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: expert’s testimony”); Creed v. City of Columbia, 310 S.C. 342, 345, 426 S.E.2d 785, 786 (1993) (“A physician is not incompetent to testify merely because he is not a specialist in the particular branch of his profession involved.”). However, “[r]egardless of the area in which the prospective expert witness practices, he must set forth the applicable standard of care for the medical procedure under scrutiny and he must demonstrate to the coui-t that he is familiar with the standard of care.” David, 367 S.C. at 250, 626 S.E.2d at 5. Further, if the expert merely testifies as to his own personal standard of care, rather than the generally recognized and accepted standard of care, such testimony is insufficient to survive summary judgment. See Guinan, 383 S.C. at 57, 677 S.E.2d at 37-38 (<HOLDING>). After reviewing Melton’s arguments, we Options: A. holding that an experts personal preference does not establish a national standard of care B. recognizing that a defendant physicians own practice was at least some evidence of the standard of care and concluding that the case was properly submitted to the jury notwithstanding the plaintiffs failure to call an independent expert on the standard of care C. holding that even if an experts testimony arguably embraced the ultimate issue such testimony is permissible as long as the experts testimony assists rather than supplants the jurys judgment D. holding experts testimony was insufficient to survive summary judgment because the testimony at most showed the defendant deviated from the experts personal standard of care rather than the generally recognized and accepted standard of care E. holding that defendant did not preserve state constitutional challenge to experts testimony at punishment hearing because defendant relied exclusively on federal cases in arguing for exclusion of experts testimony

assistant: The best answer is D. holding experts testimony was insufficient to survive summary judgment because the testimony at most showed the defendant deviated from the experts personal standard of care rather than the generally recognized and accepted standard of care
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 execution, delivery and performance of the Transaction Agreements by the Purchaser, the purchase of the Shares and the consummation of the other transactions contemplated in this Agreement will not conflict with or result in any violation of or default by such Purchaser (with or without notice or lapse of time, or both) under, or give rise to a right of termination, cancellation or acceleration of any obligation, a change of control right or to a loss of a material benefit under (i) any provision of the organizational documents of such Purchaser or (ii) any agreement or instrument, credit facility, franchise, license, judgment, order, statute, law, ordinance, rule or regulations, applicable to such Purchaser or its respective properties or assets, except, in the case of clause (ii), as would not, individually or in the aggregate, have a Purchaser Adverse Effect.

assistant: No Conflicts
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 can review the most current version of the tos at any time at : https://policies.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/terms/utos/index.html .

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: Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 2d § 3722 (“Generally the federal law is apparent on the face of the complaint; but sometimes the plaintiff will characterize his necessarily federal cause of action solely in state law terms. In these situations the federal removal court will look beyond the letter of the complaint to the substance of the claim in order to assert jurisdiction.”). Therefore, in the proper case, the Court may deem a federal question to exist despite the lack of any direct assertion of a violation of federal law in the original pleading filed in state court. The proper case, however, exists only where it is not possible to bring the action asserted by the Plaintiff in state court. Cf. Bartholet v. Reishauer A.G. (Zurich), 953 F.2d 1073, 1075 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Vantine v. Elkhart Brass Mfg. Co., Inc., 762 Options: A. holding a state court complaint alleging a common law breach of contract action to be in fact a claim under erisa and thus removable as a federal question B. holding that the state law contract claim alleged the same conduct as in the erisa claim and was therefore preempted C. holding that state common law causes of action asserting improper processing of a claim for benefits under an employee benefit plan are removable to federal court D. holding that the plaintiffs state common law causes of actions for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing as well as a statutory cause of action for unfair insurance practices under the california insurance code were preempted by erisa E. holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans

