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: already been removed from the United States. The court held that he was not ‘in custody’ for the purposes of habeas because he was “acting” outside the United States, and thus under no “greater restraint than any other non-citizen living outside American borders.” Id. Here, Petitioner is based in the United States and has been residing within its borders since 1995. There is nothing in the facts to suggest that she moved outside the United States during the removal proceedings; nor that she has sought to do so. These facts are distinct from Patel, which dilutes any effect that case may have on existing precedent. See, Nakaranurack, 68 F.3d 290. Cf. See, Miranda v. Reno, 238 F.3d 1156, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 2001) and Kumarasamy v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 453 F.3d 169 at 172-73 (3d Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>) The next case, Shamim v. Chertoff No. C Options: A. holding that a habeas petitioner must be in custody under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed B. recognizing that federal habeas statutes require petitioner to be in custody when petition filed C. recognizing that aedpa would not apply to a habeas petition that was pending at the time of its enactment D. holding that where a person has been removed from united states at time of filing a habeas petition the custody requirement is not met E. holding that a petitioner may amend a habeas petition rather than filing a second or successive petition when the first petition has not yet reached a final decision

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that where a person has been removed from united states at time of filing a habeas petition the custody requirement is not met
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 notices, requests, demands and other communications provided for by this Agreement ("Notices") shall be sufficient if in writing and delivered in person or sent by a nationally recognized overnight courier service or by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to Executive at the last address Executive has filed in writing with the Employer or, in the case of any Notice to be given to Employer, at its main offices, attention of the Chief Executive Officer, and shall be effective on the date of delivery in person or by courier or three (3) days after the date such Notice is mailed by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested (whether or not the requested receipt is returned).

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: plaintiffs their fees under the Declaratory Judgments Act. Kenneth Leventhal & Co., 978 S.W.2d at 258; see also City of Carrollton, 308 S.W.3d at 454. C. The declarations duplicate issues already before the trial court. A party also may not use a declaratory judgment action to seek the same relief afforded under another of its causes of action in order to obtain attorney’s fees. City of Houston v. Texan Land & Cattle Co., 138 S.W.3d 382, 392 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.). Thus, if the declarations obtained in the judgment “merely duplicated issues already before the trial court,” the party may not recover fees. MBM Fin. Corp., 292 S.W.3d at 671; see Anderson v. New Property Owners’ Ass’n of Newport, Inc., 122 S.W.3d 378, 390-91 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). These principles confirm that the Declaratory Options: A. holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action B. holding property owner not entitled to award of attorneys fees under declaratory judgments act because his declaratory judgment counterclaim did not present any issues beyond the homeowners associations cause of action C. holding award of attorneys fees to defendants under the declaratory judgments act was proper because recovery of fees was separately authorized by section 5006a of the texas property code D. holding attorneys fees waived in lawsuit brought under declaratory judgments act to interpret statute E. recognizing that a party can obtain declaratory relief but still not be entitled to an award of attorneys fees under the declaratory judgments act

