the plaintiff would only have to establish that national origin ... discrimination was a motivating factor in the analysis, rather than the sole basis for the decision.”) Additionally, the plaintiff need not present direct evidence of discrimination to pursue a mixed-motive theory. Rather, “[a] plaintiff is entitled to prove discrimination by circumstantial evidence alone.” Chadwick v. WellPoint, Inc., 561 F.3d 38, 46 (1st Cir. 2009); see also Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 98-99, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Once the plaintiff demonstrates that his Options: A. holding that title vii does not mention much less require that a plaintiff make a heightened showing through direct evidence in mixedmotive cases B. holding that direct evidence of discrimination is not required to prove discrimination in mixed motive cases under title vii C. holding that in title vii cases the mixedmotive theory of discrimination is available in cases with circumstantial evidence of discrimination D. holding that the mixedmotive framework does not apply to retaliation cases under title vii E. holding the title vii mixedmotive theory does not apply to adea claims

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that title vii does not mention much less require that a plaintiff make a heightened showing through direct evidence in mixedmotive cases
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: 922 F.2d 1385, 1392 (9th Cir.1991); see also United States v. Stanley, 12 F.3d 17, 20 (2nd Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 1572, 128 L.Ed.2d 216 (1994). The estimate of a fraud loss “must reflect economic reality, [and] the loss figure need not be precise but may be a reasonable estimate.” United States v. Khan, 969 F.2d 218, 221 (6th Cir.1992) (internal quotations omitted). While the term “intended loss” is a subjective measure, “probable loss” connotes an objectively-measured harm. See United States v. Sneed, 814 F.Supp. 964, 970 (D.Colo.1993). As the district court correctly noted, insurance claims are frequently inflated. Basing the probable loss on the claim, then, does not reflect economic reality. See United States v. Santiago, 977 F.2d 517, 524 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). For example, Chudi Anode’s claim for the Options: A. holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss B. holding the defendant responsible for the greater of the actual or intended loss C. holding that an intended loss cannot exceed the loss a defendant could have occasioned if his or her fraud had been entirely successful D. holding that loss of an arm includes loss of the hand E. holding that joint and several liability for entire actual loss could have been imposed on each fraud defendant as condition of probation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an intended loss cannot exceed the loss a defendant could have occasioned if his or her fraud had been entirely successful
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: (1) The Borrower is the sole stockholder of Tesoro Logistics Finance Corp., a Delaware corporation (“TLFC”); (2) the Borrower is the sole member of Tesoro Logistics Operations LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Opco”); (3) Opco is the sole member of Tesoro Logistics Pipelines LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; (“TLPL”); (4) TLPL is the sole member of Tesoro High Plains Pipeline Company LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Tesoro High Plains”); (5) TLPL is the sole member of Tesoro Logistics Northwest Pipeline LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“TLNP”); (6) Opco is the sole member of Tesoro SoCal Pipeline Company LLC; (7) TLPL is the sole member of Tesoro Alaska Pipeline Company LLC; (8) the Borrower is the sole member of QEP Field Services LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“QEPFS”); (9) QEPFS owns a 60% membership interest in Green River Processing, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Green River”); (10) QEPFS is the sole member of QEP Midstream Partners GP, LLC (“QEPM GP”), a Delaware limited liability company; (11) QEPM GP owns a 2% general partnership interest in QEP Midstream Partners, LP a Delaware Limited Partnership (“QEPM”); (12) QEPFS owns a 98% limited partnership interest in QEPM; (13) QEPM is the sole member of QEP Midstream Partners Operating, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“QEP Opco”); (14) QEP Opco owns a 40% membership interest in Green River; (15) QEP Opco is the sole member of QEPM Gathering I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Gathering I”); (16) Gathering I is the sole member of Rendezvous Pipeline Company, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; and (17) Gathering I owns a 78% membership interest in Rendezvous Gas Services, L.L.C., a Wyoming limited liability company.