assistant: The best answer is A. holding a state court complaint alleging a common law breach of contract action to be in fact a claim under erisa and thus removable as a federal question
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 creation of the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands. 48 U.S.C. § 1613a(d). 4 . "We review the denial of a suppression motion for clear error as to the underlying facts, and exercise[ ] plenary review as to the legality of the denial in the light of properly found facts.” United States v. Leveto, 540 F.3d 200, 211 n. 9 (3d Cir.2008). 5 . The taking of DNA samples following a lawful arrest constitutes a lawful search. Maryland v. King, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1958, 1980, 186 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013). Accordingly, if the arrest was lawful, so too was the collection of Clarke's DNA. 6 . In the alternative, it would not have been plain error for the Superior Court to conclude the arresting officers were faced with an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless arrest. See Myers, 308 F.3d at 265 Options: A. holding that a warrantless entry by police into an apartment based on an uncorroborated anonymous 911 report of a mentally ill man acting crazy and possibly in possession of a gun violated the fourth amendment B. holding that 911 call reporting domestic dispute and child telling officer that a man with a gun was inside fighting with her mom constituted exigent circumstances that justified warrantless entry into home C. holding that exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry where it seemed apparent that a burglary was in progress D. holding that exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry where officers were faced with a call reporting burglary in progress E. holding that officers warrantless entry was justified to assure safety of person who called 911

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that 911 call reporting domestic dispute and child telling officer that a man with a gun was inside fighting with her mom constituted exigent circumstances that justified warrantless entry into home
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: and ultimately the base offense level in Knowles’s PSI, would fundamentally change the proceedings underlying the sentence he received. He is not seeking to correct a clerical error. Portillo, 363 F.3d at 1164. Because he requested a substantive, not clerical, change to his PSI, Rule 36 does not apply. See id,; Whittington, 918 F.2d at 151. Moreover, the district court could not have construed Knowles’s motion under a different rule to provide relief. Indeed, the court lacked jurisdiction to construe Knowles’s Rule 36 motion as a § 2266 motion because he previously filed a § 2255 motion that was denied with prejudice, and he had not obtained authorization from this Court to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm, Options: A. holding that motion for reconsideration would be construed not as a rule 60b motion but rather as an unauthorized successive motion under 2255 which the district court may have been without jurisdiction to consider B. holding that a district court lacks jurisdiction to review a second or successive 2255 motion where the movant failed to obtain authorization to file the motion from this court C. holding that district court has no jurisdiction to decide unauthorized second or successive 2255 claims D. holding that such claims required prisoner to obtain prefiling authorization to file second or successive habeas petition E. holding premagwood that where a first 2255 motion was granted so movant could file a direct appeal the second 2255 motion was not a successive motion under aedpa

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a district court lacks jurisdiction to review a second or successive 2255 motion where the movant failed to obtain authorization to file the motion from this court
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. employee behavior). See 7 DCMR § 312.7 (providing that “[i]f a violation of the employer's rules is the basis for a disqualification from benefits” due to either gross or simple misconduct, then it must be determined that: “(a) [] the existence of the employer’s rule was known to the employee; (b) [] the employer’s rule is reasonable; and (c) [] the employer's rule is consistently enforced by the employer”). 6 . Rodriguez v. Filene's Basement Inc., 905 A.2d 177, 180 (D.C.2006). 7 . Id. at 181 (internal quotation marks omitted). 8 . Morris v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 975 A.2d 176, 181 (D.C.2009) (quoting Brown v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 942 A.2d 1122, 1125 (D.C.2008)). 9 . Capitol Entm’t Servs., Inc. v. McCormick, 25 A.3d 19, 22 (D.C.2011); see also D.C.Code § 2d 410, 413 (D.C.2008) (<HOLDING>). 27 . Cf. Hamilton v. Hojeij Branded Food, Options: A. holding that employers policy which required employee to work without pay in violation of federal law was unreasonable and employees refusal to comply was not misconduct B. holding that employees failure to comply with employers rule requiring employees to notify employer when a temporary job placement ended did not constitute gross misconduct because the violation was an isolated incident and employer did not try to show that its staffing ability had suffered serious or indeed any consequences as a result of employees unavailability C. holding that an employee could not establish pretext when the employer in good faith believed that the employee engaged in misconduct regardless whether the employee in fact engaged in the misconduct D. holding in a case in which the alj found the employer had failed to establish a rule violation under 7 dcmr 3127 but nevertheless determined the employer had established the employees gross misconduct that because there was scant evidence as to the employers written requirements pertaining to employee behavior this court could not conclude that there was substantial evidence that the employee had violated the employers rules in a manner that amounts to gross misconduct under 7 dcmr 3123 E. holding that the employer had not demonstrated the employee was discharged for gross misconduct because the conduct was an isolated incident and the employer did not try to show that its staffing ability had suffered serious or indeed any consequences as a result of the employees conduct

