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: in the “terms and conditions of employment” did not provide defendants notice of claims other than those specifically alleged in the complaint); Davis v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 600 F.Supp. 1312, 1318— 19 (D.Md.1985), aff'd, 769 F.2d 210 (4th Cir.1985) (in the context of tolling noting that “notice only of the fact that [defendants] were being charged with racial discrimination in any and all types of general employment practices ... does not give the defendants ... fair notice”). Nor do the specific references to pay in the Original and First Amended Complaints provide notice of a compensation discrimination claim. See Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir.2001) (“Specific legal theories need not be pleaded so long as sufficient factual averments sho 67, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs’ reliance on the language of the Options: A. holding that a prisoners allegations that a corrections officer retaliated against the prisoner for the prisoners report charging the officer with misconduct properly stated a claim for retaliation noting that aji allegation of retaliation should not be ignored simply because the charge was later dismissed B. holding that allegations that a prison guard retaliated against a prisoner by terrorizing him with threats of death if proved would constitute a violation of the prisoners first amendment rights C. holding that not all adverse action taken against a public employee in retaliation for exercising first amendment rights is sufficient to support a cause of action under 1983 D. holding that student stated a claim for violation of his first amendment right to speech when he alleged that school officials prevented him from openly stating that he was homosexual and retaliated against him for doing so E. holding that prisoners complaint alleging that he was punished for filing a grievance against a correctional officer was sufficient to provide notice of claim that he was retaliated against for exercising his first amendment rights

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that prisoners complaint alleging that he was punished for filing a grievance against a correctional officer was sufficient to provide notice of claim that he was retaliated against for exercising his first amendment rights
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: Seller Parent, Seller and/or each Company has filed when due or will file when due in correct form all federal and state income tax returns for all periods ending on or prior to the Closing Date which are required to be filed by Seller Parent, Seller and/or each Company on or prior to the Closing Date. Other than extensions to file Seller Parent’s, Seller’s or each Company’s tax returns, there are no agreements by Seller Parent, Seller or any Company for the extension of time for the assessment of any tax. All federal, state, county and local taxes due and payable by Seller Parent, Seller and/or any Company on or before the Effective Date have been paid and any taxes due and payable at any time between the Effective Date through the Closing will be paid prior to Closing, and there are no federal, state or local tax liens pending or threatened against Seller Parent, Seller, any Company or the Real Property. There is no open audit of any of Seller Parent’s, Seller’s or any Company’s federal, state, local income, sales use or property tax returns pending, and none of Seller Parent, Seller or any Company has received a notice of the pendency of any such audit or examination. None of Seller Parent, Seller or any Company holds or had held a certificate or other authorization issued by any tax collection body for the purpose of avoiding the payment by Seller Parent, Seller or any Company of sales and use taxes upon Seller Parent’s, Seller’s or such Company’s purchases of goods and services, nor has Seller Parent, Seller or any Company applied for such a certificate or other authorization.

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: The Board shall have complete power and authority to amend the Plan at any time; provided, however, that the Board shall not, without the requisite affirmative approval of stockholders of the Company, make any amendment which requires stockholder approval under the Code or under any other applicable law or rule of any stock exchange or listing service which lists Common Stock or Company Voting Securities. No termination or amendment of the Plan may, without the consent of the Participant to whom any Award shall theretofore have been granted under the Plan, adversely affect the right of such individual under such Award.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1, 18-19, 10 L.Ed. 865 (1842), the Supreme Court held that, in the absence of a state statutory or constitutional provision, federal courts sitting in diversity should not apply a state court’s common law decisions. Rather, federal courts should fashion their own federal common law rules by consulting “the general principles and doctrines of ... jurisprudence.” Id. at 19. Almost a century later, in Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78-80, 58 S.Ct. 817, 822-23, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), the Supreme Court expressly overruled Swift, holding unconstitutional the federal common law regime created by that decision. Writing for the Court, Justice Brandéis flatly declared: “There is no federal general common 440 U.S. 715, 726-27, 99 S.Ct. 1448, 1457, 59 L.Ed.2d 711 (1979) (<HOLDING>); Howard v. Lyons, 360 U.S. 593, 597, 79 S.Ct. Options: A. holding that participation in federal programs and receipt of federal funds under such programs fall far short of manifesting a clear intent to waive immunity B. holding that the priority of liens stemming from federal lending programs is a matter of federal common law C. holding that apportionment of cercla liability is a matter of federal common law D. holding that a national rule is not needed to determine the priority of liens arising from federal lending programs E. holding that a federal court may resort to state law analogies for the development of a federal common law of privileges in instances where the federal rule is unsettled