assistant: Subsidiaries
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: in Spanish. While we do not have a record of appellant’s Spanish statements, we assume that had appellant's Spanish statements risen to the level of criminal contempt, the district court would have stopped appellant, had her comments translated for the record, and made a contempt finding. In the absence of such action by the district court, we assume that appellant said nothing which rose to the level of criminal contempt. 6 . Because we hold that there was no alteration under Rule 35(c), we find it unnecessary to address the complicated question of exactly when a sentence is imposed for purposes of Rule 35(c). Currently, there is a circuit split on this issue. Many circuits look to the oral imposition of sentence. Compare United States v. Aguirre, 214 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Morrison, 204 F.3d Options: A. holding that oral imposition of sentence begins seven day clock for rule 35c B. holding that imposition occurs at time of oral pronouncement C. holding that modification of original sentence occurred outside the sevenday window and the district court lacked jurisdiction to act pursuant to rule 35c D. holding that trial court may modify sentence on the same day as the assessment of the initial sentence and before the court adjourns for the day E. holding that timely filing of rule 35c predecessor to rule 35a motion renders otherwise final order of district court nonfinal until disposition of that motion

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that oral imposition of sentence begins seven day clock for rule 35c
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 word "torture” to include both torture and "extra judicial killing,” except where the context makes clear the more limited meaning is intended. 12 . Plaintiffs argue that these statutes also raise a related but distinct U.S. policy interest in insuring that claims arising out of human rights abuses are adjudicated according to the standards of international law. In arguing for this principle, they assume that the law of nations necessarily provides the substantive standards for evaluating claims brought under the ATCA in situations where the underlying claims involve human rights abuses. While they may well be right that such a principle is implicit in the ATCA, the federal courts have never definitively resolved this choice-of-law question. Compare Xuncax, 886 F.Supp. at 180-83 (<HOLDING>) with Tel-Oren, 726 F.2d at 777, 781-82 Options: A. holding that atca establishes cause of action for violations of international law but requiring the district court to perform a traditional choiceoflaw analysis to determine whether international law law of forum state or law of state where events occurred should provide substantive law in such an action B. holding that federal courts must apply state substantive law in diversity cases C. holding that international law provides substantive law for atca cases D. holding that michigan law provides no substantive right to parole E. holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that international law provides substantive law for atca cases
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the date hereof, the authorized capital stock of the Company consists of: (i) 225,000,000 shares of Common Stock, $0.0001 par value per share, of which 61,539,334 shares are issued and outstanding; and (ii) 25,000,000 shares of preferred stock, $0.0001 par value per share, of which ZERO shares are issued and outstanding; Except as disclosed in the SEC Documents, no shares are reserved for issuance pursuant to the Company’s stock option plans, no shares are reserved for issuance pursuant to securities (other than the Note) exercisable for, or convertible into or exchangeable for shares of Common Stock and 9,200,000 shares are reserved for issuance upon conversion of the Note. All of such outstanding shares of capital stock are, or upon issuance will be, duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable. No shares of capital stock of the Company are subject to preemptive rights or any other similar rights of the shareholders of the Company or any liens or encumbrances imposed through the actions or failure to act of the Company. Except as disclosed in the SEC Documents, as of the effective date of this Agreement, (i) there are no outstanding options, warrants, scrip, rights to subscribe for, puts, calls, rights of first refusal, agreements, understandings, claims or other commitments or rights of any character whatsoever relating to, or securities or rights convertible into or exchangeable for any shares of capital stock of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, or arrangements by which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is or may become bound to issue additional shares of capital stock of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, (ii) there are no agreements or arrangements under which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is obligated to register the sale of any of its or their securities under the 1933 Act and (iii) there are no anti-dilution or price adjustment provisions contained in any security issued by the Company (or in any agreement providing rights to security holders) that will be triggered by the issuance of the Note or the Conversion Shares. The Company has filed in its SEC Documents true and correct copies of the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation as in effect on the date hereof (“Certificate of Incorporation”), the Company’s By-laws, as in effect on the date hereof (the “By-laws”), and the terms of all securities convertible into or exercisable for Common Stock of the Company and the material rights of the holders thereof in respect thereto. The Company shall provide the Buyer with a written update of this representation signed by the Company’s Chief Executive on behalf of the Company as of the Closing Date.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the Effective Date, the Company will pay Executive an annual salary of $555,000 as compensation for his services (such annual salary, as is then effective, to be referred to herein as “Base Salary”). The Base Salary will be paid periodically in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll practices and be subject to the usual, required withholdings.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the agreement must use the word ‘copyright,’ ” Op. at 931-32, and that such a writing “can use terminology such as ‘all assets’ that clearly includes copyrights,” id. at 931-32. The cases cited by the majority indeed stand for the proposition that use of the word “copyright” is not always necessary, but it is somewhat notable that in none of the cases did the written agreement merely say “all assets” without reference to “rights,” “intangible” property, or the underlying tangible property to which the intangible right attached. In all but one of the cited cases finding a transfer, the written agreement expressly conferred “all rights” in a specific piece of property, which the courts construed to include copyrights. See S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1088 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Shugrue v. Cont’l Airlines, Inc., 977 F.Supp. Options: A. holding misuse of copyright because of limitations imposed on licensing agreement B. holding that while the computer program at issue was within the subject matter of copyright the right sought under state law pursuant to a license was not equivalent to the exclusive rights under copyright as such copyright preemption did not apply C. holding that copyright protection of computer programs extend beyond the programs literal code to their structure sequence and organization D. holding that an agreement in which a company retained all rights of ownership in a specific series of programs included the copyright E. recognizing that the copyright act was amended in 1976 to include computer programs in the definition of protectable literary works

