flwrlabs/fed-legal huggingface dataset:
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement, the Plan and the Employment Agreement contain the entire agreement and understanding of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter contained herein and supersede all prior communications, representations and negotiations in respect thereto. No change, modification or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be valid unless the same be in writing and signed by the parties hereto, except for any changes permitted without consent under Section 8.6.4 of the Plan.

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: (i) To request the issuance of a Letter of Credit (or the amendment, renewal or extension of an outstanding Letter of Credit), the Borrower Representative shall hand deliver or telecopy (or transmit by electronic communication, if arrangements for doing so have been approved by the applicable Issuing Bank) to the applicable Issuing Bank and the Administrative Agent (at least five Business Days (or such shorter period of time as may be agreed by the Administrative Agent and such Issuing Bank) in advance of the requested date of issuance, amendment, renewal or extension) a notice (which shall include wording agreed with such Issuing Bank) requesting the issuance of a Letter of Credit, or identifying the Letter of Credit to be amended, renewed or extended, and specifying the name of the account party (which may, at the option of the Borrower Representative, list any Loan Party or one or more Subsidiaries of any Borrower; provided that the listing of such Guarantor or Subsidiaries shall not create any obligations of such entity under this Agreement and the Borrowers shall remain at all times responsible for the obligations and agreements under the Loan Documents with respect to all Letters of Credit), the requested date of issuance, amendment, renewal or extension (which shall be a Business Day), the date on which such Letter of Credit is to expire (which shall comply with Section 2.05(c), the amount of such Letter of Credit, the currency of denomination, the name and address of the beneficiary thereof and such other information as shall be necessary to prepare, amend, renew or extend such Letter of Credit. If requested by an Issuing Bank, the Borrower Representative also shall submit a letter of credit application on such Issuing Bank’s standard form in connection with any request for a Letter of Credit. A Letter of Credit shall be issued, amended, renewed or extended only if (and upon issuance, amendment, renewal or extension of each Letter of Credit the Borrower Representative shall be deemed to represent and warrant that), after giving effect to such issuance, amendment, renewal or extension (x) the LC Exposure shall not exceed $250,000,000 and (y) the sum of the total Credit Exposures shall not exceed the total Commitments.

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: constrained by due process requirements of reasonableness under the circumstances.” Logan v. Shealy, 660 F.2d 1007, 1013 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 942, 102 S.Ct. 1435, 71 L.Ed.2d 653 (1982). In each case we must balance “ ‘the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails.’ ” Id. (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979)). See Commonwealth v. Gilmore, 27 Va.App. 320, 328, 498 S.E.2d 464, 468 (1998) (police authority to conduct warrantless search is “only skin deep”). “Courts must consider the scope of the particular intrusion, the manner in which it is conducted, the justification for initiating it, and the place in which it is conducted.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 559-60, 99 S.Ct. 1861 (<HOLDING>). If strip searches of minor non-jailable Options: A. holding that when a prison regulation impinges on inmates constitutional rights the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests B. holding that an inmate has a privacy interest in guarding against disclosure of sensitive medical information from other inmates subject to legitimate penological interests C. holding that both inmates and pretrial detainees can be visually strip searched in the interests of significant and legitimate security interests D. holding on a motion to dismiss that plaintiffs allegation that defendants actions were without justification based on the legitimate business interests of the employer and were performed maliciously was sufficient to prove actions taken to serve personal interests E. recognizing such balance of interests

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that both inmates and pretrial detainees can be visually strip searched in the interests of significant and legitimate security interests
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 468 U.S. 1062 104 S.Ct. 3573 82 L.Ed.2d 801 Joseph Patrick PAYNE, Sr., petitioner,v.VIRGINIA. No. 82-6935. Supreme Court of the United States Rehearing Denied Sept. 18, 1984. July 5, 1984. PER CURIAM. 1 This petition for certiorari seeks review of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Virginia rejecting petitioner's double jeopardy challenge to a conviction for robbery which followed a prior conviction for capital murder committed during the perpetration of the robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. In this case, as in Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 97 S.Ct. 2912, 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977) (per curiam), where "conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery . . ., the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one." Ibid. See also In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 188, 9 S.Ct. 672, 676, 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889). 2 Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Virginia is reversed. Harris v. Oklahoma, supra. 3 It is so ordered.