assistant: The best answer is B. holding property owner not entitled to award of attorneys fees under declaratory judgments act because his declaratory judgment counterclaim did not present any issues beyond the homeowners associations cause of action
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 LOAN PARTY AND LENDER EACH HEREBY WAIVE ANY AND ALL RIGHTS IT MAY HAVE TO A JURY TRIAL IN CONNECTION WITH ANY LITIGATION, PROCEEDING OR COUNTERCLAIM ARISING WITH RESPECT TO RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES HERETO OR UNDER THE LOAN DOCUMENTS OR WITH RESPECT TO ANY CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF ANY DISCUSSIONS, NEGOTIATIONS OR COMMUNICATIONS INVOLVING OR RELATED TO ANY PROPOSED RENEWAL, EXTENSION, AMENDMENT, MODIFICATION, RESTRUCTURE, FORBEARANCE, WORKOUT, OR ENFORCEMENT OF THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THE LOAN DOCUMENTS.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: be subject to legal issues" is unverifiable. 70 . See Janklow v. Newsweek, Inc., 788 F.2d 1300, 1302 (8th Cir.1986) ("A statement regarding a potentially provable proposition can be phrased so that it is hard to establish, or it may intrinsically be unsuited to any sort of quantification."); Ollman v. Evans, 750 F.2d 970, 979 (D.C.Cir.1984) (Insofar as a statement lacks a plausible method of verification, a reasonable reader will not believe that the statement has specific factual content."). 71 . See State v. Carpenter, 171 P.3d 41, 48, 51-52 (Alaska 2007) (reasoning that sexual insults made during a radio show known for its lewdness "were not factually verifiable" and therefore, although "offensive to any rational person," the statements "were not defamatory"); Sands, 34 P.3d at 960 (<HOLDING>); see also Ollman, 750 F.2d at 981 ("In Options: A. holding statements that a church was a cult and its pastor a cult recruiter were not factual statements capable of being proven true or false and therefore could not support a defamation action B. holding that prosecutors statements were not evidence and could not support restitution order C. holding analysts statements insufficient to satisfy particularity requirements because plaintiffs failed to identify with specificity the statements made by a particular defendant or describe how those statements were false or misleading D. holding that false statements are constitutionally protected E. holding that statements in proof of loss are not conclusive claimant could explain statements

assistant: The best answer is A. holding statements that a church was a cult and its pastor a cult recruiter were not factual statements capable of being proven true or false and therefore could not support a defamation action
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 DEBTOR HEREBY AGREES TO INDEMNIFY COLLATERAL AGENT AND ITS SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS, AGENTS, ATTORNEYS, AND EMPLOYEES, FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL LIABILITIES, DAMAGES, PENALTIES, SUITS, COSTS, AND EXPENSES OF ANY KIND AND NATURE (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL EXPENSES OF LITIGATION OR PREPARATION THEREFOR WHETHER OR NOT COLLATERAL AGENT IS A PARTY THERETO) IMPOSED ON, INCURRED BY OR ASSERTED AGAINST COLLATERAL AGENT OR ITS SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS, AGENTS, ATTORNEYS, AND EMPLOYEES, IN ANY WAY RELATING TO OR ARISING OUT OF THIS SECURITY AGREEMENT, OR THE MANUFACTURE, PURCHASE, ACCEPTANCE, REJECTION, OWNERSHIP, DELIVERY, LEASE, POSSESSION, USE, OPERATION, CONDITION, SALE, RETURN OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF ANY COLLATERAL (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, LATENT AND OTHER DEFECTS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE BY THE Collateral Agent OR SUCH DEBTOR, AND ANY CLAIM FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INFRINGEMENT).

assistant: Indemnity
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: an isolated phrase. We therefore conclude that the Anti-Indemnity Statute does not apply to the Tenneco-MRO agreement. (519 So.2d at 1196). As noted earlier, the Supreme Court of Louisiana has not addressed this issue. At least two courts have held that the “related to” language of the Act should be broadly construed. Copous v. Odeco Oil & Gas Co., 835 F.2d 115 (5th Cir.1988); Livings v. Service Truck Lines of Tex., Inc., 467 So.2d 595 (La.App. 3d Cir.1985). It is readily apparent that the decided cases are not completely harmonious on the applicability of the Act to a contract concerning services performed in connection with a gas transmission pipeline. One need only compare this court’s opinion in Clarkco Contractors v. Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline, 615 F.Supp. 775 (M.D.La.1985) (<HOLDING>) with Murray v. Trunkline Gas Co., 544 So.2d 28 Options: A. holding that an agencys policy shift reallocating the burden of proof from natural gas importers to parties opposing importation was based on a reasonable interpretation of the natural gas act B. holding that the act did not apply to a pipeline contract between texas eastern a major natural gas transmission company and clarkco its pipeline contractor in connection with a pipeline explosion and fire which occurred in west feliciana parish C. holding that the natural gas act did not completely preempt state law claims within its scope and thus the federal court did not have removal jurisdiction over the contract price dispute filed in state court D. holding that permanent easement on land containing natural gas pipeline reduced value of directly encumbered land by 75 E. holding that permanent easement arising from condemnation of pipeline easement reduced property value by 20

