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: woman, who then conceived a child. Both the woman and her previous husband objected to the paternity action because the child was born during their marriage and had been found to be a child of their marriage during their dissolution action. McDaniels, 108 Wn.2d at 300-01. In remanding for a determination of paternity, the McDaniels court recognized that both the husband and the petitioner had established strong parenting relationships with the child, and that these relationships justified maintaining visitation between the child and both of the men even after paternity was established. McDaniels, 108 Wn.2d at 310, 313. An even more pointed recognition of the importance of the psychological bond between a child and a nonbiological parent was expressed in In re Marria 9 P.2d 1304 (1979) (<HOLDING>), cited with approval in In re Dependency of Options: A. recognizing the due process rights of legal guardians who had raised child for over eight years and stood in loco parentis to the child to be given a full and meaningful opportunity to be heard at a dependency hearing under chapter 1304 rcw B. holding that party standing in loco parentis has standing to seek custody of child C. holding that due process requires at a minimum an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner D. holding that procedural due process requires adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard E. holding that domestic partner who assumed a parental status over her partners child and performed parental duties with the partners permission stood in loco parentis to the child and had standing to seek partial custody and visitation

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing the due process rights of legal guardians who had raised child for over eight years and stood in loco parentis to the child to be given a full and meaningful opportunity to be heard at a dependency hearing under chapter 1304 rcw
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 Grantee acknowledges and agrees that the terms of this Grant Agreement are considered proprietary information of the Company. The Grantee hereby agrees that Grantee shall maintain the confidentiality of these matters to the fullest extent permitted by law and shall not disclose them to any third party.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Consultant or the Bank may terminate this Agreement prior to the expiration of its term on 30 days written notice; provided, however, that this Agreement shall be terminated immediately in the event of Consultant’s death. Any amounts due under this Agreement shall be paid promptly upon any such termination. The provisions of Section 9 shall survive termination of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Company shall have the right to enforce the provisions of Section 7 through an action, suit or proceeding brought in any federal court located in the State of Delaware or any Delaware state court, and each Participant consents to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of such courts (and of the appropriate appellate courts therefrom) in any such action, suit or proceeding and irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any right to a jury trial and any objection that such party may now or hereafter have to the laying of the venue of any such action, suit or proceeding in any such court or that any such action, suit or proceeding brought in any such court has been brought in an inconvenient forum; provided , that any action, suit or proceeding seeking to enforce a final judgment rendered in such court or an arbitral award pursuant to Section 13.2 may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: On Kimball’s first regular payroll date following the Termination Date, Kimball will pay Executive’s full base salary earned through the Termination Date at the rate in effect on the date Notice of Termination is given.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The 2006 Stock Plan (or any successor thereto), the Severance Plan and the Incentive Plan are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement. This Agreement, all Exhibits attached hereto, the 2006 Stock Plan (or any successor thereto), the Severance Plan and the Incentive Plan constitute the entire agreement between the Parties as of the Effective Date and supersedes all previous agreements and understandings between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company will pay you a base salary at the rate of six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) per year, payable in accordance with the regular payroll practices of the Company and subject to adjustment from time to time by Parent’s Board of Directors (the “ Board ”) or its designee in its discretion (as adjusted from time to time, the “ Base Salary ”).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The terms of this Assumption Agreement may not be changed, modified, waived, discharged or terminated orally, but only by an instrument or instruments in writing, signed by the Party against whom the enforcement of the change, modification, waiver, discharge or termination is asserted. Lender's consent to the Requested Actions shall not be deemed to constitute Lender's consent to any provisions of the organizational documents that would be in violation of the terms and conditions of any of the Loan Documents.