assistant: 1
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: than merely alleging that the misrepresentations and omissions in question were relied on by a third party.”) with My First Shades v. Baby Blanket Suncare, 914 F.Supp.2d 339, 352 (E.D.N.Y.2012) (“While Mercer is correct that Plaintiffs never pled their own reliance on misrepresentations, New York allows plaintiffs to bring claims based on a theory of third party reliance.”), Prestige Builder & Mgmt. LLC v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 896 F.Supp.2d 198, 204-05 (E.D.N.Y.2012) (“[T]he third-party reliance doctrine is good law in New York....”), Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 871 F.Supp.2d 229, 256-57 (S.D.N.Y.2012) (concluding that New York law allows for “recovery for common law fraud based on third party reliance”), N.B. Garments (PVT), Ltd., 2004 WL 444555, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2004) (<HOLDING>), and Hyosung Am., Inc. v. Sumagh Textile Co., Options: A. holding claim is cognizable B. holding that a fraud claim premised on thirdparty reliance raises a cognizable claim under new york law C. holding that the most analogous claim for relief under new york law is a claim for employment discrimination D. holding that under ohio law fraud claim failed because there was no evidence of reliance E. holding claim is not cognizable

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a fraud claim premised on thirdparty reliance raises a cognizable claim under new york 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: class of offense and prior record or conviction level. See also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(e) (1997) (providing now as an exception to the general rule that a defendant is entitled to appellate review as a matter of right pursuant to subsection (a2) in addition to subsection (al)). A plain reading of this subsection indicates that the issues set out may be raised on appeal by any defendant who has pled guilty to a felony or misdemeanor in superior court. However, we believe the right to appeal granted by this subsection is not without limitations. If a defendant who has pled guilty does not raise the specific issues enumerated in subsection (a2) and does not otherwise have a right to appeal, his appeal should be dismissed. See State v. Golden, 96 N.C. App. 249, 385 S.E.2d 346 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, if during plea negotiations the Options: A. holding that since the statute does not provide for appeal of issues related to a motion to dismiss after entry of a guilty plea the defendant who raised only that issue had no right to appeal B. holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal C. holding entry of guilty plea waives challenges to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea emphasis added D. holding that an issue not raised on appeal is waived E. holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that since the statute does not provide for appeal of issues related to a motion to dismiss after entry of a guilty plea the defendant who raised only that issue had no right to appeal
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 first and second degree, in cases of felony, is abrogated; and all persons concerned in the commission of a felony, whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, though not present, shall hereafter be prosecuted, tried, and punished as principals, and no other facts need be alleged in any indictment against such an accessory than are required in an indictment against his principal. Idaho, consistent with many Thus, other jurisdictions, has abolished the distinction between principals and aiders and abettors, and instead treats aiding and abetting as a theory under which first-degree murder can be proved and not as a separate offense or a crime of a different nature. See State v. Ayres, 70 Idaho 18, 25, 211 P.2d 142, 145 (1949) (<HOLDING>); see also, e.g., United States v. Ginyard, 511 Options: A. holding that the jury need not agree on the theory supporting the conviction if there is sufficient evidence to support either theory B. holding that the pretrial order did not adequately disclose a theory because it did not give notice of that theory C. holding the information charges one offense involuntary manslaughter and that it was sufficient to put defendant on trial upon either the theory that he was a principal or the theory that he was an aider and abettor D. holding that plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be calculated on the involuntary loan theory E. holding that although plaintiff was liable for medical services rendered he was not bound by the amount of the charges listed in the admission contract as he was entitled to question the reasonableness of the charges

assistant: The best answer is C. holding the information charges one offense involuntary manslaughter and that it was sufficient to put defendant on trial upon either the theory that he was a principal or the theory that he was an aider and abettor
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: 21, 2012, supplement and treated that supplement as a Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion seeking relief from the default judgment, it could not have conferred jurisdiction on the trial court because, although the allegation that Thurmond erroneously expected to be given notice of a hearing before a judgment was entered against him could be treated as an allegation of "mistake” pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P., (1) the September 21, 2012, supplement contains no allegations that could be treated as alleging grounds specified in Rules 60(b)(2), (3), (4), or (5), Ala. R. Civ. P.; (2) it contains no allegations of aggravating circumstances that would justify its being treated as a Rule 60(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion, see Noll v. Noll, 47 So.3d 275, 278-79 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (<HOLDING>); (3) it was untimely because it was not filed Options: A. holding that where a court considering a rule 12b6 motion relies on matters outside the pleading the motion must be treated as a rule 56 motion for summary judgment B. holding that motion to dismiss cannot be treated as summary judgment C. holding that a rule 12b6 motion to dismiss should be treated as a motion for summary judgment when plaintiffs counsel relied upon facts outside the four corners of the complaint during oral argument of the motion D. holding that a motion that alleged rule 60b1 grounds could not be treated as a rule 60b6 motion in the absence of allegations of aggravating circumstances E. holding that when ruling on a motion under rule 60b1 the trial court is not required to make written findings of fact unless a request is made