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the priority of liens stemming from federal lending programs is a matter of federal common law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of its police power the State may curtail or restrict acts of individuals unless the curtailments or restrictions unreasonably infringe upon the fundamental personal rights of individuals.” Shigematsu, 52 Haw. at 607, 483 P.2d at 999 (citing Territory v. Kraft, 33 Haw. 397 (1935)); see also State v. French, 77 Hawai'i 222, 231, 883 P.2d 644, 653 (App. 1994) (stating freedom of movement “is subject to the State’s police power to regulate an individual’s conduct for the protection of society”). Thus, the Hawai'i Supreme Court has observed that “there is no constitutionally protected right to remain free in [one’s] home after physically harming someone residing there.” State v. Kameenui, 69 Haw. 620, 623, 753 P.2d 1250, 1252 (1988); cf. King v. State, 574 So.2d 1013 (Ala.Crim.App.1990) (<HOLDING>), cert, denied (1991). Accordingly, we conclude Options: A. holding there was enough evidence to find the defendant abandoned his child when he claimed to have knowledge of cpss involvement he admitted that for periods of two years and six months he did not attempt any contact with his child and from the date he canceled a home study until the petition was filed he did not attempt to contact the child or cps or provide support even when he was out of jail B. holding that mistake as to the age of the victim is no defense to statutory rape C. holding that the trial court did not commit constitutional error by excluding evidence about the pri or rape of the tenyearold victim when she was five years old because the defendant did not proffer evidence that the prior rape was similar to the current incident D. holding that defendants constitutional right to travel was not abridged when he was ordered not to make contact with the victim he attempted to rape E. holding that the district court did not err in continuing the trial without defendant when the trial had commenced in defendants presence he vigorously expressed his desire to be absent he was given ample opportunity to change his mind despite the disturbance he had created he had competent counsel and he knew of his right to be present

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that defendants constitutional right to travel was not abridged when he was ordered not to make contact with the victim he attempted to rape
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 agree that irreparable damage would occur in the event that the parties hereto do not perform the provisions of this Agreement in accordance with its terms or otherwise breach such provisions. Accordingly, prior to any termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 4, the parties acknowledge and agree that each party shall be entitled to an injunction, specific performance and other equitable relief to prevent breaches of this Agreement and to enforce specifically the terms and provisions hereof in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, Delaware, provided that if jurisdiction is not then available in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, Delaware, then in any federal court located in the State of Delaware or any other Delaware state court, this being in addition to any other remedy to which such party is entitled at law or in equity. Each of the parties hereby further waives (a) any defense in any action for specific performance that a remedy at law would be adequate and (b) any requirement under any law to post security as a prerequisite to obtaining equitable relief.

assistant: Enforcements
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: `` virtual items '' means ( a ) virtual currency , including but not limited to virtual coins , cash , tokens , or points , all for use in the service and ( b ) virtual in-game items .