assistant: The best answer is D. holding in a case in which the alj found the employer had failed to establish a rule violation under 7 dcmr 3127 but nevertheless determined the employer had established the employees gross misconduct that because there was scant evidence as to the employers written requirements pertaining to employee behavior this court could not conclude that there was substantial evidence that the employee had violated the employers rules in a manner that amounts to gross misconduct under 7 dcmr 3123
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: for a legislative decision on immigration matters so long as the justifications appeared to be rationally based); Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 766, 92 S.Ct. 2576, 33 L.Ed.2d 683 (1972) (quotation omitted) (“over no conceivable subject is the Legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over the admission of aliens”). DISCUSSION I. Jurisdiction The Government’s Answer stated that Petitioner faded to exhaust his administrative remedies because “he failed to timely move for reconsideration or seek judicial review of the September 1, 1998 decision of the BIA.” (AnsJ 21.) At oral argument, the Government agreed that Charles could not have appealed the BIA decision to the Court of Appeals because he is a criminal alien. See Liang v. INS, 206 F.3d 308, 323 (3d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Further, this Court believes that a motion to Options: A. holding that court of appeals statutory jurisdiction over final orders of removal extends to reinstatement orders B. holding that under permanent rules of hrira the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over claims of aliens ordered deported for crimes listed in ina and holding that district courts retain habeas jurisdiction over deportation orders of criminal aliens C. holding court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over the governments prosecutorial discretion decisions D. recognizing that habeas petitions filed by aliens subject to ina 106 may be mooted by deportation E. holding that the failure to notify aliens counsel of an order to appear for deportation violated the aliens statutory right to counsel

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that under permanent rules of hrira the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over claims of aliens ordered deported for crimes listed in ina and holding that district courts retain habeas jurisdiction over deportation orders of criminal aliens
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: (remanding cause to court of appeals for harm analysis of trial court’s failure sua sponte to give reasonable-doubt instruction). Jury charge error does not require reversal unless it is so egregious that the defendant is denied a fair and impartial trial. Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171. “Errors which result in egregious harm are those which affect ‘the very basis of the case,’ deprive the defendant of a ‘valuable right,’ or ‘vitally affect a defensive theory.’” Hutch v. State, 922 S.W.2d 166, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (quoting Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 172). “[T]he actual degree of harm must be assayed in light of the entire jury charge, the state of the evidence, including the contested issues and weight of probative evidence, the argument of counsel, and any other r -Tyler 2002, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Graves contends that, had the trial court Options: A. holding that trial courts failure to give reasonabledoubt instruction sua sponte during punishment phase for extraneous offenses offered during punishment was harmless error in part because the jury assessed punishment far below maximum available despite states plea for maximum B. holding that consideration of a state jail felony to enhance punishment was not harmless even though the sentence actually assessed fell within the lawful range C. holding that trial courts failure sua sponte to give reasonabledoubt in struction during punishment phase about pen packets offered during punishment was harmless error because sentence imposed was well within punishment range and prosecutor had asked for greater sentence D. holding that the trial judges failure to admonish the appellant regarding the range of punishment was harmless because the record was replete with statements by the parties concerning the punishment range and because there was nothing in the record to indicate that the appellant was unaware of the range of punishment E. holding that designation is neither a sentence nor a punishment