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a motion that alleged rule 60b1 grounds could not be treated as a rule 60b6 motion in the absence of allegations of aggravating circumstances
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: 2003. According to the Board’s executive secretary, he advised Dr. Hsu the Board would consider that recommended decision during a teleconference on December 29, 2003, and Dr. Hsu instead asked to personally appear before the Board at its scheduled March 19, 2004, meeting. Meanwhile, Investigative Panel B of the Board thereafter issued a March 19, 2004, complaint against Dr. Hsu, real-leging the claims in the 2003 complaint and three additional claims of inappropriate care. At the Board’s March 19, 2004, meeting and before considering the ALJ’s recommendation on the allegations in the 2003 complaint, the Board summarily suspended Dr. Hsu’s license. See N.D.C.C. § 43-17-32.1. Dr. Hsu did not appeal that decision. See Bland v. Commission on Med. Competency, 557 N.W.2d 379, 383 (N.D.1996) (<HOLDING>).- The Board then considered the ALJ’s Options: A. holding that a temporary order granting emergency relief and temporary child custody under the domestic violence act is not immediately appealable B. holding that orders that deny some rule 3850 claims but dismiss others with leave to amend under spera are not final appealable orders C. holding that remand orders are also appealable orders under 28 usc 1291 D. holding temporary suspensions were not final orders under ndcc ch 2832 but were appealable under ndcc 4317321 E. holding that orders remanding an action to a federal agency are generally not considered final appealable orders

assistant: The best answer is D. holding temporary suspensions were not final orders under ndcc ch 2832 but were appealable under ndcc 4317321
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: its employees, members, and/or agents (Defendants Gunn and Jacobs) under the doctrine of respondeat supenor and under the statutory vicarious liability requirements provided in the Texas Professional Association Act.” It is evident that this claim is directed to OGA’s liability based solely on the conduct of Drs. Gunn and Jacobs; no direct-negligence theories distinct from the doctors’ actions are alleged. When liability is alleged against a professional association based solely on the actions of its principals, the question of the professional association’s liability is based on a legal principle, not a medical standard of care, and so no expert report is required. See Hiner v. Gaspard, No. 09-07-240-CV, 2007 WL 2493471, at *5 (Tex.App.-Beaumont Sept. 6, 2007, pet. denied) (mem.op.) (<HOLDING>); In re CHCA Conroe, L.P., 09-04-453-CV, 2004 Options: A. holding that expert report that sufficiently addressed certain claims against doctor employed by professional association was sufficient as to claims against professional association based on doctors negligence because the doctors negligence is imputed to the association under the professional association act B. holding that no expert reports specifically addressing conduct of professional corporation and professional association were required when plaintiffs alleged only vicarious liability based on medical negligence of entities physicians explaining that the entities conduct is not measured by a medical standard of care but rather their liability was solely vicarious C. holding that vicarious liability claim against union based on medical malpractice of treating physician is not preempted by erisa D. holding that a supervisor cannot be held personally liable for the unconstitutional conduct of a subordinate based on vicarious liability E. holding that expert report addressing hospitals conduct was not required when plaintiffs sole theory against hospital was vicarious liability based on ostensible agency and explaining that the conduct by the hospital on which the agency relationship depends is not measured by a medical standard of care these are principles of agency law on which no expert report is required