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: three offenses on September 26, 2003, during a single criminal episode. The trial court sentenced Mr. Perez to concurrent terms of life imprisonment for the home invasion robbery and the armed burglary and to another concurrent term of fifteen years’ imprisonment for the false impersonation offense. Although it may have little practical effect, we must reverse the judgment and sentence for armed burglary because it either violates double jeopardy under article I, section 9, of the Florida Constitution, or contravenes section 775.021(4)09, Florida Statutes (2003). It has been held that convictions arising from a single episode for home invasion robbery and burglary violate either double jeopardy or section 775.021(4)(b)(3). See, e.g., Mendez v. State, 798 So.2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>); Barboza v. State, 786 So.2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA Options: A. holding that the state conceded that appellants convictions for both home invasion robbery and burglary with an assault were improper B. holding convictions for burglary of a dwelling with assault or battery and home invasion robbery violated double jeopardy and section 7750214b because burglary of a dwelling was subsumed by the home invasion robbery offense C. holding that the defendants homeinvasion robbery conviction violated double jeopardy because it arose from the same incident as the defendants burglary with an assault or battery conviction D. holding that the double jeopardy clause was not violated by two convictions arising from the same criminal episode because the crimes of attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools each had an element the other did not and were thus separate crimes E. holding that possession of burglary tools is an offense separate from burglary

assistant: The best answer is B. holding convictions for burglary of a dwelling with assault or battery and home invasion robbery violated double jeopardy and section 7750214b because burglary of a dwelling was subsumed by the home invasion robbery offense
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 total of $13,-450.00 to the church. The trustee filed this adversary proceeding against the church in order to recover those contributions as “fraudulent transfers” under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(2)(A). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In order to avoid transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(2)(A), the trustee must prove that (1) there was a transfer of the debtors’ interest in property (2) made on or within a year preceding the filing of the petition (3) while the debtors were insolvent (4) in exchange for which the debtors received less than reasonably equivalent value. The parties stipulated to the existence of the first three factors; the only factor in dispute was whether the debtors received “reasonably equivalen ica, 24 B.R. 973, 979 (Bankr.N.D.Tex. 1982) (Upreach) (<HOLDING>)). The bankruptcy court also concluded that the Options: A. holding that beneficiaries of an alleged will may recover reasonable expenses and attorneys fees when defending a will in good faith B. holding affirmative denial of objection is equivalent to failure to object to jury charge error C. holding that debtors failure to pay postconfirmation taxes pursuant to terms of court order constituted cause for dismissal as a lack of good faith D. holding good will constituted reasonably equivalent value in exchange for charitable contributions to church E. holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause

assistant: The best answer is D. holding good will constituted reasonably equivalent value in exchange for charitable contributions to church
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: as to how long it will last, a reasonable duration may be implied by the nature of the contract or from the surrounding circumstances. The law does not say specifically how long would be reasonable. That’s for you to decide. When a contract fixes no time for its duration, and none can be implied by the nature of the contract and surrounding circumstances, the contract may be terminated at the will of either party. (Appellant’s App. at 495.) Specifically, Pot-latch argues that the district court erred by instructing the jury that it could infer a reasonable duration to the oral contract. Potlatch cites several cases holding that a contract of indefinite duration may be terminated at will. See, e.g., Union Nat’l Bank v. Federal Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, 860 F.2d 847, 853 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Gary Braswell & Assoc. v. Piedmont Indust., Options: A. holding that traditional commercial contract provided for termination at will under arkansas law B. holding requirement in contract to provide notice for termination but not limiting reasons for termination constitutes atwill employment relationship C. holding in a successor liability case that questions of traditional tort law unrelated to the contract were properly governed under forum law D. holding that where an oral contract was removed from the statute of frauds by clear and convincing evidence under arkansas law the defendant could not terminate the contract at its will only a contract of indefinite duration may be so terminated E. holding that although a reason was provided in the termination letter the without cause termination provision was applicable