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the act did not apply to a pipeline contract between texas eastern a major natural gas transmission company and clarkco its pipeline contractor in connection with a pipeline explosion and fire which occurred in west feliciana parish
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: The Receiving Party acknowledges that the technical specifications as well as all documents to be disclosed are not subject to appropriation, remain the property of Disclosing Party or any third party, as applicable. 4.3 Each Party agrees to use Confidential Information only for the purposes of this Agreement. 10. Neither the execution of this Agreement nor the furnishing of any information under this Agreement shall be construed as granting any Party or any of its representatives, either expressly or by implication, any license or right to use any Confidential Information for its own benefit or the benefit of any other person, firm or entity, and each party expressly agrees not to so use any such information.

assistant: Yes
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: contributed to the damage,” preclude dismissal at this time. See Ariz.Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01(B). According to Allstate and the Trustee, they did not learn of their securities and fraud-based claims until July 2009 when the Town provided them with the 2005 Report, which contained the event and attendance projections that were substantially less than those in the Official Statements. Thus, while the Town contends that Allstate and the Trustee discovered or should have discovered the cause of its damages when Fitch lowered its rating on the Bonds, the parties’ pleadings set forth facts indicating that they did not discover the alleged fraud underlying the devaluation until the 2005 Feasibility Study was revealed. See Aaron v. Fromkin, 196 Ariz. 224, 228, 994 P.2d 1039, 1043 (Ct.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). Along the same lines, it is also unclear at Options: A. holding that the time of discovery of fraud is not a proper matter for summary judgment B. holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law C. holding that discovery of the fraudulent practice on which liability is based rather than the discovery of damages commences the running of the limitations period for securities fraud D. holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense E. holding that oneyear period commences on date of discovery of the fraudulent nature of the transfer

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that discovery of the fraudulent practice on which liability is based rather than the discovery of damages commences the running of the limitations period for securities fraud
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: by visiting our website and accessing the information , resources , services , products , and tools we provide , you understand and agree to accept and adhere to the following terms and conditions as stated in this policy ( hereafter referred to as ` user agreement ' ) , along with the terms and conditions as stated in our privacy policy ( please refer to the privacy policy section below for more information ) .

assistant: Contract by using
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 have filed or caused to be filed when due all federal tax returns or extensions and all material state and local tax returns or extensions that are required to be filed, and have paid or caused to be paid all Taxes as shown on said returns or any assessment received other than those that are being contested in good faith and adequately disclosed and fully provided for in the consolidated financial statements of the Borrower in accordance with GAAP. To the knowledge of the Loan Parties, the filed returns accurately reflect in all material respects all liability for Taxes of the Loan Parties, as applicable, for the periods covered thereby. Except as set forth on Schedule 4.8 , none of the Loan Parties’ tax returns are being audited on the date of this Agreement and as of the date of this Agreement none of the Loan Parties, have been notified of any intention by any taxing authority to conduct such an audit.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: immunity is inapplicable with respect to allegations of witness tampering, because such activity is directed at "the collection of information to be used in a prosecution.” Moore, however, is inconsistent with Brandley v. Keeshan, 64 F.3d 196, 201 (5th Cir.1995), in which we held that the prosecutor retained his absolute immunity even in the face of allegations that he had dire (5th Cir.1979); see also Reid v. New Hampshire, 56 nduct unprotected because it occurred before empanelment of grand jury or determination of probable cause). 16 . See House v. Belford, 956 F.2d 711, 721-22 (7th Cir.1992) (finding prosecutor entitled to absolute immunity where he denied that he had instructed deputy to bar courtroom to defendant's family and potential witnesses); cf. Brandley, 64 F.3d at 201 (<HOLDING>). 17 . Brandley, 64 F.3d at 201 (witness Options: A. holding that witness immunity does not bar a claim against a retained expert witness for negligence performance of his duty B. holding prosecutor had absolute immunity for claim for eliciting misleading testimony in a probable cause hearing C. holding that while a witness and prosecutor were protected by absolute immunity for their participation in judicial proceedings they were not entitled to absolute immunity on a 1983 claim that they conspired to present false testimony D. holding that a prosecutor accused of knowingly presenting false testimony at trial is protected by absolute immunity E. holding that prosecutor retained absolute immunity despite allegations of witness intimidation in attempt to suppress testimony