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that no expert reports specifically addressing conduct of professional corporation and professional association were required when plaintiffs alleged only vicarious liability based on medical negligence of entities physicians explaining that the entities conduct is not measured by a medical standard of care but rather their liability was solely vicarious
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you and oculus agree that these terms affect interstate commerce and that the enforceability of section 18 shall be governed by , construed and enforced , both substantively and procedurally , by the us federal arbitration act , title 9 ( 1 ) et seq. .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company hereby employs the Executive, and the Executive hereby accepts such employment for an initial term commencing as of the Original Effective Date and ending June 12, 2017, unless sooner terminated in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 or Section 5. Unless the Agreement is sooner terminated, upon expiration of the initial term (and any subsequent one-year term), it shall automatically renew for additional one year terms unless 30 days in advance of the expiration date, notice is given by the Company to the Executive of non-renewal (the period during which the Executive is employed hereunder being hereinafter referred to as the “ Term ”). Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, if on the date of a Change in Control, the remaining Term is less than 24 months, the Term shall be automatically extended to the end of the 24-month period following such Change in Control.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Daneshvar v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 615, 625 (6th Cir.2004). To obtain relief under the CAT, Ceraj must show that he would more likely than not be subjected to torture after being deported to Albania. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (placing on the applicant seeking relief under the CAT the burden of proving “that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal”); Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941, 951 (6th Cir.2004) (reciting the same standard). The “more likely than not” burden of proof is similarly higher than the “well-founded fear” burden required to establish a claim for asylum, so that substantial evidence also supports the rejection by the IJ of Ceraj’s CAT claim. See Elezaj v. Gonzales, 163 Fed.Appx. 358, 361 (6th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons set Options: A. holding that an applicant who fails to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal B. holding that the standard for withholding of removal is more demanding than the standard for asylum C. holding that where a petitioner fails to establish a claim for asylum on the merits his claims for withholding of removal under the ina and cat also necessarily fail D. holding that if an applicant fails to meet the standard for asylum he a fortiori fails to meet the requirements for withholding of removal and relief under the cat E. recognizing that a withholding of removal claim necessarily fails if the applicant is unable to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim and the factual predicate for the claims is the same

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that if an applicant fails to meet the standard for asylum he a fortiori fails to meet the requirements for withholding of removal and relief under the cat
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 of the Loan Parties hereby ratifies and confirms its Obligations under the Credit Agreement and the other Loan Documents and acknowledges that all other terms, provisions and conditions of the Credit Agreement and the other Loan Documents remain unchanged (except as modified hereby) and are in full force and effect. The Parent hereby ratifies, confirms, acknowledges and agrees that its obligations under the Guaranty Agreement are in full force and effect and that it continues to unconditionally and irrevocably guarantee the prompt payment in full when due, whether at stated maturity, by acceleration or otherwise, and performance of all of the Obligations. Each Loan Party hereby ratifies, confirms, acknowledges and agrees that all Liens now or hereafter held by the Agent for the benefit of the Secured Parties as security for payment of the Obligations remain in full force and effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As between the Applicable First Lien Agent, on the one hand, and the Applicable Second Lien Agent, the Term Facility Agent and any Other Second-Priority Lien Obligations Agent, on the other hand, only the Applicable First Lien Agent will have the right (subject to the rights of the Grantors under the Term Facility Documents, the RBL Facility Documents, the Other First-Priority Lien Obligations Documents and the Other Second-Priority Lien Obligations Documents) to adjust or settle any insurance policy or claim covering or constituting the Common Collateral in the event of any loss thereunder and to approve any award granted in any condemnation or similar proceeding affecting the Common Collateral.

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: All warranties and representations made by NFC or the Company in this Agreement or in any of the instruments or documents delivered pursuant to this Agreement regardless of any investigation made shall be considered to have been relied upon by the other parties hereto and shall survive the delivery of any instruments or documents.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If Executive’s employment is terminated voluntarily by Executive or by reason of Executive’s death or Disability prior to the end of the Term, in lieu of any other payments or benefits, Executive (or Executive’s estate, as applicable) shall be entitled to the Accrued Benefits, which Accrued Benefits shall be payable to Executive within thirty (30) days following the termination date.

assistant: Death
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 Amendment, together with the other Loan Documents, contains the entire and exclusive agreement of the parties hereto and thereto with reference to the matters discussed herein and therein. This Amendment supersedes all prior commitments, drafts, communications, discussions and understandings, oral or written, with respect thereto. This Amendment may not be modified, amended or otherwise altered except in accordance with the terms of Section 12.2 of the Credit Agreement.