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that traditional commercial contract provided for termination at will under arkansas law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Majestic has not shown the links of ownership that would be required, nor has it shown Maserati I authorized MAI to send the letters. Maserati II and MNA argue that it is undisputed that Majestic never bought anything from Maserati I, and therefore Majestic’s “acquiescence theory” fails. They note that there were business reasons for MAI and Majestic to maintain a relationship after Maserati I left North America — namely, so that MAI could continue selling parts to Majestic, which needed the parts to continue its Maserati repair business. Finally, Maserati II and MNA contend that Maserati I should not be penalized for failing to enforce its trademark in the United States when it was absent from the market. See, e.g., Coco Rico, Inc. v. Fuertes Pasarell, 738 F.Supp. 613 (D.P.R.1990) (<HOLDING>). Majestic’s contention that Maserati I Options: A. holding united states government is immune from rico suit B. holding limited use of a mark did not constitute prior use in commerce sufficient to establish rights in the mark C. holding that proof of unauthorized use of an original trademark by one whose license to use the trademark had been terminated is sufficient to establish the likelihood of confusion prong D. holding manufacturers trademark claim was not barred by laches when defendants use of mark had been limited to northeastern united states and did not extend to manufacturers market in puerto rico E. holding that the united states was a statutory employer under puerto rico law

assistant: The best answer is D. holding manufacturers trademark claim was not barred by laches when defendants use of mark had been limited to northeastern united states and did not extend to manufacturers market in puerto rico
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that the Committee shall determine that any dividend or other distribution (whether in the form of cash, shares of Company Non-Voting Stock, or other property) which is unusual and non-recurring, or any recapitalization, stock split, reverse split, reorganization, merger, consolidation, spin-off, combination, repurchase or share exchange, or other similar corporate transaction or event affects the shares, then the Committee shall make such equitable changes or adjustments as it deems appropriate and, in such manner as it may deem equitable, adjust (i) any or all of the number of shares of Company Non-Voting Stock which may be thereafter issued in connection with Awards, (ii) the number of shares of Company Non-Voting Stock issued or issuable in respect of outstanding Options or, if deemed appropriate, make provisions for payment of cash or other property with respect to any outstanding Option, (iii) the exercise price relating to any Option, and (iv) the number and kind of shares of Company Non-Voting Stock set forth in Section 4.2(d) as the per-person limitation for any three fiscal years for Awards made under the Plan; provided, however, in each case that, with respect to Incentive Options, such adjustment shall be made in accordance with Section 424 of the Code, unless the Committee determines otherwise. In addition, the Committee is authorized to make adjustments in the terms and conditions of, and any criteria and performance objectives or goals included in, Awards in recognition of unusual or non-recurring events (including events described in the preceding sentence, as well as acquisitions and dispositions of assets or all or part of businesses) affecting the Company or any Subsidiary or any business unit, or the financial statements thereof, or in response to changes in applicable laws, regulations, accounting principles, tax rates and regulations, or business conditions or in view of the Committee’s assessment of the business strategy of the Company, a Subsidiary, or business unit thereof, performance of comparable organizations, economic and business conditions, personal performance of a Participant, and any other circumstances deemed relevant; provided that, unless otherwise determined by the Committee, no such adjustment shall be made in respect of a Restricted Stock Performance Award if and to the extent that such adjustment would cause such Restricted Stock Performance Award to provide other than “performance-based compensation” within the meaning of Code Section 162(m).

assistant: Adjustments
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 Mortgage and the other Loan Documents embody the entire agreement and understanding between Mortgagee and Mortgagor relating to the subject matter hereof and thereof and supersede all prior agreements and understandings between such parties relating to the subject matter hereof and thereof. Accordingly, the Loan Documents may not be contradicted by evidence of prior, contemporaneous or subsequent oral agreements of the parties. There are no unwritten oral agreements between the parties with respect to the Mortgaged Property.