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: Except with respect to the material terms and conditions of the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents, the Company confirms that neither it nor any other Person acting on its behalf has provided any of the Purchasers or their agents or counsel with any information that it believes constitutes or would reasonably be expected to constitute material, non-public information which is not otherwise disclosed in the Prospectus. The Company understands and confirms that the Purchasers will rely on the foregoing representation in effecting transactions in securities of the Company. All of the disclosure furnished by or on behalf of the Company to the Purchasers regarding the Company and its Subsidiaries, their respective businesses and the transactions contemplated hereby, is true and correct and does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The press releases disseminated by the Company during the twelve months preceding the date of this Agreement taken as a whole do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made and when made, not misleading. The Company acknowledges and agrees that no Purchaser makes or has made any representations or warranties with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby other than those specifically set forth in Section 3.2 hereof.

assistant: Disclosures
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: had simply taken the first step in the ultimate disposition of the dispute between the parties. Citizens Nat’l Bank of Beaumont v. Callaway, 597 S.W.2d 465, 466 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1980, writ ref'd); see also Elm Creek, 940 S.W.2d at 150. Because an interlocutory order may only be appealed when authorized by statute and because there is no such authority for the appeal of an order compelling arbitration, we must follow the holdings of this and other courts in concluding that an order compelling arbitration is an unappealable interlocutory order. See Elm Creek, 940 S.W.2d at 150 (concluding court of appeals had no jurisdiction over interlocutory order compelling arbitration); Gathe v. Cigna Healthplan of Texas, Inc., 879 S.W.2d 360, 362 (Tex.App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (<HOLDING>); Bethke v. Polyco, Inc., 730 S.W.2d 431, 434 Options: A. holding that an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable because it is not final and because it is not listed in the uaa appeals provision B. holding that orders compelling arbitration are not appealable not because of the uaa appeals provision but because it has been definitely settled by the supreme court of this state that an order compelling arbitration is not final and therefore is not appealable C. holding that an order compelling arbitration in an independent proceeding is appealable as a final order because in that context the order compelling arbitration resolves the sole issue before the court D. holding that an order compelling arbitration is not appealable because it is not listed in the uaa statute and because it is not final E. holding order compelling arbitration is unappealable

assistant: The best answer is E. holding order compelling arbitration is unappealable
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: skype paid products are sold to you by skype communications s.à.r.l , however the seller-of-record accountable for taxes is skype communications us corporation .

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: *7 (compare with the word “shall” as used in the Banking Code remedy, 71 P.S. § 733-713). 'In support, Judge Sanchez cited the PA Statutory Construction Act, which states that, in statutory interpretation, “[w]ords and phrases shall be construed according to rules of grammar and according, to their common and approved usage ...” and that each word should be given meaning so that no .phrase is extra. Id. at *2, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 36689 at *8 (quoting 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903). Additionally Judge Sanchez found that “Pennsylvania case law has consistently construed the Unfair Insurance Practices Act to allow private rights of action in addition to administrative remedies.” Id. at *2, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 36689 at *9; see Pekular v. Eich, 355 Pa.Super. 276, 513 A.2d 427, 430 (Pa.Super.Ct.1986) (<HOLDING>); see also Highmark, Inc., v. UPMC Health Plan, Options: A. holding that the court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate any claims whatsoever under the federal criminal code B. holding that the remedies are exclusive C. holding that uipa does not give commission exclusive power to adjudicate deceptive act claims D. holding that a federal court may adjudicate claims for which there is no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction if the nonjurisdictional claims are related to other claims for which the does have jurisdiction E. holding that the bankruptcy courts jurisdiction to adjudicate common law claims violated article iii without deciding the claims

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that uipa does not give commission exclusive power to adjudicate deceptive act claims
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: term.”). Notwithstanding the existence of section 5-13-70, the courts in Cowart I and Cowart II co 6, 561 (Ct.App.2004), aff'd, 373 S.C. 390, 645 S.E.2d 245 (2007) (“[A]ny legislation [that] is in derogation of common law must be strictly construed and not extended in application beyond clear legislative intent.”); id. (“Therefore, a statute is not to be construed in derogation of common law rights if another interpretation is reasonable.”); State v. Prince, 316 S.C. 57, 66, 447 S.E.2d 177, 182 (1993) (“[I]t is presumed that no change in common law is intended unless the Legislature explicitly indicates such an intention by language in the statute.” (citing Nuckolls v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 192 S.C. 156, 161, 5 S.E.2d 862, 864 (1939))); Nuckolls, 192 S.C. at 161, 5 S.E.2d at 864 (<HOLDING>); id. (“[T]he rules of the common-law are not Options: A. holding that the interpretation of statutory language should be consistent with the legislatures purpose and intent B. holding that when construing a general enactment and a more particular enactment within the same statute and when the plain language of the two subsections cannot be otherwise reconciled the more specific subsection should be given effect C. holding that statutory language is conclusive in absence of clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary D. holding property code provision was subject to commonlaw rescission principles because it was not intended to be punitive E. holding that it is presumed that no change in the commonlaw was intended by the legislatures enactment of a statute on the same subject unless the language employed clearly indicates such an intention