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: the special condition, resulting in our application of the plain error review, and the district court provided an express general statement of its reasoning for imposition of such a special condition. As to the other circuit court cases on which Mr. Larson relies, they are not only nonprecedential but distinguishable given the defendants, unlike Mr. Larson, did not withdraw their objections to the special conditions imposed so that the review was for an abuse of discretion, and the district courts, in imposing those special conditions, unlike here, failed to provide a general or otherwise adequate explanation or finding for the special condition imposed, and/or the record did not support imposition of such a condition. See United States v. Cope, 527 F.3d 944, 948-49, 955 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552, 557-58, Options: A. holding that more than notice to a defendant is required B. holding development of medically informed records and ontherecord medicallygrounded findings are required where defendant objected to special condition of compelled medication for which he did not receive notice C. holding that factual findings set forth in the psi not objected to by a defendant are deemed admitted D. holding that party timely objected to appointment of special master and did not waive its right to object when it objected to appointment several days before it participated in proceedings before special master E. holding that administration of antipsychotic drugs was not shocking to the conscience where plaintiff did not allege that he objected to the medication

assistant: The best answer is B. holding development of medically informed records and ontherecord medicallygrounded findings are required where defendant objected to special condition of compelled medication for which he did not receive notice
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: her primary or secondary attachment figure was abruptly and inappropriately removed from her life. This potential psychological damage was the only alleged incidence of abuse, abandonment or neglect presented at the hearing. After considering the evidence and argument of counsel, the trial court found no legal basis to conclude that depriving M.N.B. of contact with Appellant, someone to whom the child has no legal connection, constitutes the level of abuse needed to support a finding of a dependency. We agree with the trial court that a parent’s decision to deprive a child of contact with someone who has no legal custody or visitation rights vis-á-vis the child is an inadequate ground upon which to base an adjudication of dependency. Cf. Clock v. Clock, 649 So.2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (<HOLDING>); Jones v. A.W., 519 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA Options: A. holding the mere act of relocating or separating a child from familiar surroundings by an otherwise fit and proper custodial parent against the childs wishes does not constitute abuse under the statutory definition and therefore does not render the child dependent B. holding that an outofwedlock childs pending claim for retroactive child support was nondischargeable in bankruptcy because a debt for child support arises upon the birth of the child and that the fact that no court had yet ordered the debtor to support the child does not take the debt outside the scope of 11 usc 523a5 C. holding any person who has supplied necessities to a child may sue and recover from the childs parent for value of the supplies or services furnished to the child D. holding that abusive or violent conduct by a parent or other resident of the childs home supports conclusion that childs surroundings endanger his physical or emotional wellbeing E. holding that juvenile court that determined child was not dependent had no jurisdiction to thereafter determine custody of child

assistant: The best answer is A. holding the mere act of relocating or separating a child from familiar surroundings by an otherwise fit and proper custodial parent against the childs wishes does not constitute abuse under the statutory definition and therefore does not render the child dependent
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 whatever manner and against whomever an effort might be made to apply it.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 53-54, 91 S.Ct. 746 (quoting Buck, 313 U.S. at 402, 61 S.Ct. 962). But that is not the case here. The unauthorized name restriction certainly would be constitutional if applied only to the deceptive use of names in solicitations (indeed, 9 M.R.S.A. § 5014 treats a violation of the Act as a violation of Maine’s Unfair Trade Practices Act). As for the licensing component of the Maine Act, contrary to Christian Action Network’s argument, the statutory provision that the State “may deny” a license for certain enumerated statutory reasons, 9 M.R.S.A. § 5017, is not facially unconstitutional. See Thomas v. Chi. Park Dist., 534 U.S. 316, 325, 122 S.Ct. 775, 151 L.Ed.2d 783 (2002) (<HOLDING>). At oral argument, Christian Action Network’s Options: A. holding that the plaintiffs right to political speech is fully in accord with the publics interest in free speech and association B. holding use of word may generally indicates permissive rather than mandatory intent C. recognizing that code is speech D. holding that may deny is a permissive construction that furthers rather than constricts free speech E. holding that adverse inference rule is permissive

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that may deny is a permissive construction that furthers rather than constricts free speech
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 Credit Documents, as amended hereby, constitute the entire agreement between Borrowers and Lenders , and any other prior written or oral understandings or representations of any kind shall not be deemed binding upon either Borrowers or Lenders except to the extent reflected in the express terms of the Credit Documents, as so amended.