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that trial courts failure sua sponte to give reasonabledoubt in struction during punishment phase about pen packets offered during punishment was harmless error because sentence imposed was well within punishment range and prosecutor had asked for greater sentence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of this state. 2. A police officer in “hot pursuit” may continue beyond the one and one-half mile [2.⅛1 kilometers] limit to make an arrest, in obedience to a warrant or without a warrant under the conditions of section 29-06-15, whenever obtaining the aid of peace officers having jurisdiction beyond that limit would cause a delay permitting escape. As used in this subsection, “hot pursuit” means the immediate pursuit of a person who is endeavoring to avoid arrest. (Emphasis added.) [¶ 10] This Court has also recognized that city police officers have jurisdiction to stop vehicles and arrest individuals outside of their geographical jurisdiction when responding to requests from another law enforcement agency for aid and assistance. See State v. Graven, 530 N.W.2d 328, 330 (N.D.1995) (<HOLDING>). See also N.D.C.C. § 44-08-20(3) (stating, Options: A. holding a stop was effected where officers vehicle blocked defendants vehicle from proceeding B. holding that a conclusion that reasonable suspicion supported the stop of a vehicle was subsumed within the trial courts ruling that the officer had probable cause for the stop C. holding that the stop of defendants vehicle was unlawful where officers stopped the vehicle to check the license and registration but had observed no suspicious activity D. holding that although officers observation and stop of the defendants vehicle occurred outside of the officers geographical jurisdiction the officer still had jurisdiction where the officer was requested by a state trooper to stop the suspects vehicle E. holding that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to stop the defendant for obstructing traffic because there was no evidence of intent to impede or hinder traffic where the vehicle was only briefly stopped in the roadway and the officer approaching the vehicle from behind did not have to stop or drive around the defendants vehicle

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that although officers observation and stop of the defendants vehicle occurred outside of the officers geographical jurisdiction the officer still had jurisdiction where the officer was requested by a state trooper to stop the suspects vehicle
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 and the Subsidiaries are insured by insurers of recognized financial responsibility against such losses and risks and in such amounts as are prudent and customary in the businesses in which the Company and the Subsidiaries are engaged, including, but not limited to, directors and officers insurance coverage at least equal to the aggregate Subscription Amount. Neither the Company nor any Subsidiary has been notified that it will not be able to renew its existing insurance coverage as and when such coverage expires or to obtain similar coverage from similar insurers as may be necessary to continue its business without a significant increase in cost.

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: This Agreement and all obligations of Stockholder hereunder are personal to Stockholder and may not be transferred or delegated by Stockholder at any time, except in accordance with Section 2(b) of this Agreement. Parent may freely assign any or all of its rights under this Agreement, in whole or in part, to any successor entity without obtaining the consent or approval of Stockholder.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither this Letter Agreement nor any of the rights, interests or obligations under this Letter Agreement shall be assigned or delegated, in whole or in part, by operation of law or otherwise by any of the parties without the prior written consent of the other parties and Seller. Subject to the preceding sentence, this Agreement will be binding upon, inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by, the parties and their respective successors and assigns. Any purported assignment in violation of this Section 13 shall be null and void.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither the execution and delivery of the Loan Documents, nor the consummation of the transactions contemplated therein (which for all purposes herein shall include conversion of the Note), nor performance of and compliance with the terms and provisions thereof will (i) violate or conflict with any provision of Borrower’s formation and governance documents, (ii) violate or conflict with contractual provisions of, or cause an event of default under, any indenture, loan agreement, mortgage, contract or other material agreement to which Borrower is a party or by which Borrower may be bound or (iii) result in or require the creation of any Lien or other charge or encumbrance upon any asset of Borrower.