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: then the absence of any protective procedures cannot be a violation of procedural due process. See Diaz-Zaldierna, at 1120; Caballero v. Caplinger, 914 F.Supp. 1374,1378 (E.D.La.1996) (“if there is no right, the absence of any protective procedures is immaterial”). As Respondent correctly argues, Petitioner can only be entitled to a meaningful procedure, the process that is due, if he first shows the deprivation of a protected constitutional interest. As demonstrated, Petitioner has no statutory or constitutional right to release within the United States while his removal proceedings are pending. The process itself — an individualized bond hearing — cannot be the protected interest. See Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272, 118 S.Ct. 1244, 1249 n. 2, 140 L.Ed.2d 387 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249-50, 103 Options: A. holding that asserting a mere protected interest in a process itself is not a cognizable claim B. holding claim is not cognizable C. holding claim is cognizable D. holding that insufficiency of evidence not cognizable in postconviction claim E. holding that defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest was not cognizable on direct appeal

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that asserting a mere protected interest in a process itself is not a cognizable claim
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Evans, therefore, the State had the right to appeal the trial court’s JNOV ruling as the functional equivalent of an order granting a new trial for insufficient evidence. Importantly, our holding in no way runs afoul of double jeopardy principles. Double jeopardy “protects against successive prosecutions for the ‘same offense’ following acquittal_” State v. Houth, 845 S.W.2d 853, 856 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). This means that a verdict of acquittal may not be reviewed “regardless of how egregiously wrong the verdict may be.” State v. Moreno, 807 S.W.2d 327, 332 n. 6 (Tex.Cr.App.1991). As the Court of Appeals noted, the United States Supreme Court has upheld the appeal-ability of post-verdict judgments. See United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 336, 95 S.Ct. 1013, 1018, 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975) (<HOLDING>). The trial court’s JNOV ruling in the case at Options: A. holding that double jeopardy does not bar reprosecution of an accused who refuses to perform a condition of his guilty plea B. holding double jeopardy does not bar second trial after granting of new trial for reason other than insufficiency of evidence C. holding that double jeopardy does not bar the prosecutions appeal of a trial courts ruling which overturns a jurys guilty verdict D. holding that the government may appeal a postverdict ruling without violating double jeopardy where the appeal does not result in a new trial E. holding double jeopardy did not bar retrial where a jury could not render a verdict and a mistrial was granted

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that double jeopardy does not bar the prosecutions appeal of a trial courts ruling which overturns a jurys guilty verdict
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices, requests and other communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given at the time of receipt if delivered by hand or communicated by electronic transmission, or, if mailed, three days after deposit in the United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, with postage prepaid and addressed to the party to receive same, if to the Company, addressed to Mr. Paul Parliament, CEO, at 590 York Road, Unit 3, Niagara On The Lake, Ontario, CANADA L0S 1J0, telephone (716) 803-0621, and e-mail XXXXXXXX and if to the Employee, addressed to Mr. Douglas Brooks at XXXXXX telephone (905)-815-XXXX and e-mail XXXXXX ; provided, however, that if either party shall have designated a different address by notice to the other given as provided above, then any subsequent notice shall be addressed to such party at the last address so designated.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: trustee is subject to an absolute fiduciary duty to act solely in the interests of its beneficiaries in all circumstances, Title IV explicitly qualifies the termination trustee’s duty by making it subject to the necessities of terminating the plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1342(d)(3). In addition, PBGC, when acting as trustee, is authorized to take actions, such as commingling the assets of the plans it administers as trustee, id. § 1342(a), that would almost certainly be per se breaches of fiduciary duty if done by traditional trustee. At the same time, Title IV nowhere provides that PBGC must separate its functions or maintain separate bureaucracies when it chooses to serve as trustee for a terminated plan. Cf. Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 225, 120 S.Ct. 2143, 147 L.Ed.2d 164 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Congress specifically authorized a single Options: A. holding that a plaintiff seeking individual relief under erisa 502a3 under a breach of fiduciary duty theory did not have a cause of action when the alleged breach of fiduciary duty was a failure to distribute benefits in accordance with the plan B. holding that as to title i fiduciaries erisa requires that the fiduciary with two hats wear only one at a time and wear the fiduciary hat when making fiduciary decisions C. holding that a statutorilyimposed fiduciary obligation created an express trust fiduciary relationship for purposes of 523a4 D. holding general fiduciary duties of confidence trust loyalty and good faith insufficient to establish the necessary fiduciary relationship for purposes of 523a4 E. holding that when employers serve as plan administrators they assume the role of fiduciary under erisa