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that it is presumed that no change in the commonlaw was intended by the legislatures enactment of a statute on the same subject unless the language employed clearly indicates such an intention
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 shall become effective when it shall have been executed by Borrower and Lender and thereafter it shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Borrower and Lender and their respective successors and assigns, except that Borrower shall not have any right to assign its or their rights hereunder or any interest herein without the prior written consent of Lender.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) Each payment by the Company on account of any facility fee hereunder and any reduction of the Revolving Commitments of the Banks shall be made pro rata according to the respective Revolving Commitment Percentages of the Banks. Each disbursement of Committed Rate Loans in any Currency shall be made by the Banks holding Revolving Commitments in such Currency pro rata according to the respective Revolving Borrowing Percentages of such Banks. Each payment (including each prepayment) by any Borrower on account of principal of and interest on any Loans in any Currency shall be made pro rata according to the respective principal amounts of the Loans of such Type and Currency of such Borrower then due and owing to the Banks. All payments (including prepayments) to be made by any Borrower hereunder, whether on account of principal, interest, fees, Reimbursement Obligations or otherwise, shall be made without set off or counterclaim. All payments in respect of Swing Line Loans, Committed Rate Loans or Letters of Credit in any Currency shall be made in such Currency and in immediately available funds at the Payment Office (and in the case of Swing Line Loan, to the applicable Swing Line Bank), and at or prior to the Payment Time, for such Type of Loans and such Currency, on the due date thereof. The Administrative Agent shall distribute to the applicable Banks any payments received by the Administrative Agent promptly upon receipt in like funds as received. If any payment hereunder becomes due and payable on a day other than a Business Day, such payment shall be extended to the next succeeding Business Day, and, with respect to payments of principal, interest thereon shall be payable at the then applicable rate during such extension.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: not bar a fee award under a different bankruptcy statute). 3 . In reaching its conclusion, the BAP relied in part on In re Walsh, 219 B.R. 873 (9th Cir. BAP 1998). See In re Schwartz-Tallard, 473 B.R. 340, 350 (9th Cir. BAP 2012). However, in Sternberg, we rejected Walsh’s reading of § 362(k)(1) to mean that the “actual damages” available to the injured party would necessarily make the injured party whole. Id. at 878. Walsh's holding — that fees expended resisting the stay violator’s appeal were available under § 362(k)(l) as actual damages— was based in part upon the reasoning we later expressly rejected in Sternberg. Therefore, the BAP’s use of Walsh to explain the proper application of § 362(k)(l) is improper in view of Sternberg. See In re Burley, 738 F.2d 981, 986 (9th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). In reaching our conclusion today, we do not Options: A. holding the commissions order reversing an award and remanding the case to the single commissioner to take further testimony was not final and not appealable to the circuit court until the commissions final determination regarding the single commissioners award the court construed the language in a provision of the code that states appeals from the commission to the circuit court shall be under the same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil actions and stated an appeal to the circuit court will not lie from an interlocutory order of the commission unless it affects the merits citation omitted B. holding that the role of the courts is limited to ascertaining whether there exists one of the specific grounds for the vacation of an award as provided in 10 of the arbitration act and that the court should not review the arbitration proceeding for errors of law or fact C. holding that when the district court improperly purported to transfer to the circuit court an action over which the circuit court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter its judgment which was void and dismissing the appeal from that void judgment D. recognizing that the ninth circuit adheres to the rule that violations of the automatic stay are void and criticizing the bap decision in this case E. holding that the role of the bap is as an adjunct to the circuit court and explaining the importance of that relationship to the constitutionality of the bap