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that prosecutor retained absolute immunity despite allegations of witness intimidation in attempt to suppress testimony
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 to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given if delivered to, or sent by email, personal delivery or prepaid registered post addressed to, the respective addresses of the parties appearing on the first page of this Agreement (or to such other address as one party provides to the other in a notice given according to this paragraph). Where a notice is given by registered post it shall be conclusively deemed to be given and received on the fifth day after its deposit in a Canada post office any place in Canada.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties hereto acknowledge that this Agreement has been prepared by Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C. (“ RMF ”), counsel for Mobiquity, and that RMF does not represent either of the parties hereto. The parties hereto further acknowledge that RMF has not provided any legal or tax advice or guidance to the parties hereto with respect to the transactions contemplated herein, and that they have been afforded the opportunity to be represented by counsel in connection with this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby and they have either done so or elected not to do so. Accordingly, any rule or law or any legal decision that would require the interpretation of any claimed ambiguities in this Agreement against the party that drafted it has no application and is expressly waived by the parties hereto. The provisions of this Agreement shall be interpreted in a reasonable manner to give effect to the intent of the parties hereto.

assistant: Interpretations
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 provisions of this Pledge Agreement are independent of and separable from each other. If any provision hereof shall for any reason be held invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision hereof, but this Pledge Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall terminate upon the earlier of (i) the conclusion of the Company Stockholders Meeting at which the vote contemplated in Section 3(a) of this Agreement has occurred and the Subject Shares have been voted as specified therein, (ii) the date of any amendment, waiver or modification of Merger Agreement without the Stockholder’s prior written consent that has the effect of (1) decreasing the Merger Consideration, (2) changing the form of Merger Consideration, in each case, payable to the stockholders of the Company pursuant to the Merger Agreement in effect on the date of this Agreement or (3) otherwise affecting such Stockholder in an adverse manner and (iii) the termination of the Merger Agreement in accordance with its terms; provided , that Section 8 of this Agreement shall survive and instead shall expire upon the expiration of all rights of Parent thereunder.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As a condition to receiving the payments and benefits set forth in Section 4(b), Executive shall be required, within 60 days of Executive’s Retirement, to execute, deliver and not revoke (with any applicable revocation period having expired) a general release of claims in a form attached hereto as Exhibit A. To the extent required by Section 19, any payments or benefits that would otherwise have been made during such 60-day period shall not be made and shall be accumulated and paid in a single lump sum on the expiration of such 60-day period.

assistant: Releases
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: please be aware that by submitting content to this website by email , postings on this website or otherwise , including any hotel reviews , questions , comments , suggestions , ideas or the like contained in any submissions ( collectively , `` submissions '' ) , you grant tripadvisor and its affiliates a nonexclusive , royalty-free , perpetual , transferable , irrevocable and fully sub-licensable right to ( a ) use , reproduce , modify , adapt , translate , distribute , publish , create derivative works from and publicly display and perform such submissions throughout the world in any media , now known or hereafter devised , for any purpose ; and ( b ) use the name that you submit in connection with such submission .