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that as to title i fiduciaries erisa requires that the fiduciary with two hats wear only one at a time and wear the fiduciary hat when making fiduciary decisions
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: prior counsel for the defendant.” On March 23, 2006, the trial court ruled: “that good cause exists within the meaning of the [IAD], to continue the trial in this case; that the continuance is necessary and reasonable to allow for appropriate pretrial development. The clerk is directed to reschedule this matter for trial in the fall, 2006 timeframe.” Trial was then scheduled for September 25, 2006. The State argues that the 180-day period was tolled from the date the defendant was arraigned, November 7,2005, to the date the defendant was represented 06). The defendant, therefore, was unable to stand trial from the time his former attorneys filed their motions to withdraw to the time new counsel was appointed. See State v. Miller, 691 A.2d 377, 381 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997) (<HOLDING>); see also People v. Stone, 712 N.W.2d 165, 168 Options: A. holding that because the stated purpose of the iad is to prevent interference with a prisoners rehabilitative environment there is no reason for the iad to apply to a prisoner until he or she is assigned to the institution where the sentence will be served B. recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel C. holding that the 180day statutory limit in the iad is tolled starting from the time that a defendant is not represented by counsel until new counsel is either appointed or retained when the defendant has not waived his right to counsel because during this period a defendant is unable to stand trial in accordance with the iad citation omitted D. recognizing a defendants right to dismiss retained counsel in favor of appointed counsel E. holding that in determining whether there exists a valid waiver of the right to counsel in the criminal setting the court may consider a defendants lack of good faith in working with appointed counsel including an unreasonable refusal to cooperate with counsel or an unreasonable request for substitution of appointed counsel and the timeliness of defendants request for new counsel particularly when a defendant makes an untimely request for new counsel under circumstances which are likely to result in a continuance

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the 180day statutory limit in the iad is tolled starting from the time that a defendant is not represented by counsel until new counsel is either appointed or retained when the defendant has not waived his right to counsel because during this period a defendant is unable to stand trial in accordance with the iad citation omitted
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: Either party may terminate the Executive’s employment at any time upon written notice. The date of the Executive’s termination shall be the date stated in the notice of termination. Upon termination of the Executive’s employment, the Company shall pay the Executive (i) any unpaid Base Salary accrued through the date of termination, (ii) any unpaid Performance Bonus earned and accrued for a previously completed calendar year, (iii) any accrued and unpaid vacation or similar pay to which the Executive is entitled as a matter of law or Company policy, and (iv) any unreimbursed expenses properly incurred prior to the date of termination (the “ Accrued Obligations ” ) . The Executive’s termination under this Agreement shall also constitute the Executive’s resignation as an officer or director of any affiliate or subsidiary of the Company, as applicable.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Trust v. Granite City Storage Co., 25 Mass.App.Ct. 272, 517 N.E.2d 502 (1988), a Massachusetts state court stopped short of adopting the federal district court’s holding but ruled that “the covenant to pay rent [in a commercial setting] is not necessarily independent.” Id. 517 N.E.2d at 505. It concluded that "there is' great doubt whether ... [the doctrine that covenants are independent] remains a correct statement of Massachusetts law,” because leases are for more than just the land. Id. 4 . The Teodori court concluded that the doctrine of independent covenants rests on outdated property principles rather than on contract principles, which better capture the relationship of parties in many modem leases. Id. (relying upon McDanel v. Mack Realty Co., 315 Pa. 174, 172 A. 97, 98 (1934) (<HOLDING>)). 5 . It should be noted that Kimball was the Options: A. holding that after jury findings of dual breach unchallenged finding that defendants breach was not excused based on prior material breach of plaintiff constituted implicit finding that there was no material breach by plaintiff B. holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract C. holding that a commercial lessee could retain possession and abate rent in response to a landlords material breach of covenant D. holding that in the employment context cause of action seeking tort remedies for breach of implied covenant is not permitted recovery for breach of this covenant is limited to contract remedies E. holding breach of contract claim not preempted as a straightforward breach of contract action as it alleged violation of specific covenant