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an agreement in which a company retained all rights of ownership in a specific series of programs included the copyright
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: in light of the participation in this litigation of defendant Avendrá (a non-party to the Master and 1999 Agreements).” Thereafter, Marriott appealed the court’s refusal to compel CTF to arbitrate, and CTF cross-appealed the court’s order staying CTF’s breach of contract suit pending resolution of the arbitration between Marriott and HPI. II. JURISDICTION We may review the denial of Marriott’s motion to compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B), which provides for jurisdiction over appeals from orders “denying a petition under [9 U.S.C. § 4] to order arbitration to proceed[.]” Marriot order that unreasonably delays a plaintiffs right to have its case heard is appealable. Hufstedler, 703 F.2d at 735; see also Haberern v. Lehigh & New England Ry., 554 F.2d 581, 584 (3d Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). Here, the District Court decided two Options: A. holding that a stay order of indefinite length which singles out a claim for extended delay while others of a similar nature proceed is appealable B. holding that a stay order is appealable because it amounts to a refusal to hear and decide a case C. holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment D. holding that grant or denial of debtors claim of property exemption is final appealable order E. holding that an order dismissing a claim without prejudice is a final appealable order if the statute of limitations for that claim has expired

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a stay order of indefinite length which singles out a claim for extended delay while others of a similar nature proceed is appealable
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, for all purposes, shall be construed in accordance with the laws of Ohio without regard to conflicts of law principles. Any action or proceeding by either of the parties to enforce this Agreement shall be brought only in a state or federal court located in the state of Ohio, county of Hamilton. The parties hereby irrevocably submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of such courts and waive the defense of inconvenient forum to the maintenance of any such action or proceeding in such venue.

assistant: Venues
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: County, 839 F.2d 225, 226-27 (4th Cir.1988) (quoting Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 344, 96 S.Ct. 2074, 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976)). Here, the plaintiff does refer to state law, Va.Code Ann. § 2.1-116.1 et seq. (Michie 1995 & Supp.2000) (the “Law-Enforcement Officers’ Procedural Guarantees” statute), as the basis of his property interest in continued employment. While this state law provides the plaintiff with such an interest, see Kersey v. Shipley, 673 F.2d 730, 732 (4th Cir.1982), it also “provides for more process than what the Constitution would otherwise require.” Riccio v. County of Fairfax, 907 F.2d 1459, 1467 (4th Cir.1990) (emphasis in original). For this reason, the specific procedures it establishes need not be complied with fully to satisfy federal due process. See id. at 1468 (<HOLDING>) Rather, to determine whether due process has Options: A. holding that even if the plaintiff had asserted a cause of action under the virginia wrongful death act against the city police officers the police officers would be entitled to sovereign immunity B. holding in virginia county police officers 1983 action against ms department and various county officials that the departments violation of the law enforcement officers procedural guarantees does not necessarily compel a finding of a due process violation C. holding the evidence supported the police officers failure to follow the directives in the montgomery county police departments field operations manual D. holding that county and district attorneys are officers within the judicial department E. recognizing county officers as those whose general authority and jurisdiction are confined within the limits of the county in which they are appointed who are appointed in and for a particular county and whose duties apply only to that county and through whom the county performs its usual political functions

assistant: The best answer is B. holding in virginia county police officers 1983 action against ms department and various county officials that the departments violation of the law enforcement officers procedural guarantees does not necessarily compel a finding of a due process violation
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you must not create or submit unwanted email , comments , likes or other forms of commercial or harassing communications ( a/k/a `` spam '' ) to any instagram users .