assistant: No Conflicts
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: During the Term, the Company, shall provide Executive with coverage under all employee benefit programs, plans and practices as are in effect from time to time and which the Company, makes available from time to time to its senior executive officers, with at least the same opportunity to participate as the other senior executive officers of the Company, including, without limitation, if applicable, retirement, pension, medical, dental, hospitalization, life insurance, short and long term disability, accidental death and dismemberment and travel accident coverage.

assistant: Benefits
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: e.g., Williams v. Anne Arundel County, 334 Md. 109, 117-18, 638 A.2d 74 (1994); Barlow v. Friendship Heights Citizens Comm., 276 Md. 89, 92, 344 A.2d 415 (1975). 21 . The Zimmer-Rubert Court dealt with the distinction between a State agency and a county or municipality in the context of the Eleventh Amendment to the federal Constitution, which "applies only to 'one of the United States’ and ‘does not immunize political subdivisions of the state, such as municipalities and counties, even though such entities might exercise a "slice of state power.” ’ ” Zimmer-Rubert, 179 Md. App. at 596, 947 A.2d 135 (quoting Ram Ditta v. Md. Nat’l Cap. Park & Planning Comm’n, 822 F.2d 456, 457 (4th Cir.1987)). See also Norville v. Anne Arundel County Bd. of Educ., 160 Md.App. 12, 862 A.2d 477 (2004) (<HOLDING>), vacated on other grounds, 390 Md. 93, 887 Options: A. holding that the supreme court of pennsylvania is a state entity for purposes of the eleventh amendment B. holding that the puc is not an arm of the state and rejecting claim of immunity C. holding that a county is not an arm of the state for purposes of the eleventh amendment D. holding that the anne arundel board of education is an arm of the state for purposes of eleventh amendment immunity E. holding that the university of colorado is an arm of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the anne arundel board of education is an arm of the state for purposes of eleventh amendment immunity
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 use and benefit of the life tenant ..."); see also Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 5.009 (West 2003) (specifying rules with respect to the fiduciary duties of a life tenant of a life estate who is given the power to sell and reinvest life tenancy property). 82 .See Gonzales v. Gonzales, 115 Tex. 16, 273 S.W. 798, 798 (1925) (indicating that the continued homestead rights of a spouse following the death of the owner of the homestead property are contingent upon the spouse's use and possession of the property for homestead purposes); Laster, 826 S.W.2d at 129 ("This homestead protection, however, can arise only in the person or family who has a present possessory interest in the subject property.”); see also Moorhouse v. Crew, 273 S.W.2d 654, 655-56 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1954, writ ref'd) (<HOLDING>). 83 . See Lucas v. Lucas, 104 Tex. 636, 143 Options: A. holding that homestead exemption was unavailable even though claimants were living on the land and claiming it as homestead with the permission or acquiescence of the owner for they could have no homestead right or interest in land to which they had no title B. holding that spouses homestead interest was not abandoned because right to possession continued C. holding despite contrary authority that husband debtor with a mere possessoiy interest was not entitled to claim a homestead exemption and stating it is a fundamental tenet of the law of exemptions that the debtor must have an ownership interest in the property before an exemption may be claimed a long line of illinois cases has required that a debtor have title or some ownership interest in property in order to claim a homestead exemption other courts deciding the issue under the federal exemption scheme have held that the key word is interest and that an interest in real property up to a specified amount implies a monetary interest more than just one spouses right to reside with the other D. holding even though debtor would have been entitled to iowa homestead exemption but for former spouses iowa code section 59821 lien debtor could not avoid the lien because it attached to the homestead prior to or simultaneously with debtors acquisition of the interest in the homestead E. holding that even if divorced wife only owned a beneficial interest and not title interest in the residence constituting her homestead she was nonetheless entitled to claim a homestead exemption from the forced sale of the property