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the role of the bap is as an adjunct to the circuit court and explaining the importance of that relationship to the constitutionality of the bap
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 about Buividas’s availability for trial, Sunkett’s objection might reasonably be taken as objection to a violation of N.J. RPC 3.3(a)(1). The Rules of Professional Conduct can supply a clear mandate of public policy under CEPA. See Weiss v. Carpenter, Bennett, & Morrissey, 143 N.J. 420, 442, 672 A.2d 1132, 1144 (1996)(citing Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 N.J. 58, 72, 417 A.2d 505, 512 (1980)). While there is no direct evidence that Sunkett in fact believed that an ethical violation was taking place at the time he objected, a reasonable jury could infer as much from his long career as a practicing attorney, and his presumed familiarity with the Rules of Professional Conduct. Cf. Regan v. City of New Brunswick, 305 N.J.Super. 342, 356, 702 A.2d 523, 530 (App.Div.1997) (<HOLDING>). Thus, given the remaining factors I discussed Options: A. holding that section 1983 actions based on violation of the fourth amendment may not rest on violation of state law B. holding officer could testify based on his training and experience that a defendants actions were consistent with selling cocaine C. holding that court could properly infer that veteran officer believed there was a violation of the law based on his long experience with law enforcement D. holding there was no evidence a reasonably prudent employee in similar circumstances would have believed facts reported by plaintiff were a violation of law E. holding that in deciding whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity it is not only the evidence of clearly established law that is for the court but also whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful in light of the information the officer had

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that court could properly infer that veteran officer believed there was a violation of the law based on his long experience with law enforcement
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to the terms and conditions provided herein, at any time from and after the Closing, at the request of the Purchaser or the Seller and without further consideration, the requested party shall promptly execute and deliver such further agreements, instruments, certificates and documents and perform such other actions as the requesting party may reasonably request in order to fully consummate the transactions contemplated hereby and carry out the purposes and intent of this Agreement and any agreements, instruments, certificates and documents delivered hereby.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except with respect to the material terms and conditions of the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents, the Company confirms that neither it nor any other Person acting on its behalf has provided any of the Purchasers or their agents or counsel with any information that it believes constitutes or might constitute material, non-public information which is not otherwise disclosed in the Prospectus Supplement. The Company understands and confirms that the Purchasers will rely on the foregoing representation in effecting transactions in securities of the Company. All of the disclosure furnished by or on behalf of the Company to the Purchasers regarding the Company and its Subsidiaries, their respective businesses and the transactions contemplated hereby is true and correct in all material respects and does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The press releases disseminated by the Company during the twelve months preceding the date of this Agreement taken as a whole do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made and when made, not misleading. The Company acknowledges and agrees that no Purchaser makes or has made any representations or warranties with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby other than those specifically set forth in Section 3.2 hereof.

assistant: Disclosures
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: Cream Liquidation, Inc., 281 B.R. 154, 160 (Bankr.D.Conn.2002). As a result, courts have disagreed as to what constitutes a “personal injury tort claim,” adopting one of three diverging views. Courts adopting the narrowest definition of the term hold that a personal injury tort claim requires an actual physical injury. See, e.g., Massey Energy Co. v. West Virginia Consumers for Justice, 351 B.R. 348, 351 (E.D.Va.2006); Cohen, 107 B.R. at 455. These courts conclude that Congress intended Section 157(b)(5) for a narrow range of claims, and that the focus should be on the “traditional, plain-meaning sense of those words.” Cohen, 107 B.R. at 455. Otherwise, jurisdiction would be too easily lost from bankruptcy courts, opening the d e (Primes), 388 B.R. 195, 199-200 (Bankr.N.D.W.Va.2008) (<HOLDING>); Bertholet, 126 B.R. at 416 (holding that a Options: A. holding that a claim for violation of the fair debt collection practices act is not a personal injury tort claim B. holding that a libel claim is a personal injury tort claim C. holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim D. holding that an embezzlement claim is not a personal injury tort claim E. holding that a libel claim is not a personal injury tort claim