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: 8.1.2 upon receipt of a booking confirmation from airbnb , a legally binding agreement is formed between you and your host , subject to any additional terms and conditions of the host that apply , including in particular the applicable cancellation policy and any rules and restrictions specified in the listing .

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: Inc., 234 B.R. 8 (D.Conn.1997) ... the Court held that, pursuant to § 541(a)(7), a Fair Debt Collection Act cause of action arising out of dunning letters received by the debtor after the bankruptcy petition was filed constituted property of the estate. See Correll, 234 B.R. at 10. Other courts have reached similar conclusions based on § 541(a)(7). See Polvay [v. B.O. Acquisitions Inc.], 1997 WL 188127, at *2 (“Causes of action arising after the debtor files for bankruptcy generally become part of the estate.”); Stanley v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 156 B.R. 25 (W.D.Va.1993) (debtor did not have standing to maintain cause of action for interference of contractual relations which arose pri- or to the discharge of his estate); In re Griseuk, 165 B.R. 956, 957-59 (Bankr.M.D.Fl[Fla].1994) (<HOLDING>); DeLarco v. DeWitt, 136 A.D.2d 406, 408, 527 Options: A. holding the receiver properly applied rental income from the property to the payment of common charges during the pendency of the foreclosure action B. holding that an anticipated tax refund was property of the bankruptcy estate as of the date the bankruptcy case was filed C. holding that despite a lack of any formal notice tulsa requirement was satisfied by a showing that because the creditor was also the executor of the estate the creditor had actual notice of the pendency of the estate proceedings D. holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code E. holding that personal injury action arising during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings was property of the estate

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that personal injury action arising during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings was property 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: Each party agrees that irreparable damage would occur in the event any provision of this Agreement was not performed in accordance with the terms hereof. Accordingly, each of the parties hereby consents to the issuance of injunctive relief without bond by the Delaware Court of Chancery to prevent breaches of this Agreement and to enforce specifically the terms and provisions of this Agreement in addition to any other remedy to which they are entitled at law or in equity.

assistant: Specific Performance
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 Security Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one agreement, and any of the parties hereto may execute this Security Agreement by signing any such counterpart. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Security Agreement by facsimile or other electronic transmission shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Security Agreement.

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: “are directly responsible for the availability of the funds from the statutorily created trust.” In re Milton Poulos, 947 F.2d at 1353 (parties deserved fee award because litigation efforts caused bankruptcy court to “declare[ ] the trust valid and enforceable.”). In such cases, the “common fund” exception of Alyeska entitles the litigant to an attorneys’ fees award out of the trust assets. Nonetheless, if the litigant is not responsible for the availability of the trust funds, the district court cannot award attorneys’ fees to PACA claimants, unless the PACA claimant has another independent legal basis for attorneys’ fees under an Alyeska exception. Alyeska, 421 U.S. at 259, 95 S.Ct. 1612; see, e.g., Golman-Hayden Co. v. Fresh Source Produce Inc., 217 F.3d 348, 352-353 (5th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Simplot did not create a “common fund” here, Options: A. holding that where a paca claimant did not create a common trust the attorney fee award was inappropriate B. holding that paca debtor may prove that certain funds are not proceeds from produce sales and hence not part of trust assets C. holding that a constructive trust had arisen on a third partys house due to her use of trust assets which had been diverted by the paca trustee to pay the mortgage and finding that the trust beneficiary plaintiffs are entitled to a lien on the property in the amount of the diverted funds D. holding that attorneys fee award in a common fund case must be reasonable under the circumstances E. recognizing discretion of district court in determining a fee award