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that spouses homestead interest was not abandoned because right to possession continued
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: leave because the claim was not yet barred by the statute of limitations. Therefore, this claim could also have been re-filed without affecting the rights of the parties. In both cases, the amended complaint was considered filed because leave would have been granted had it been sought and no party would have been prejudiced if the formal requirements of requesting leave were bypassed. But that is not the situation here because HealthSouth would have been prejudiced if the court did not follow the formal requirements of Rule 15(a). Although it is true that upon re-filing leave would have been granted (as it was a week later), the loss of the affirmative defense of prescription would prejudicially affect HealthSouth. See Elbaor v. Tripath Imaging, Inc., 279 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir.2002)(<HOLDING>); Phillips v. III. Central Gulf R.R., 874 F.2d Options: A. holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense B. holding that the loss of a statute of limitations defense constitutes clear legal prejudice C. holding that trial court erred by granting a directed verdict on statute of limitations defense and remanding for a new trial on the statute of limitations only D. holding that the statute of limitations is nonjurisdictional and defendant expressly waived it observing in dicta that a statute of limitations defense should be raised no later than the trial E. holding that the loss of a statute of limitations defense prejudices a defendant

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the loss of a statute of limitations defense prejudices a defendant
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the other Loan Documents represent the agreement of Holdings, the Borrowers, the Agent, the Collateral Agent and the Lenders with respect to the subject matter hereof and thereof, and there are no promises, undertakings, representations or warranties by the Agent, the Collateral Agent or any Lender relative to subject matter hereof and thereof not expressly set forth or referred to herein or in the other Loan Documents.

assistant: Integration
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 is of the opinion that Carman has pointed to a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Meritage was aware that she was working unreported overtime. Meritage attests that Car-man was informed of the timekeeping policy and trained how to properly record her time, and it was therefore unaware that Carman was working unreported overtime. However, there is deposition testimony that Carman’s supervisors — sales managers — instructed her not to report the time she spent working before and after the model home was scheduled to be open. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Carman, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Meritage had knowledge that Carman was working unreported overtime. See Brennan v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 482 F.2d 825, 828 (5th Cir.1973) (<HOLDING>). The Court is also of the opinion that Carman Options: A. holding that the company could not disclaim knowledge of unreported overtime when the immediate supervisors of the plaintiffs had essentially instructed them not to report hours over certain limits B. holding that an insurance company does not act in bad faith solely because it fails to accept a settlement offer within the deadline set by the injured persons attorney but that a jury question on the reasonableness of the insurers actions arose when an insurance company failed to respond to a deadline to settle a claim within policy limits when the company had knowledge of clear liability and special damages exceeding the policy limits C. holding over D. holding that section 226 requires an employer to report all hours worked not reporting hours disputed regardless of good faith does not meet that standard E. holding plaintiffs claims could not succeed without proof that the city had knowledge of prior incidents

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the company could not disclaim knowledge of unreported overtime when the immediate supervisors of the plaintiffs had essentially instructed them not to report hours over certain limits
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 Leistiko. State v. Jones, 353 Or 208, 297 P3d 480 (2013). On remand, we concluded that a trial court’s admission of prior bad acts evidence under OEC 404(3) to prove a defendant’s intent — in a case in which the defendant disputed committing the charged acts and the jury had not been instructed that it must first find that the defendant had committed the charged acts before it could consider the prior bad acts evidence to determine intent — was properly reviewable as plain error, in light of Leistiko, because “plain error” is determined by the law as it exists at the time the appeal is decided. Jones, 258 Or App at 5-6 (discussing Leistiko, 352 Or at 174; State v. Jury, 185 Or App 132, 136, 57 P3d 970 (2002)); see also State v. Hutton, 258 Or App 806, 816, 817-18, 311 P3d 909 (2013) (<HOLDING>). We now apply the foregoing principles to this Options: A. holding that to admit evidence of prior bad acts under rule 404b ala r evid the state must demonstrate that the evidence was reasonably necessary to its case B. holding admission of prior bad acts of child abuse was reversible error when the defendant did not have exclusive control over the children during the period when the prior bad acts occurred C. holding prior bad acts evidence is admissible where there is an articulation or identification of the consequential fact to which the proffered evidence of other acts is directed D. holding that it is error for a trial court to admit evidence of prior bad acts without properly conditioning the jurys use of that evidence E. holding on a criminal appeal that prior bad acts evidence is admissible to prove intent to commit the charged crime