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: The parties hereto agree that, except as provided in Section 2.10, it is their intention that the Collateral for the Priority Lien Obligations and the Collateral for the Junior Lien Obligations be identical. In furtherance of the foregoing, the parties hereto agree, subject to the other provisions of this Agreement, that the Security Documents creating or evidencing the Priority Liens and the Junior Liens, will be in all material respects the same forms of documents other than as is necessary or appropriate to reflect the first lien and second lien nature of the Obligations thereunder.

assistant: 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: affirmative relief. For affirmative counterclaims, Trial Rule 13(J)(1) simply does not operate to toll- the statute of limitations. ' Crivaro, supra; Estate of Daugherty, supra. [14] In sum, Wittig’s counterclaim was untimely filed and does not otherwise qualify for exemption under Trial Rule 13(J)(1). As such, it was time-barred and subject to dismissal. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying the Deputies’ motion to dismiss the counterclaim pursuant to Trial Rule 12(B)(6). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent w d 886, 888 (1977) (applying view that institution of plaintiff's action tolls or suspends running of statute of limitations governing a compulsory counterclaim); Armstrong v. Logsdon, 469 S.W.2d 342, 343 (Ky.App.1971) (<HOLDING>). 6 .See also Barnard v. Knox/Winamac Cmty. Options: A. holding that the institution of plaintiffs suit tolls or suspends the running of the statute of limitations governing a compulsory counterclaim B. holding that a timely petition for administrative review stops the running of the statute of limitations C. holding that when plaintiff files timely action he effectively tolls running of statute of limitations for that occurrence meaning no justification for barring defendants counterclaim arising from that occur rence D. holding that where counterclaim arises out of same transaction alleged in plaintiffs complaint is not barred by a running of the statute of limitations thereafter rather statute of limitations is suspended until counterclaim is filed E. holding that a timely motion for reconsideration tolls the statute of limitations even if the motion is procedurally invalid

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that when plaintiff files timely action he effectively tolls running of statute of limitations for that occurrence meaning no justification for barring defendants counterclaim arising from that occur rence
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 use the net proceeds from the sale of the Securities hereunder (a) in connection with the commercialization of the POWERHOUSE™ product, and (b) for working capital purposes, and shall not use such proceeds: (i) for the satisfaction of any portion of the Company’s debt (other than payment of trade payables in the ordinary course of the Company’s business and prior practices), (ii) for the redemption of any Common Stock or Common Stock Equivalents, (iii) for the settlement of any outstanding litigation or (iv) in violation of FCPA or OFAC regulations.

assistant: Use Of Proceeds
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: guerillas. Review of the record, however, shows that claim was sufficiently presented to the BIA. Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 321-22 (5th Cir.2009). The BIA’s decision is reviewed for substantial evidence. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1997); Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under this standard, the IA 2007) (finding proposed group of wealthy Guatemalans “not so readily ‘identifiable’ or sufficiently defined as to meet the requirements of a particular social group within the meaning of the refugee definition”) (emphasis in original). Insofar as Segovia asserts he is entitled to relief because political unrest makes it unsafe for him to return to El Salvador, his claim is similarly unavailing. Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 190 (5th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). DENIED. * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Options: A. holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution B. holding applicants fear of persecution cannot be based solely on general violence and civil disorder C. holding that absent past persecution an alien can demonstrate eligibility for asylum based on a wellfounded fear of future persecution by demonstrating that he or she subjectively fears persecution and that this fear is objectively reasonable D. holding that general crime conditions are not a stated ground for a wellfounded fear of future persecution E. holding that to qualify for asylum the fear of future persecution must be based on reasonably specific information showing a real threat to individual persecution not mere assertions of fear of possible persecution or speculative conclusions quoting mapouya 487 f3d at 412

assistant: The best answer is B. holding applicants fear of persecution cannot be based solely on general violence and civil disorder
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: Executive shall be a Executive Vice-President and Director of Stores of the Company or such other title as designated by the Chief Executive Officer or the Company’s Board of Directors. Executive shall assume those duties on the Commencement Date.