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If a Requesting Party has included Registrable Securities in a registration, the Company shall prepare and file with the SEC such amendments, including post-effective amendments, and supplements to such Registration Statement and the Prospectus used in connection therewith as may be necessary to keep such Registration Statement effective and in compliance with the provisions of the 1933 Act until all Registrable Securities covered by such Registration Statement have been disposed of in accordance with the intended method(s) of distribution set forth in such Registration Statement (which period shall not exceed the sum of one hundred eighty (180) days, plus any period during which any such disposition is interfered with by any stop order or injunction of the SEC or any Governmental Entity) or such securities have been withdrawn.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except to the extent, if any, prohibited by law, the Company shall indemnify Executive against expenses, judgments, fines, and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred by Executive in connection with any threatened, pending or completed action, suit or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative, or investigative, to which Executive was, is, or is threatened to be, made a party by reason of facts which include Executive’s being or having been an employee, officer, or agent of the Company or any Affiliates. The provisions of this Section 5 shall (i) survive termination of this Agreement; and (ii) not be deemed exclusive of any other indemnification or expense rights to which Executive may be entitled. The Company shall indemnify Executive as a director pursuant to the Fourth Amended and Restated Indemnification Agreement dated [o], hereby incorporated by reference.

assistant: Indemnifications
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 which estoppel is invoked.”); Dillard v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 806 S.W.2d 589, 594 (Tex.App.-Austin 1991, writ denied) (calling bar against invoking estoppel on city acting in its governmental capacity a corollary to sovereign immunity); see also Black & Daniel, supra, at 243 (stating because sovereign immunity tends to insulate city from negligent acts associated with zoning, Texas courts are reluctant to uphold estoppel against city’s enforcement of zoning ordinances). The caselaw suggests that in order to apply estoppel the trial court must determine the following: (1) whether the landowner is relying on an authorized act of a city official or employee, see Stapf, 101 S.W.2d at 232; Deutsch, 91 S.W.2d at 310; Krause v. City of El Paso, 101 Tex. 211, 106 S.W. 121, 123 (1907) (<HOLDING>); Rosenthal II, 239 S.W.2d at 643 (holding Options: A. holding that because a city inspector was not entitled to official immunity the city was not entitled to vicarious official immunity B. holding that a city may not act arbitrarily in adopting a moratorium ordinance in order to prevent a party from obtaining a building permit to delay or prevent a single project the city must exercise the authority for the purpose of protecting the planning process C. holding city could not enforce through administrative adjudication a city ordinance limiting vehicle weight D. holding landowner entitled to rely on permit from mayor and survey of city engineer both of which city ordinance required her to obtain before building E. holding that city attorneys promise in an oral settlement agreement for city to annex and rezone land was within the legal authority of the city of joliet to accomplish and were not absolutely void acts per se therefore city could be estopped from avoiding enforcement of contract

assistant: The best answer is D. holding landowner entitled to rely on permit from mayor and survey of city engineer both of which city ordinance required her to obtain before building
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: those regulations, an immigration judge does not have jurisdiction to conduct a bond hearing, and any possibility of parole lies within the sole discretion of DHS officials. While petitioner does not challenge the government’s initial decision to detain him, he argues that the detention, which has lasted over seven months, has now become prolonged, implicating due process concerns. Petitioner points to a number of recent Ninth Circuit cases as “definitively” establishing that detention becomes “prolonged” after six months, and that such prolonged detention “raises serious constitutional concerns,” such that the government must be required to justify the burden of continued detention at an individualized bond hearing. See, e.g., Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). Respondents dispute the applicability of the Options: A. holding that petitioner was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing under section 2254e2 on whether his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to seek a fitness hearing B. holding that prison disciplinary hearing committee members are entitled to qualified immunity C. holding that the failure to notify aliens counsel of an order to appear for deportation violated the aliens statutory right to counsel D. holding that aliens facing prolonged detention under section 1231a6 are entitled to a bond hearing E. holding that an aliens express waiver of his right to appeal to the bia deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider the aliens subsequent petition for review

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that aliens facing prolonged detention under section 1231a6 are entitled to a bond hearing
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: Borrower and each Subsidiary have filed all tax returns (federal, state and local) required to be filed on or before the date of this representation (including any future dates on which this representation is deemed to be made), including all income, franchise, employment, property and sales taxes, and have paid all of their liabilities for taxes, assessments, governmental charges and other levies that are due and payable, and Borrower knows of no pending investigation of Borrower or any Subsidiary by any taxing authority or of any pending but unassessed tax liability of Borrower or any Subsidiary.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No subject LC shall permit any draft to be drawn thereunder on a date (the “ last draw date ”) that is more than one (1) year after the date of its issue, nor shall any subject LC permit the last draw date to be later than the third (3rd) banking day next preceding the Expiration Date.