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that it is error for a trial court to admit evidence of prior bad acts without properly conditioning the jurys use of that evidence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Any reproduction of any Confidential Information by Company shall remain the property of Verenium unless otherwise authorized in writing by Verenium. 7. All right, title and interest in and to Confidential Information shall be retained by Verenium and nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as granting any license or right under any patent or other intellectual property rights, or other rights, or representing any commitment by either Party to enter into any additional agreement, by implication or otherwise, or creating any partnership, joint venture or agency relationship.

assistant: No
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 may at any time opt-out of this feature by deactivating it , in which case we will de-list your contacts ( unless their details were provided by other sources ) .

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Following the Closing, Fund G shall exercise commercially reasonable efforts to deliver to the Partnership the Easements relating to the Sunset Assets. Following the Closing, the Partnership shall exercise commercially reasonable efforts to close the transactions under the Sunset Purchase Agreements.

assistant: Closings
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 Indentures, an “Event of Default” occurs when the Issuer materially breaches its obligations, is notified of the breach by the Trustee or by a certain percentage of investors, and fails to cure the material breach for a period of thirty days. (Sample Indenture, App. A. at 87). Citibank argues that Plaintiffs fail to plead that any Issuer in fact received notice of a default. (Def.’s Mem. 28-29). But Citibank may not excuse its failure tq perform the additional duties required of it after an Event of Default by pointing to its own failure to give notice; that is, Citibank “is not permitted to take advantage of its own wrong.” In re Bankers Trust Co., 450 F.3d at 129 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted); see, e.g., Okla. Police Pension & Ret. Sys., 291 F.R.D. at 70-71 :(<HOLDING>). This principle holds true even if Citibank Options: A. holding a bankruptcy trustee to constructiveinquiry notice B. holding that the trustee cannot rely on its own failure to give notice to escape its own liability even though an event of default could be triggered by notice either from the trustee or from twentyfive percent of the security holders C. holding that a chapter 7 trustee was the only person with authority to bring a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee D. recognizing that the court may take judicial notice of its own docket E. holding that appellate court may judicially notice its own records

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the trustee cannot rely on its own failure to give notice to escape its own liability even though an event of default could be triggered by notice either from the trustee or from twentyfive percent of the security holders
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 notice, request, instruction or other document to be given hereunder by any party to the other shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given (i) on the date of delivery if delivered personally, or by telecopy or telefacsimile, (ii) on the first business day following the date of dispatch if delivered by Federal Express or other next-day courier service, or (iii) on the third business day following the date of receipt requested, postage prepaid. All notices hereunder shall be delivered as set forth below, or pursuant to such other instructions as may be designated in writing by the party to receive such notice.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if you choose to make an in app purchase , you will be prompted to enter details for your account with your software store ( `` your iap account '' ) , and your iap account will be charged for the in app purchase in accordance with the terms disclosed to you at the time of purchase as well as the general terms for in app purchases that apply to your iap account .