assistant: Titles
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: agreements was the product of collusion among all defendants. (Tr. at 33-35; Pl. Mem. at 18-19.) This Court disagrees. Plaintiffs propose two distinct grounds for invalidation of their arbitration agreements: (1) collusion by defendants renders them agreements unenforceable, and (2) defendants’ collusive beh igible economic transaction” in which the parties agreed to a mechanism for resolving disputes. In contrast to the circumstance where Chase and Citibank withheld material information from cardholders, there is no evidence that Bank One Delaware (f.k.a. First USA), Bank of America, MBNA or Household withheld relevant information from their cardholders. Thus, these issuing banks’ arbitration agreements may be enforced. See Rooney v. Columbia Pictures, 538 F.Supp. 211 (S.D.N.Y.1982) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs’ argument that defendants’ Options: A. holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing B. holding that an agreement in violation of antitrust laws may be enforceable where the parties underlying conduct is legal C. holding that plaintiff need only demonstrate a significant threat of injury from an impending violation of the antitrust laws D. holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation E. holding that a court may enforce a contract when it does not mandate illegal conduct despite an antitrust violation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an agreement in violation of antitrust laws may be enforceable where the parties underlying conduct is legal
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: must make a “substantial investment in the trademark.” Moodie, 889 F.2d at 743. In Moodie, we explained the reason for requiring investment: The rationale behind this holding is that de minimus investment in a trademark is not sufficient for the alleged dealer to be “over the barrel” so as to warrant protection under the WFDL. As the WFDL protects dealers who face inherently superior bargaining power, those dealers with only a de minimus investment in the grantor’s trademark are not implicated. Moodie, 889 F.2d at 743. There, we held that the mere use of business cards did not amount to a “substantial investment,” even though the plaintiff at times printed his own cards. 889 F.2d at 743. See also Foerster, Inc. v. Atlas Metal Parts Co., 105 Wis.2d 17, 20, 313 N.W.2d 60 (Wis.1981) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, in Rakowski, we held that the Options: A. holding that probable cause is something more than mere suspicion B. holding that a factual finding must be supported by more than mere surmise or suspicion C. holding that even if such claims are cognizable under state law they are preempted in the case of generic drug manufacturers D. holding that there must be more than the mere use of a calling card identifying a manufacturers representative as an agent for a company before such representatives are dealerships E. holding that something more than a mere error of law is required to constitute misconduct

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that there must be more than the mere use of a calling card identifying a manufacturers representative as an agent for a company before such representatives are dealerships
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 PARTIES HERETO IRREVOCABLY WAIVES THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS TO A TRIAL BY JURY OF ANY CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON OR ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT, THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS, OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY OR THEREBY, IN ANY ACTION, PROCEEDING OR OTHER LITIGATION OF ANY TYPE BROUGHT BY ANY OF THE PARTIES AGAINST ANY OTHER PARTY OR ANY AGENT-RELATED PERSON, PARTICIPANT OR ASSIGNEE, WHETHER WITH RESPECT TO CONTRACT CLAIMS, TORT CLAIMS, OR OTHERWISE. EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO AGREES THAT ANY SUCH CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION SHALL BE TRIED BY A COURT TRIAL WITHOUT A JURY. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, THE PARTIES FURTHER AGREE THAT THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY IS WAIVED BY OPERATION OF THIS SECTION AS TO ANY ACTION, COUNTERCLAIM OR OTHER PROCEEDING WHICH SEEKS, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OR ENFORCEABILITY OF THIS AGREEMENT OR THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS OR ANY PROVISION HEREOF OR THEREOF. THIS WAIVER SHALL APPLY TO ANY SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS, RENEWALS, SUPPLEMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS TO THIS AGREEMENT AND THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Award Certificate shall extend to, be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Director and the Director’s legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns (subject, however, to the limitations set forth in Section 9 with respect to the transfer of this Award Certificate or any rights hereunder or of the Stock Units), and upon the Corporation and its successors and assigns, regardless of any change in the business structure of the Corporation, be it through spinoff, merger, sale of stock, sale of assets or any other transaction.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the time that Wright had to transfer the shares held by Westside Corporation or the time that Knowles’s obligation to provide services, at a below-market rate, to Wright or to Westside Partnership and/or Westside Corporation terminated. See Playoff Corp., — S.W.3d at -, 2008 WL 5194340, at *4 (stating that evidence showed that “alleged agreement left a material matter open for future adjustment” and agreement never occurred); Shaw v. Palmer, 197 S.W.3d 854, 856 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pet. denied) (concluding that summary judgment did not contain evidence of any agreement to pay “sum certain” as bonus, amount of bonus was indefinite at time of agreement and was open for future negotiation or discretion, and parties only “had a contingent agreement to agree”); Farone, 165 S.W.3d at 802 (<HOLDING>). We overrule the first issue of Knowles and Options: A. holding that under ohio law fraud claim failed because there was no evidence of reliance B. holding that contract failed for indefiniteness because there were essential terms upon which there was no agreement C. holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify D. holding that plaintiffs claim was moot because there was no standing because the supreme court considered plaintiffs claims to have drifted into the area of speculation and conjecture so that there was no cognizable injuryinfact and hence no case or controversy upon which jurisdiction could stand E. holding alleged contract to make 500000 line of credit available failed for indefiniteness when no evidence was introduced regarding interest rate of alleged loan or repayment terms