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 Party hereto shall take, or cause to be taken, any and all reasonable actions, including the execution, acknowledgment, filing and delivery of any and all documents and instruments that any other Party hereto may reasonably request in order to effect the intent and purpose of this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a “custom, rule, and/or procedure among international long-haul carriers [by failing] to warn, advise and/or take adequate precautions to inform passengers of the risk of DVT.” Pis.’ First Am. Compl. at ¶ 20. Many courts have recognized that failing to carry out routine procedures in the usual way can constitute an accident under the Warsaw Convention. See, e.g., Fishman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 132 F.3d 138, 143 (2d Cir.1998) (applying a hot compress to relieve ear pain, which is a routine procedure, can be an accident if the water is excessively hot); Fulop v. Malev Hungarian Airlines, 175 F.Supp.2d 651, 669 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (failing to divert an airplane w to warn is irrelevant to the accident inquiry. Cf. Magan v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 181 F.Supp.2d 396, 402-03 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (<HOLDING>). The Sprayregen is inapposite; it involved an Options: A. holding that where the dispositive issue in an administrative proceeding was whether an accident occurred as the plaintiff alleged it did collateral estoppel did not bar litigation of whether the accident was workrelated because that issue had not yet been litigated B. holding that ordinary turbulence is not an accident and that the flight crews failure to knock on the lavatory door to warn the plaintiff of the turbulence was irrelevant to the accident inquiry C. holding that an insureds personal belief that he was not liable for an accident provided no basis for submitting the question of the reasonableness of his delay in notification to a jury when the insured knew the day after the accident that it had been claimed that the cable he had installed had caused the accident D. holding that summary judgment on plaintiffs res ipsa loquitur theory was precluded both because there existed genuine issues of material fact as to the cause of the accident and whether or not one of the defendants had exclusive control over the instrumentality of the accident E. holding that probable cause was clearly present justifying the taking of a blood sample without the defendants consent when it was established that the defendant was involved in an automobile accident and the police noticed liquor on his breath at the scene of the accident and at the hospital

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that ordinary turbulence is not an accident and that the flight crews failure to knock on the lavatory door to warn the plaintiff of the turbulence was irrelevant to the accident inquiry
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: filed in 2003 because the court had previously modified his probated sentence and fine in 2002. Prior to Act 1569 of 1999, a trial court lost subject matter jurisdiction to modify or amend an original sentence once it was put into execution. Gates v. State, 353 Ark. 333, 107 S.W.3d 868 (2003). A sentence is put into execution when the trial court issues a judgment of conviction or a commitment order. Id. A guilty plea, coupled with a fine and probation or a suspended imposition of a sentence, constitutes a conviction. Id. This conviction deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to amend or modify the executed sentence. Id. See also Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-301 (Repl. 1997). Once a sentence is put into execution, an attempted modification of the original order is erroneous. Gates, supra (<HOLDING>). In Harmon v. State, 317 Ark. 47, 876 S.W.2d Options: A. holding that a court may not change the term of sentence by subsequent amendment after the sentence becomes final B. holding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the sentence originally imposed by imposing an additional term of fifteen years suspended sentence C. holding the court had no jurisdiction to modify a validly imposed sentence on prisoners own motion D. holding that a suspended lawyer remains subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the court for acts committed while suspended E. holding that a sentence structured with three years incarceration suspended and eight years of sex offender probation was a true split sentence

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the sentence originally imposed by imposing an additional term of fifteen years suspended sentence
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: he omitted information that he had been imprisoned and mistreated. The asylum officer who conducted the English-language interview did not testify at the hearing, and the record does not contain a transcript of the interview or the asylum officer’s notes. Substantial evi- dence therefore does not support the BIA’s reliance on this omission to find Ghebremedhin incredible, because the record does not support the agency’s rejection of Ghebremedhin’s explanation for the omission. See Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081, 1087-91 (9th Cir.2005) (stating that without officer testimony or detailed notes from the asylum interview, an Assessment to Refer provides insufficient evidence to support an adverse credibility determination); see also Campos-Sanchez v. INS, 164 F.3d 448, 450 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Because the BIA relied on its credibility Options: A. holding the bia must address in a reasoned manner the explanations that a petitioner offers for perceived inconsistencies B. holding an ij must to address a petitioners explanation for inconsistencies to rely upon them as the basis for an adverse credibility finding C. holding that the agency need not credit an applicants explanations unless those explanations would compel a reasonable factfinder to do so D. holding that the agency need not credit an applicants explanations for inconsistent testimony unless those explanations would compel a reasonable factfinder to do so E. holding that an agency need not credit an applicants explanations for inconsistencies in the record unless those explanations would compel a reasonable factfinder to do so