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: over a long period of time will have a deeper insight into the medical condition of the claimant than will a person who has examined a claimant but once, or who has only seen the claimant’s medical records.” Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 762 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing Barker v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 789, 794 (6th Cir.1994)). It is clear the ALJ sought to circumvent this doctrine. Dr. Kesten treated Garcia’s left leg and lumbar injuries on and off for a period of at least eight years, eventually determining that Garcia would require absence from his workstation every hour for five to ten minutes and would likely be expected to miss more than four days of work per month. R. at 646-648. This opinion is entitled to controlling weight. See Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324, 1332 (10th Cir. 2011) (<HOLDING>). Further, the reg ulatory factors weigh Options: A. holding that specific workrelated functional limitations are not issues reserved to the commissioner and should be given controlling weight when determined by a treating physician B. holding the question of whether an accomplice is credible and the weight to be given to the testimony are issues for the jury to determine C. holding that defendants truthfulness and the credibility of and weight to be given expert medical testimony are issues of fact for jury D. holding that a treating physicians medical opinion must be given controlling weight only when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record E. holding that where a treating physicians opinion is contradicted by a consulting physician the alj must explain on the record the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that specific workrelated functional limitations are not issues reserved to the commissioner and should be given controlling weight when determined by a treating physician
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 shall pay to the Employee an annual salary (the “ Base Salary ”) at the rate of $275,000 per annum for the period commencing on January 1, 2019, and ending on December 31, 2021, payable in substantially equal installments at such intervals as may be determined by the Company in accordance with its ordinary payroll practices as established from time to time. The Employee’s Base Salary shall increase three percent (3%) effective the first full payroll cycle in each of 2020 and 2021.

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: policy, his claim for attorney's fees depends upon whether Auto-Owners acted in bad faith in denying coverage to Learman. "Proof of bad faith is defined as clear and convincing evidence which establishes the insurer had knowledge that there was no legitimate basis for denying liability." Ind. Ins. Co. v. Plummer Power Mower & Tool Rental, Inc., 590 N.E.2d 1085, 1093 (Ind.Ct.App. 1992). The trial court found that "there is no evidence that Auto-Owners acted in bad faith in denying coverage to Lear-man." Appellant's Appendix at 48. Lear-man points to no evidence of bad faith on the part of Auto-Owners and our review of the record, likewise, reveals no such evi dence. Thus, the trial court's finding and judgment on this issue are not clearly erroneous. See, e.g., Mikel, 644 N.E.2d at 172 (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Options: A. holding that an insurance policy providing that the insurance company would pay all reasonable expenses incurred by the insured at our request emphasis omitted did not establish an agreement that the insurer would cover attorney fees and costs to the insured in a declaratory action B. holding that when the insured brings an action for a declaration of coverage and prevails absent a bad faith denial of coverage by the insurer attorneys fees incurred by the insured in the prosecution of that action are not incurred at the request of the insurer C. holding that insured may recover attorneys fees from insurer where insurer acts in bad faith D. holding despite a reservation of rights that when the insurer provides a defense to its insured the insured has no right to interfere with the insurers control of the defense and a stipulated judgment between the insured and the injured claimant without the consent of the insurer is ineffective to impose liability upon the insurer E. holding that insured may recover from its insurer any attorney fees incurred in successfully attempting to force the insurer to defend an action against the insured

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that when the insured brings an action for a declaration of coverage and prevails absent a bad faith denial of coverage by the insurer attorneys fees incurred by the insured in the prosecution of that action are not incurred at the request of the insurer
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if enabled , your skype credit balance will be recharged with the same amount and by your chosen payment method every time your skype account balance goes below the threshold set by skype from time to time .