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a commercial lessee could retain possession and abate rent in response to a landlords material breach of covenant
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 granted the wife’s motion finding that the wife had a need for attorney’s fees and costs and that the husband had the ability to pay the wife’s fees and costs. In doing so, the lower court relied, in part, on loans that the husband’s parents had made to the husband. The evidence showed that prior to the marriage, the husband borrowed $24,500 from his parents. During the marriage, the husband borrowed from his parents $12,000 in October 2000, and $22,000 in March 2001. After the parties separated, the husband borrowed a total of $72,000 from his parents within a five month period. These loans are secured by promissory notes. The husband contends that the trial court erred by relying on the loans when assessing his ability to pay the temporary attorney’s fees and costs. We DCA 1997)(<HOLDING>); Cooper v. Kahn, 696 So.2d 1186, 1188 (Fla. 3d Options: A. holding that child support arrearages may not be included in a chapter 13 plan B. holding that it was error for the trial court to determine the issue of child support without a child support guidelines worksheet C. holding that a tuition waiver is not the same as income for child support purposes D. holding an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child E. holding that provisions of chapter 61 are broad enough to include regular gifts in determining income for purposes of child support

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that provisions of chapter 61 are broad enough to include regular gifts in determining income for purposes of child support
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the term hereof, such provision shall be fully severable and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision never comprised a part hereof; and the remaining provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision or by its severance here from. Furthermore, in lieu of such illegal, invalid and unenforceable provision, there shall be added automatically as part of this Agreement a provision as similar in nature in its terms to such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision as may be legal, valid and enforceable.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any provision of this Amendment that is prohibited or unenforceable in any jurisdiction shall, as to such provision and such jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or unenforceability without invalidating the remaining provisions of this Amendment or affecting the validity or enforceability of such provision in any other jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the pretrial deadlines, treated the deadlines as statutes of limitations, “chiseled in concrete,” and therefore sanctionable if violated. Scheduling orders are clearly valuable tools for promoting the efficient management of a trial court’s docket. However, as the Maryland Court of Special Appeals recognized in Maddox: [T]he imposition of a sanction that precludes a material witness from testifying, and, consequently, effectively dismisses a potentially meritorious claim without a trial, should be reserved for egregious violations of the court’s scheduling order, and should be supported by evidence of willful or contemptuous or otherwise opprobrious behavior on the part of the party or counsel. 921 A.2d at 922. See also Revco, D.S., Inc. v. Cooper, 873 S.W.2d 391, 397 (Tex.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). Based on our review of the record and the Options: A. holding that the defendants discovery requests were untimely because they were not served in time for the responses to be due before the discovery deadline B. holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law C. recognizing trial courts decision on discovery issues implies a finding that requested discovery was not reasonably available D. holding that discovery sanctions so severe they prevent a trial on the merits are warranted only where the record reflects a partys flagrant bad faith or counsels callous disregard for the discovery rales E. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion to extend discovery where no effort was made to explain why the requested discovery could not have taken place within the original discovery period

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that discovery sanctions so severe they prevent a trial on the merits are warranted only where the record reflects a partys flagrant bad faith or counsels callous disregard for the discovery rales
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: restraint but because few facial challenges satisfy the high burden normally imposed. As a general rule, a law is vague on its face “only if [it] is impermissibly vague in all of its applications.” See Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 495 & n. 7, 102 S.Ct. 1186. What the majority ignores is the exception to this general rule: when “a law reaches ‘a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct,’ ” facial vagueness challenges are “permit[ted]” and a plaintiff may attack the law “ ‘as being vague as applied to conduct other than his own.’ ” See Kolender, 461 U.S. at 358 & n. 8, 103 S.Ct. 1855 (citations omitted) (First Amendment rights and freedom of movement affected by regulation of loitering and wandering); see also Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 494-95, 102 S.Ct. 1186 (<HOLDING>); Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 521, 92 Options: A. recognizing that general rule applies only to statutes that implicate no constitutionally protected conduct emphasis added B. holding that a school principals suspension with pay did not implicate a constitutionally protected property interest C. holding that false statements are constitutionally protected D. holding a law is void for vagueness when it offers no standard of conduct that was possible to know emphasis added E. recognizing general rule