assistant: The best answer is A. holding the bia must address in a reasoned manner the explanations that a petitioner offers for perceived inconsistencies
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: explicitly stated: “Physicians providing medical services within this hospital are not employees of University Hospital. Each physician is an independent contractor.”). ' To the contrary, where patients were given no indication that the emergency-room physicians were independent contractors, courts have held that the question of apparent authority was at least a question for the jury—the trier of fact. See, e.g., Jennison v. Providence St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 174 Or.App. 219, 234, 25 P.3d 358, 367 (2001) (finding it was reasonable for the patient to assume -that the radiologist was a hospital employee where nowhere on the consent form did it indicate that radiologists were independent contractors); Abdul-Majeed v. Emory Univ. Hosp., 213 Ga.App. 421, 423, 445 S.E.2d 270, 272 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Here, HKH not only took affirmative action Options: A. holding that no physicianpatient relationship between doctor who gave informal opinion over telephone at request of treating physician and minor patient whose case was discussed and thus doctor did not owe duty of care to patient B. holding that the trial court had erred by excluding the expert testimony of a doctor C. holding evidence of apparent authority insufficient where patient sought services of particular doctor rather than services of hospital generally D. holding that a question of fact existed regarding whether the hospital held the doctor out as its agent if the hospital provided the doctor without explicitly informing the patient that the doctor was not its employee E. holding erisa did not apply when doctor was not employee of the medical association of the state of alabama

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a question of fact existed regarding whether the hospital held the doctor out as its agent if the hospital provided the doctor without explicitly informing the patient that the doctor was not its employee
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: medical and non-medical evidence. Such evidence includes: the use and effects of medications, the claimant’s ability to perform daily activities, the consistency of the claimant's allegations, and the extent to which the impairment can reasonably be expected to cause the pain the claimant alleges she suffers. SSR 96-7p. Where the ALJ makes a determination regarding a claimant’s credibility, the ALJ must adequately explain the reasons for the finding about the credibility of the individual's statements in the disability determination or decision. SSR 96-7p. If the ALJ points to substantial evidence in support of his decision and adequately explains the reasons for his finding on the claimant's credibility, the court must uphold the ALJ's determination. Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d at 176 Options: A. holding that credibility determinations are for the jury B. holding that court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency C. holding that a court is not empowered to substitute its judgement for that of the agency D. holding that a court may not reweigh the evidence or try the issues de novo or substitute its judgment for that of the secretary E. holding that the court is not to undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence make credibility determinations or substitute its judgment for that of the agency

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the court is not to undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence make credibility determinations or substitute its judgment for that of the agency
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: programs. I respectfully dissent from the denial of en banc rehearing. * In 2009, the court decided to begin identifying the judges voting for or against en banc rehearing where a poll is taken and the request for en banc rehearing is denied. 1 . 539 U.S. 306, 123 S.Ct. 2325 (2003). 2 . Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 115 S.Ct. 2097, 132 L.Ed.2d 158 (1995). 3 . I do not disagree with the panel's conclusion that following Grutter, we may presume a university's good faith in the decision that it has a compelling interest in achieving racial and other student diversity. But that is as about as far as deference should go. 4 . The Fisher panel is simply wrong in attempting to divorce Grutter s standards from those of employment discrimination cases. Fisher, 631 F.3d at 233 (<HOLDING>). Both Grutter and Parents Involved routinely Options: A. holding that employment cases have little purchase in this challenge to university admissions B. holding that only deliberate clear and unambiguous statements are judicial admissions C. recognizing the right to intervene in cases like this D. holding that parties are bound by admissions in pleadings E. recognizing that statements in appellees brief can constitute judicial admissions

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that employment cases have little purchase in this challenge to university admissions