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that where a paca claimant did not create a common trust the attorney fee award was inappropriate
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of, a case under this title; (D) whether the services were performed within a reasonable amount of time commensurate with the complexity, importance, and nature of the problem, issue, or task addressed; (E) with respect to a professional person, whether the person is board certified or otherwise has demonstrated skill and experience in the bankruptcy field; and (F) whether the compensation is reasonable based on the customary compensation charged by comparably skilled practitioners in cases other than cases under this title. 27 . See United States Trustee Guidelines for Reviewing Applications for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses Filed Under 11 U.S.C. § 330. 28 . See In re Cahill, 428 F.3d 536, 539-40 (5th Cir.2005) (citing In re Fender, 12 F.3d 480, 487 (5th Cir.1994)) (<HOLDING>); First Colonial Corp. of Am., 544 F.2d 1291 Options: A. holding that all fifth circuit cases decided before the close of business on september 30 1981 are binding on the eleventh circuit B. holding that the lodestar method of calculating fees builds on the johnson factors and is traditionally used by the fifth circuit C. holding that both the lodestar and the percentage of the fund methods are permitted D. holding that the bureau of prisonss method for calculating good time credits was a reasonable interpretation of the statute in part because the plaintiffs contrary method would result in a windfall to prisoners that congress did not intend E. holding that because counsels lumping of fees was not considered in calculating the revised lodestar amount it could serve as a basis for adjusting the fee award

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the lodestar method of calculating fees builds on the johnson factors and is traditionally used by the fifth circuit
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: 328, ¶ 32-33 (11th Dist.). {¶ 14} We agree that claims for faulty workmanship, such as the one in the present case, are not fortuitous in the context of a CGL policy like the one here. In keeping with the spirit of fortuity that is fundamental to insurance coverage, we hold that the CGL policy does not provide coverage to Custom for its alleged defective construction of and workmanship on the steel grain bin. Our holding is consistent with the majority of Ohio courts that have denied coverage for this type of claim. The majority view is that claims of defective construction or workmanship are not claims for “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under a CGL policy. E.g., Bogner Constr. Co. v. Field & Assocs., 5th Dist. No. 08-CA-11, 2009-Ohio-116, 2009 WL 91300, at ¶ 51 and 44 (<HOLDING>); Paramount Parks, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., Options: A. holding that an intended damages exclusion was in pari materia with language in the policy defining an occurrence under the policy as an accident B. holding that there was no coverage because there was no occurrence within the meaning of the policy because defective workmanship does not constitute an accident or an occurrence under a commercial general liability policy C. holding that unintended damage to a pipeline caused by the defective coating supplied by insureds subsidiary was caused by an occurrence within the meaning of the liability policy D. holding insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured since the underlying suit arises out of a breach of contract which is not an accident or occurrence contemplated or covered by the provisions of a general liability insurance policy E. holding that a cgl policy such as the one at issue here does not insure against claims for defective or negligent workmanship or construction because defective workmanship does not constitute an accident and therefore claims for defective or negligent workmanship do not constitute an occurrence under the policy

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that there was no coverage because there was no occurrence within the meaning of the policy because defective workmanship does not constitute an accident or an occurrence under a commercial general liability policy
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: not developed at trial.’ ” United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Cheyenne, 855 F.2d 566 (8th Cir.1988)), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1172, 116 S.Ct. 1263, 134 L.Ed.2d 212 (1996); see United States v. Rodriguez, 367 F.3d 1019, 1029 (8th Cir.2004) (“the presumption of prejudice does not apply unless the extrinsic contact relates to factual evidence not developed at trial”); United States v. Hall, 85 F.3d 367, 371 (8th Cir.1996) (noting that the presumption of prejudice is inapplicable where the contact does not relate to factual evidence not developed at trial, or where the contact pertains to purely legal issues), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1027, 120 S.Ct. 1437, 146 L.Ed.2d 326 (2000); United States v. Wallingford, 82 F.3d 278, 281 (8th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the trial judge informed the Options: A. holding petitioners reliance on remmer misplaced as statement from restaurant cashier to juror expressing cashiers hope that the juror find the defendant not guilty did not refer to the factual evidence not developed at trial B. holding that the district courts dismissal of a juror after five weeks of deliberations violated the defendants right to a unanimous jury because the record evidence suggested the juror found the evidence insufficient for a conviction C. holding that though judge did not question juror individually note from juror to judge requesting private meeting to ask legal question did not suggest juror would not base verdict on evidence D. holding that trial courts denial of motion for new trial based on juror misconduct was justified where there was no evidence presented at hearing on motion that juror had knowingly concealed relevant litigation experience during voir dire and identity of juror as county court litigant was not demonstrated E. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when the trial judge questioned the juror extensively enough to satisfy itself that the juror was not biased emphasis added

assistant: The best answer is A. holding petitioners reliance on remmer misplaced as statement from restaurant cashier to juror expressing cashiers hope that the juror find the defendant not guilty did not refer to the factual evidence not developed at trial
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 (the “ Storage Term ”) shall commence on the Commencement Date and end on the later of the Expiration Date (as defined in the Supply and Offtake Agreement) and the last day on which any Materials are held by Aron in the Storage Facilities.

