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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither Party shall issue any publicity, news release, or other announcement regarding this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement or the relationship or activities of the Parties thereunder, written or oral, whether to the public press, the trade, its customers, or the other Party’s customers without the other Party’s prior written consent; provided, however, either Party may issue such publicity, news release, or other announcement regarding this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement or the relationship or activities of the Parties thereunder, written or oral, as required by Applicable Laws and Regulations.

assistant: Publicity
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 Plan was originally adopted by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of the Company on September 2, 2014 (the “Original Effective Date”) and approved by the Company’s shareholders on September 16, 2014. This amended and restated Plan was approved by the Compensation Committee on April 5, 2019 (the “Effective Date”).

assistant: Effective Dates
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 subsequent to his trial. Effecting a significant change in Sixth Amendment jurisprudence, the Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that in criminal prosecutions, unless a declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him, the Confrontation Clause forbids use against the defendant of the declarant’s out-of-court testimonial statements admitted for their truth. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68-69, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). The Government does not dispute that the pleas, allocutions, and post-arrest statement made at a proffer session constitute “testimonial statements” of the sort barred by Crawford. We assume without deciding that this characterization is correct. Cf. United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); see also Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. at Options: A. holding that in order to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment based on a plea of guilty or no contest a defendant must bring forward a full statement of facts including a transcription of the plea proceedings B. holding that a plea allocution is a testimonial statement C. holding that the defendant was entitled to have his plea accepted absent a sound reason for rejecting the plea D. holding that plea of guilty or nolo contendere is not rendered involuntary because it is a product of plea bargaining an accepted plea bargain must be recorded and court may accept a bargained plea to a lesser offense reasonably related to a charged offense E. recognizing that a voluntary and understanding guilty plea entered without the benefit of a plea bargain waives all nonjurisdictional defects that occurred before the entry of the plea

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a plea allocution is a testimonial statement
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: S. Sprouse Residuary Trust, which is a named defendant in this action. For the sake of simplicity, we will refer only to Mr. Sprouse in this opinion. 4 .Ms. Bagwell, who is not a lawyer, also testified that she thought that the original five-year lease was on "a year[-]to[-]year basis.” 5 . Mr. Sprouse did not take issue with the $534 award for the damage to Mr. Ellis's corn crop. 6 . See also 2 Friedman on Leases § 14.301, at 915 (noting that payment of increased rent under an option constitutes an acceptance of the option). 7 . Painter v. Town of Groveland, 79 So.2d 765, 767 (Fla.1955) (finding such a presumption contrary to statute); Branagen v. Winders & Alm, 194 Iowa 461, 187 N.W. 440, 440-41 (Iowa 1922); Schiltz v. Teledirect Int'l, Inc., 524 N.W.2d 671, 674 (Iowa Ct.App.1994) (<HOLDING>); Elec. Sales Eng’rs, Inc. v. Urban Renewal & Options: A. holding there was no renewal but finding estoppel on the part of the landlord B. holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination under title vii was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record C. holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record D. recognizing the abuse of discretion standard and the requirement of evidentiary support for a finding of estoppel E. holding that estoppel was a question of fact