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that contract failed for indefiniteness because there were essential terms upon which there was no agreement
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 order a reward that is out of stock or unavailable for other reasons microsoft determines in its sole discretion , we may substitute a reward of comparable value or refund your points .

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 we have no obligation to store , maintain or provide you a copy of any content or information that you or others provide , except to the extent required by applicable law and as noted in our privacy policy .

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: EACH PARTY ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT ANY CONTROVERSY WHICH MAY ARISE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT IS LIKELY TO INVOLVE COMPLICATED AND DIFFICULT ISSUES AND, THEREFORE, EACH SUCH PARTY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVES ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN RESPECT OF ANY LEGAL ACTION ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS AGREEMENT. EACH PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT CERTIFIES AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT (A) NO REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY OTHER PARTY HAS REPRESENTED, EXPRESSLY OR OTHERWISE, THAT SUCH OTHER PARTY WOULD NOT SEEK TO ENFORCE THE FOREGOING WAIVER IN THE EVENT OF A LEGAL ACTION, (B) SUCH PARTY HAS CONSIDERED THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS WAIVER, (C) SUCH PARTY MAKES THIS WAIVER VOLUNTARILY, AND (D) SUCH PARTY HAS BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATIONS IN THIS SECTION 15 .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: specific intent of violating ERISA. Humphreys, 966 F.2d at 1043. The District Court suggested that since plaintiff did in fact obtain extensive medical benefits under Weastec’s health benefits plan and was never denied reimbursement, a reasonable jury could not find that Weastec engaged in prohibited conduct with the specific intent of violating ERISA, However, the statute indicates only that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant engaged in conduct for the purpose of interfering with his rights, not that the employer’s conduct actually had the effect of interfering with his rights. Other courts have recognized that a plaintiffs receipt of ERISA-protected benefits does not preclude an ERISA claim under § 510. See, e.g., Kowalski v. L & F Prods., 82 F.3d 1283, 1287 (3d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Kimbro v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 889 F.2d Options: A. holding that a plaintiff in an erisa denial of benefits case bears the burden of proving her entitlement to contractual benefits B. holding that an employees private arbitration agreement with her employer precluded her from filing suit against the employer under the adea C. holding that an employee who claims to have been terminated by her employer for having exercised her right to disability benefits raised a cognizable claim under 510 of erisa notwithstanding the fact that she received the benefits from her employer prior to termination D. holding that where employer paid benefits under group disability policy to employee under mistaken belief that his condition resulted from illness rather than injury arising out of and in course of employment employees acceptance of such benefits did not bar him from benefits to which he was entitled under workers compensation law and employer was properly allowed credit for payments made under disability policy E. holding that a claimants failure to list an impairment either in her application for disability benefits or through her testimony disposes of the claim because the alj was under no obligation to investigate a claim not presented at the time of the application for benefits and not offered at the hearing as a basis for disability