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you agree that yahoo may , without prior notice , immediately terminate , limit your access to or suspend your yahoo account , any associated email address , and access to the yahoo services .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to the satisfaction (or waiver in writing by each Requisite Lender and the Administrative Agent) of the conditions set forth in Section 6 hereof, and in reliance on the representations, warranties, covenants and agreements contained in this Amendment, to the extent required under the Senior Subordination Agreement, each Agent and Lender hereby consents to the Guarantors distributing the proceeds of the Incremental Senior Term Loan to Borrower and the subsequent consummation of the Permitted Redemption by Borrower in accordance with the terms of the Credit Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to the limitations on Tenant's assignment and subleasing provided in the Lease, this Twelfth Amendment shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.

assistant: Benefits
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 or other communications delivered or given under this Lease shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given if hand-delivered, sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or nationally-utilized overnight delivery service, Portable Document Format (“PDF”) or confirmed facsimile transmission, as the case may be. Such notices shall be addressed to the parties at the addresses set forth above, or to such other address as may be designated by any party in a writing delivered to the other in the manner set forth in this Section 15. Notices sent by certified or registered mail shall be deemed received three (3) business days after being mailed. All other notices shall be deemed received on the date delivered. Routine communications may be made by e-mail to Lessor at mzuk@kglfo.com and to Lessee at joseph.yospe@msg.com or fax to Lessor at (646) 304-2632 and to Lessee at (212) 465-6148.

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: position on what constitutes "examined.” 6 . According to Citrix’s invalidity expert Dr. Jeffay, the name "ReadMe” was a play on the Alice in Wonderland story, in which Alice confronts magical treats labeled "Eat Me” and "Drink Me.” 7 . However, courts have found software manuals to be sufficiently enabling. See Microstrategy Inc. v. Bus. Objects Americas, 410 F.Supp.2d 348, 362-63 (D.Del.2006), aff'd, 238 Fed.Appx. 605 (Fed.Cir.2007) ("manuals are themselves prior art and provide clear and convincing evidence sufficient to support a conclusion of invalidity”). 8 . Because the Court will limit its analysis to prior public use, Pixion's reliance on cases concerned only with prior publication is unavailing. See e.g. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed.Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). 9 . See also Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Options: A. holding prior publication must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim internal citations omitted B. holding that the elements of a hostile work environment claim are the same across discrimination contexts and applying those elements specifically to the age discrimination in employment act C. holding that apprendi leaves undisturbed the principle that while the prosecution must indeed prove all the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt the legislation creating the offense can place the burden of proving affirmative defenses on the defendant internal citations omitted D. holding that the creditor must prove the elements of actual fraud E. holding that the plaintiffs failure to meet any one of the elements requires dismissal of claim

assistant: The best answer is A. holding prior publication must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim internal citations 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: Assignee represents and warrants to Commission and Assignor that: (i) Assignee is the successor in interest to Assignor with respect to the Declaration and Deed of Trust; (ii) Assignee is thereby a party to the Declaration and Deed of Trust; and (iii) Assignee has the power and authority to enter into this Assignment Agreement.

assistant: Representations
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: under the substantial evidence test. Dale, ¶22, 188 P.3d at 561. Importantly, our review of any particular decision turns not on whether we agree with the outcome, but on whether the agency could reasonably conclude as it did based on all the evidence before it. Id. We review an agency’s conclusions of law de novo, and will affirm only if the agency’s conclusions are in accordance with the law. Id., ¶ 26,188 P.3d at 561-62. DISCUSSION [¶ 11] Mr. Herrera contends the OAH’s determination that he was entitled to benefits was supported by substantial evidence and must be affirmed. He points to his testimony that his physician prescribed Lexapro for pain, numbness and depression. He also points to his testimony that when he stopped ta Div. v. Summers, 987 P.2d 153, 155-56 (Wyo.1999) (<HOLDING>); and Frantz v. Campbell County Memorial Hosp., Options: A. holding location of named driver exclusion in endorsement did not make it ambiguous exclusion applied to all coverage afforded by the policy including the um coverage B. holding second sentence of a nearly identical exclusion did not limit the scope of the exclusion C. holding the oah erroneously applied the exclusion to a diagnosis given in 1993 before the exclusion was enacted D. holding exclusion was not ambiguous E. holding exclusion was harmless error

assistant: The best answer is C. holding the oah erroneously applied the exclusion to a diagnosis given in 1993 before the exclusion was enacted