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: in a particular case is not necessary where such a duty is well-settled. Thus, there is usually no need to redetermine what duty a business owner owes to its invitees because the law clearly recognizes that “[proprietors owe a duty to their business invitees to use reasonable care to protect them frotó injury caused by other patrons and guests on their premises, including providing adequate staff to policé and control disorderly conduct.” Id., (quoting Muex v. Hindel Bowling Lanes, Inc., 596 N.E.2d 263, 266 (Ind.Ct.App.1992)). This duty only extends to harm from the co plifting and physical confrontations with escaping shoplifters, plus frequent police runs to premises, shows reasonable foreseeability that a shopper might be injured by crime); and Delta Tau Delta, 712 N.E.2d at 974 (<HOLDING>). While .the number, nature, and location of Options: A. holding that merger did not apply because sexual assault was not a lesser included offense of seconddegree kidnapping involving sexual assault B. holding that cumulative evidence of prior sexual assaults allegedly committed by defendant were prejudicial entitling defendant to new trial C. holding that allegations of sexual assault by an employee of the church fell within coverage for sexual misconduct D. holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse E. holding that prior instance and information regarding sexual assaults at fraternity house demonstrated reasonable foreseeability of a sexual assault

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that prior instance and information regarding sexual assaults at fraternity house demonstrated reasonable foreseeability of a sexual assault
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 Group Member has filed or caused to be filed all Federal, state and other material income tax returns that are required to be filed and has paid all Federal, state and other material taxes shown to be due and payable on said returns or on any assessments made against it or any of its property and all other material taxes, fees or other charges imposed on it or any of its property by any Governmental Authority (other than any the amount or validity of which are currently being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and with respect to which reserves in conformity with GAAP have been provided on the books of the relevant Group Member); no material tax Lien has been filed, and, to the knowledge of the Parent Borrower, no material claim is being asserted, with respect to any such material tax, fee or other charge, except in each case as could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: there is a factual dispute as to whether a defendant "possessed” a gun within the meaning of § 2D1.1(b)(1), Fed. R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(D) requires the district court to either make a specific finding or indic cific findings under Fed. R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(D) where defendant objected to § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement for possession of a firearm that he claimed "belonged to his roommate,” and district court failed to make any findings on this point). 9 . Diana Buchanan also argues that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing her to the maximum possible sentence under the guidelines "in light of the unusual and tragic circumstances of Mrs. Buchanan’s background,” or, in the alternative, that the district court should have departed from the guidelines in sentencing her. th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 529, 130 Options: A. holding that the eighth amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence but forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime B. holding that the guidelines stiffer penalties for cocaine base do not violate equal protection C. holding that a life sentence without parole for possession of 650 grams of cocaine base did not violate the eighth amendment D. holding that district court did not err in determining that cocaine base was crack cocaine based on chemical analysis identifying cocaine base together with competent lay testimony bridging the evidentiary gap between cocaine base and crack cocaine and refusing to require showing of smokeability ie water solubility or melting point for purposes of establishing crack cocaine under the guidelines since smokeability distinguishes cocaine base from powder cocaine not from crack E. holding that stiffer penalties for cocaine base transactions are not grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense and therefore do not violate eighth amendment

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that stiffer penalties for cocaine base transactions are not grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense and therefore do not violate eighth amendment
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: opportunity to respond to his allegation that counsel had rendered ineffective assistance. Petitioner now seeks review of the BIA’s order in this court. We review “the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion.” Abdi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 430 F.3d 1148, 1149 (11th Cir.2005). Our review “is limited to determining whether there has been an exercise of administrative discretion and whether the matter of exercise has been arbitrary or capricious.” Id. (quotation omitted). Petitioner’s brief to this court contains no argument concerning the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. Therefore, he has abandoned the issue. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir.2005) (citing Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n. 6 (11th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>)). Instead of addressing the BIA’s denial of Options: A. holding that the appellant abandoned an issue to which he only made passing references B. holding that issues not raised in the initial brief on appeal are deemed abandoned C. holding that issues are deemed abandoned when the brief only makes a passing references to an issue D. holding that issues not raised in an initial brief on appeal are deemed abandoned E. holding that issues not raised in an appellants initial brief are deemed abandoned