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an employee who claims to have been terminated by her employer for having exercised her right to disability benefits raised a cognizable claim under 510 of erisa notwithstanding the fact that she received the benefits from her employer prior to 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: Each party’s obligations under this Section 2.16 shall survive the resignation or replacement of Administrative Agent or any assignment of rights by, or the replacement of, a Lender, the termination of the Aggregate Commitment and the repayment, satisfaction or discharge of all obligations under any Loan Document.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: had been repealed for aliens placed in removal proceedings on or after April 1, 1997. See IIRIRA § 309(c)(1). At the hearing, the IJ informed Walker and the Huieoeheas that in light of the statutory amendments, the only relief even potentially available to them was a discretionary procedure known as “cancellation of removal.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). An alien must demonstrate ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States prior to applying for this new form of relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A). Furthermore, according to the “stop-time rule,” an alien’s continual presence in the United States is deemed to end once the INS begins removal proceedings by serving a Notice to Appear. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(l); Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1289 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Unaware of Huicochea-Gomez’s eleven-month Options: A. holding that neither aedpa nor iirira expressly repeals the availability of habeas review of deportation or removal orders B. holding that because petitioners proceedings commenced after the enactment of iirira petitioner was statutorily ineligible for suspension of deportation C. holding that the new stoptime rule applies to all aliens applying for either suspension of deportation under the old law or cancellation of removal under the iirira amendments D. holding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review aliens eligibility for special rule cancellation of removal E. holding that the procedural aspects of iirira 309c apply only to ongoing exclusion or deportation proceedings and are irrelevant in cases involving aliens whose orders of deportation or exclusion were final on the effective date

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the new stoptime rule applies to all aliens applying for either suspension of deportation under the old law or cancellation of removal under the iirira 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: second and third claims for relief is GRANTED, and these claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 1 . As to Foley's claims, I address these separately below. 2 . Even if 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c) were implicated in this case, I do not agree with plaintiffs that the statute allows the court to remand both federal and state law claims over which state law predominates. Plaintiffs cited several cases in support of this argument. Three of the cases, Alexander by Alexander v. Goldome Credit Corp., 772 F.Supp. 1217 (M.D.Ala. 1991); Holland v. World Omni Leasing, 764 F.Supp. 1442, 1444 (N.D.Ala.1991) and Martin v. Drummond Coal Co., 756 F.Supp. 524, 526 (N.D.Ala.1991), have been at least impliedly overruled by the Eleventh Circuit. See Reneau v. Oakwood Mobile Homes, 952 F.Supp. 724, 727 (N.D.Ala.1997) (<HOLDING>). Another case, Moore v. DeBiase, 766 F.Supp. Options: A. holding that 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and tenday appeal period applies citing united states v petty 82 f3d 809 810 8th cir1996 and united states v ono 72 f3d 101 10203 9th cir1995 B. holding that contractor waived right to sue city by failing to comply with notice provisions in the contract that were preconditions to litigation against the city C. holding that a city could conclude that mobile vendors have a deleterious effect on the economy of the city and could accordingly substantially curtail their operation if not totally ban them D. holding that city attorneys promise in an oral settlement agreement for city to annex and rezone land was within the legal authority of the city of joliet to accomplish and were not absolutely void acts per se therefore city could be estopped from avoiding enforcement of contract E. holding that these three cases were overruled by in re city of mobile 75 f3d 605 11th cir1996

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that these three cases were overruled by in re city of mobile 75 f3d 605 11th cir1996
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that this Note is collected in whole or in part through suit, arbitration, mediation, or other legal proceeding of any nature, then and in any such case there shall be added to the unpaid principal amount hereof all reasonable costs and expenses of collection, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney’s fees.

assistant: Costs