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: ] is a final judgment....”). 4 . 10 James Wm. Moore et al„ Moore’s Federal Practice — Civil § 54.28[3][c] (3d ed.2014) (citation omitted); see also Dickinson v. Auto Ctr. Mfg. Co., 733 F.2d 1092, 1102 (5th Cir.1983) (“Under the final judgment appealability rule, a party may obtain review of prejudicial adverse interlocutory rulings upon his appeal from adverse final judgment, at which time the interlocutory rulings (nonreviewable until then) are regarded as merged into the final judgment terminating the action."). 5 . See, e.g., Am. Family Life Assurance Co. of Columbus v. Biles, 714 F.3d 887, 893-94 (5th Cir.2013) (reviewing on appeal of Rule 54(b) judgment the district court’s order limiting discovery). 6 . See Stephenson v. Calpine Conifers II, Ltd., 652 F.2d 808, 811 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>), oveiruled on other grounds, Puchall v. Options: A. holding in a case where the plaintiff had argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to amend its judgment more than ten days after entry because that is the time limit under federal rule of civil procedure 59 that a district court can amend its judgment because of mistake or inadvertence months after judgment has been entered pursuant to rule 60b of the federal rules of civil procedure B. holding that the standard of review under rule 60 is abuse of discretion C. holding that entry of final judgment on a claim in a multiparty action pursuant to rule 54b should clearly articulate the reasons and factors underlying the decision to grant 54b certification D. holding that it had jurisdiction to review denial of motions under rules 59 and 60 that were filed and denied after the entry of judgment under rule 54b E. holding that district court has limited authority under rule 59 to alter or amend judgment sua sponte so long as court acts within 10 days of entry of judgment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that it had jurisdiction to review denial of motions under rules 59 and 60 that were filed and denied after the entry of judgment under rule 54b
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: (“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”). Accord, e.g., Walsh v. Borczon. 881 A.2d 1, 4-6 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005); see also, e.g., State Fa 05). A Rule 1925(b) statement of matters complained of on appeal is not a vehicle in which issues not previously asserted may be raised for the first time. It is, instead, the vehicle by which an appellant advises the trial court of the previously preserved issues that the appellant will advance on appeal so that the trial court may determine if it needs to write an opinion and to direct the trial court to the issues for which an opinion is needed. Id. (emphasis added); accord Commonwealth v. Melendez-Rodriguez, 856 A.2d 1278, 1287-89 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) (en banc) (unanimous opinion) (<HOLDING>), followed in Commonwealth v. Tejada, 107 A.3d Options: A. holding party must make timely and specific objection at trial to preserve issue for appellate review B. recognizing that the specific argument regarding an issue must be made in the trial court to preserve that issue for appellate review C. holding defendant who fails to object timely and specifically before trial court cannot preserve the issue for appellate review by including the issue in a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal D. holding a general ruling by the trial court is insufficient to preserve a specific issue for appellate review E. holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review

assistant: The best answer is C. holding defendant who fails to object timely and specifically before trial court cannot preserve the issue for appellate review by including the issue in a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal
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 any contrary provision of the Plan or an Award to the contrary, if any one or more of the provisions (or any part thereof) of this Plan or the Awards shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such provision shall be modified so as to make it valid, legal and enforceable, and the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions (or any part thereof) of the Plan or Award, as applicable, shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.

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: had ever experienced such an episode at work before. In terms of the content of Farrens’ “beratement,” there is nothing like the racial slurs at issue in Contreras v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., the case Taing cited to the district court to support her claim. Although Taing experienced an extreme reaction to Farrens’ lecturing, reasonable minds could not differ on the issue of whether Farrens’ conduct, as described in Taing’s summary judgment evidence, rose to the level of “intolerable in a civilized society.” The district court’s judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9TH Cir. R. 36-3. 1 . 29U.S.C. § 185(a). 2 . Farrens and Ewen claim that T , 1088 (9th Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>); see also Tellez v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 817 Options: A. holding that plaintiffs state claims were not preempted because defendant failed to show that these claims rested on standards other than those permitted by the fda B. holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law C. holding the state law claims were not preempted D. holding that the plaintiffs causes of action were preempted because their claims were premised on the existence of an erisa plan E. holding that the plaintiffs claims based on pregnancyrelated harassment were not preempted

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the plaintiffs claims based on pregnancyrelated harassment were not preempted
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 validity, construction, operation and effect of any and all of the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall be determined and enforced in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Delaware without giving effect to conflicts of laws principles that would result in the application of the law of any other state. Each of the parties to this Agreement (a) consents to submit to the personal jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in any action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement or any of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, (b) agrees that all claims in respect of such action or proceeding may be heard and determined only in such court, (c) agrees that such party shall not attempt to deny or defeat such personal jurisdiction by motion or other request for leave from such court and (d) agrees not to bring any action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement or any of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement in any other court. Each of the parties hereto waives any defense of inconvenient forum to the maintenance of any action or proceeding so brought and waives any bond, surety or other security that might be required of any other party with respect thereto. To the fullest extent permitted by law, any party hereto may make service on another party by sending or delivering a copy of the process to the party to be served in a manner permitted under the laws of the State of Delaware. EACH PARTY, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTENTIONALLY WAIVES ITS RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY ACTION OR OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT. THIS WAIVER APPLIES TO ANY ACTION OR LEGAL PROCEEDING, WHETHER ARISING IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE.

assistant: Governing Laws