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that issues are deemed abandoned when the brief only makes a passing references to an 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: Rehabilitation Act, the Second and Eighth Circuits have come to different conclusions. In Faconti v. Potter, the Second Circuit favorably notes the district court’s determination that claims under the CSRS and the Rehabilitation Act cannot functionally co-exist because of their inherent inconsistency. Faconti v. Potter, 242 Fed.Appx. 775, 776 (2d Cir.2007) (precluding a Rehabilitation Act claim after obtaining CSRS benefits because “the requirements for obtaining a [CSRS] disability retirement annuity are wholly inconsistent with the requirements for proving a claim of disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act” (quoting Faconti v. Potter, No. 01-cv-1034, slip op. at 17 (E.D.N.Y. July 25, 2002))); see also Wallace v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 108 F.Supp.2d 716, 719 (S.D.Tex.2000) (<HOLDING>). But, in Arneson v. Heckler, the Eight Circuit Options: A. holding that an employees claim for breach of a letter agreement was preempted by erisa where the agreement did not specify the amount or other terms of the employees retirement benefits and the court would have to refer to the employers erisagoverned retirement plan to determine the employees retirement benefits and calculate the damages claimed B. holding that employee who frequently missed work was not a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of her job either with or without a reasonable accommodation as required to support disability discrimination and reasonable accommodation claims under the rehabilitation act C. holding that although disability benefits cannot be included as part of the marital estate a court may consider the waiver of retirement pension benefits in favor of disability benefits in determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances which would justify modification of an alimony award to a former spouse who was previously awarded a fixed percentage of the retirement pension benefits D. holding disability discrimination claim barred E. recognizing that a claim of disability retirement under the csrs precludes a rehabilitation act claim because plaintiffs applying for disability retirement under the csrs must be unable to work even with an accommodation

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that a claim of disability retirement under the csrs precludes a rehabilitation act claim because plaintiffs applying for disability retirement under the csrs must be unable to work even with an accommodation
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement, together with the Merger Agreement, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral, between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement.

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: The parties to each assignment shall execute and deliver to the Agent an Assignment and Assumption and Administrative Questionnaire, all documentation and other information reasonably determined by the Agent to be required by applicable regulatory authorities required under applicable “know your customer” and anti-money laundering rules and regulations, including the USA PATRIOT Act, and a processing and recordation fee of $3,500, provided , however, that the Agent may, in its sole discretion, elect to waive such processing and recordation fee in the case of any assignment and such processing and recordation fee shall be waived for assignments to an Affiliate of a Lender or an Approved Fund.

assistant: Assignments
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: financial aspects of drug trafficking and his professional opinion that drug traffickers keep financial records at their homes. In addition, the affidavit provided information obtained from reliable cooperating witnesses and electric company records. This information was sufficient for the issuance of the search warrant in this case. See United States v. Jones, 159 F.3d 969, 975 (6th Cir.1998) (stating that “[i]n the case of drug dealers, evidence is likely to be found where the dealers live”). b. Particularity The Blairs also argue that the federal search warrant was overbroad in that it lacked particularity as to the items to be seized. Because the Blairs failed to make this argument to the district court, it is waived. See United States v. Critton, 43 F.3d 1089, 1094 (6th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Even if the Blairs’ argument were properly Options: A. holding that where plaintiff fails to raise issue of timeliness of departments hearing at administrative level the issue is waived on appeal B. holding that by fading to timely raise the issue before the trial court the defendant had waived the right to raise the issue on appeal that the trial court failed to consider less severe sanctions C. holding defendants argument the court erroneously denied his motion to suppress was reviewable as a constitutional issue even though defendant failed to raise the issue in a written posttrial motion D. holding that a defendant who fails to raise a specific issue as the basis for suppression in a motion to suppress to the district court has waived the right to raise that issue on appeal E. holding that there was no good cause to raise an untimely suppression issue where the defendant could have with due diligence discovered the information necessary to timely raise the issue

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a defendant who fails to raise a specific issue as the basis for suppression in a motion to suppress to the district court has waived the right to raise that issue on appeal