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that general rule applies only to statutes that implicate no constitutionally protected conduct emphasis added
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may only be amended or modified by an instrument in writing signed by each of the parties hereto. No failure or delay on the part of either party to this Agreement in the exercise of any power or right, and no course of dealing between the parties hereto, shall operate as a waiver of such power or right, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any power or right preclude any further or other exercise thereof or the exercise of any other power or right. Any waiver of any provision of this Agreement, and any consent to any departure by either party from the terms of any provision hereof, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose for which given. Nothing contained in this Agreement and no action or waiver by any party hereto shall be construed to permit any violation of any other provision of this Agreement or any other document or operate as a waiver by such party of any of her or its rights under any other provision of this Agreement or any other document.

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: (i) To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Partnership may purchase and maintain insurance on behalf of any person described in Section 10.02(a) against any liability asserted against such person, whether or not the Partnership would have the power to indemnify such person against such liability under the provisions of this Section 10.02 or otherwise.

assistant: Insurances
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 Parent agrees to pay the Executive a base salary (“ Base Salary ”) of $168,000 per annum for the position(s) of Chief Financial Officer. Annual adjustments after the first year of the Employment Period shall be determined by the Board. The Base Salary shall be paid in periodic installments in accordance with the Parent’s regular payroll practices. Executive shall, subject to policies and procedures of the Parent’s Board of Directors, be eligible to additional fees for service on the Parent’s Board.

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: are governed by the same standards as govern ADA, ADEA, and Title VII claims. See Schiano v. Quality Payroll Sys., Inc., 445 F.3d 597, 609 (2d Cir.2006) (Title VII); Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326, 332 n. 1 (2d Cir.2000)(ADA); Devlin v. Transp. Commc'ns Int'l Union, 173 F.3d 94, 100 (2d Cir.1999) (ADEA). Moreover, employment discrimination claims brought pursuant to Sections 1981 and 1983 are analyzed under the three-step, burden-shifting framework established by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. See Mavrommatis v. Carey Limousine Westchester, Inc., No. 10-3404-cv, - Fed. Appx.-, -, 2011 WL 3903429, at *2 (2d Cir. Sept. 7, 2011) (noting that discrimination claims brought pursuant to § 1981 are analyzed under McDonnell Douglas)-, Kearney, 185 Fed.Appx. at 70 (<HOLDING>); Sorlucco, 888 F.2d at 6-7 (2d Cir.1989) Options: A. holding that adea and phra claims proceed under the mcdonnell douglas framework B. holding that mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting approach applies to claims brought under the adea C. holding that the threestep mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting analysis applies to 1983 claims D. holding that claims under the adea and the nyshrl are subject to the same analysis E. holding that plaintiffs equal protection claim pursuant to 42 usc 1983 for agebased employment discrimination fails for the same reasons that her adea and nyshrl claims fail under mcdonnell douglas analysis

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that plaintiffs equal protection claim pursuant to 42 usc 1983 for agebased employment discrimination fails for the same reasons that her adea and nyshrl claims fail under mcdonnell douglas analysis
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 supersedes any oral, written or other communications or agreements concerning the subject matter of this Agreement, and may be amended or waived only by a written instrument signed by me and the Chief Executive Officer of the Company. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington applicable to contracts entered into and performed entirely within the State of Washington, without giving effect to principles of conflict of laws. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be unenforceable under applicable law, then such provision shall be excluded from this Agreement only to the extent unenforceable, and the remainder of such provision and of this Agreement shall be enforceable in accordance with its terms.

assistant: Miscellaneous