assistant: The best answer is A. holding there was no renewal but finding estoppel on the part of the landlord
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: this constituted fraud and inequitable conduct on the PTO. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that Warner Chilcott knew that the ’394 patent was not valid, as it was “anticipated and obvious in light of the prior art” before listing the patent in the Orange Book. (Id. ¶ 94.) Plaintiffs allege that “Warner Chilcott’s listing of the ’394 [p]atent was objectively and subjectively baseless because Warner Chilcott did not believe and could not reasonably have believed that the ’394 [pjatent could be asserted against manufacturers of generic versions of Loestrin 24.” (Id. ¶ 97.) It was listed to create an obstacle to generic competition. (Id.) Defendants argue that this claim only survives if Plaintiffs’ Walker Process fraud or sham litigation claims survive. See Solodyn, 2015 WL 5458570, *12 (<HOLDING>). Because the underlying conduct has survived' 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 activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation C. holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a 2 claim D. holding that listing presumptively valid patents in the orange book and enforcing them against infringers are not bases for an antitrust claim quoting in re lipitor antitrust litig no 312cv2389 pgs 2013 wl 4780496 at 21 dnj sept 5 2013 E. holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that listing presumptively valid patents in the orange book and enforcing them against infringers are not bases for an antitrust claim quoting in re lipitor antitrust litig no 312cv2389 pgs 2013 wl 4780496 at 21 dnj sept 5 2013
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: impeachment was a matter of trial strategy. We cannot say that counsel’s strategy was unreasonable; the fact that the strategy was ultimately unsuccessful is not a sufficient reason to deem his representation ineffective. See People v. Palmer, 162 Ill. 2d 465, 480 (1994) (noting that mere errors in trial strategy does not establish incompetence, “ ‘even if [this judgement is shown to be] clearly wrong in retrospect’ ”), quoting United States v. Yancey, 827 F.2d 83, 90 (7th Cir. 1987). In our view, counsel’s decision to withdraw the objection to the alleged hearsay statements was trial strategy; such tactical decisions, even if ultimately unsuccessful, are generally not sufficient to support a successful claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See Orange, 168 Ill. 2d at 153 (<HOLDING>). Defendant also argues that we should overlook Options: A. holding that counsels failure to move to suppress the defendants confession constituted ineffective assistance because it was obvious that the confession would have been suppressed B. holding that trial counsels failure to call defendants family members as witnesses during penalty phase was reasonable trial strategy and not ineffective assistance of counsel C. holding counsels failure to object to victim impact testimony and evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel when the trial record was silent as to counsels strategy D. holding that defendant failed to show that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not objecting to the states leading questions when there was no evidence that such failure was not based on trial strategy E. holding that trial counsels decision to submit evidence to the jury that his confession was coerced rather than submitting the evidence to the judge in a motion to suppress was a matter of trial strategy and thus did not constitute ineffective assistance

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that trial counsels decision to submit evidence to the jury that his confession was coerced rather than submitting the evidence to the judge in a motion to suppress was a matter of trial strategy and thus did not constitute ineffective assistance
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: ( b ) any skype number purchased before 21 july 2009 and allocated to you by a skype manager administrator shall be taken back by the administrator of the skype manager , if you leave the skype manager account for any reason .

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 U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 452 U.S. 713 101 S.Ct. 3132 69 L.Ed.2d 367 Henry KISSINGER et al., petitioners,v.Morton HALPERIN et al No. 79-880 Supreme Court of the United States June 22, 1981 Rehearing Denied Aug. 28, 1981. See 453 U.S. 928, 102 S.Ct. 892. On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment with respect to petitioners Kissinger, Nixon, and Mitchell is affirmed by an equally divided Court. With respect to petitioner Haldeman, the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. 2 Justice REHNQUIST took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

assistant: 9
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: therefor....” 17 Del. C. § 132(c)(4). The General Assembly further granted Del-DOT the power to do “whatever is incidental and germane to the scope of the duties and powers conferred on it by law.” 17 Del. C. § 132(d). Statutes that vest the power of eminent domain in an agency must be strictly construed, however, because, by their operative nature, they subjugate the rights of private property owners to the greater public need. State ex rel. Sharp v. 0.6878 Acres of Land, 105 A.2d 205, 206 (Del.Super.1954). Despite the strict construction we must accord 17 Del. C. § 132, our overriding goal is to determine the intent of the legislature. In this vein, we note that the Superior Court has construed the statute to allow DelDOT to condemn pro N.C.App. 609, 456 S.E.2d 842, 845-46 (1995) (<HOLDING>). The same rationale is applicable here. Were Options: A. holding that members of the board of trustees of an elementary school had standing to challenge the actions of the county board of education because they suffered an actual injury when the county board nullified their unanimous vote to reject a candidate for principal of the elementary school B. holding that a county ordinance imposing an impact fee on new residential construction to be used for new school facilities did not constitute an unauthorized delegation of power from the county to the school board because the fundamental policy decisions were made by the county and the discretion of the school board was sufficiently limited C. holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings D. holding that county board of education was statutorily authorized to condemn land for use as wetlands mitigation as necessary to construction of new athletic facilities E. holding that while dibc appears to be in the habit of unilaterally condemning land that it does not own the bridge company must be treated as a private entity lacking authority to condemn land

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that county board of education was statutorily authorized to condemn land for use as wetlands mitigation as necessary to construction of new athletic facilities
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 GUARANTOR HEREBY KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTENTIONALLY WAIVES TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW ANY RIGHTS IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN RESPECT OF ANY LITIGATION BASED HEREON, OR ARISING OUT OF, UNDER, OR IN CONNECTION WITH, EACH CREDIT DOCUMENT, OR ANY COURSE OF CONDUCT, COURSE OF DEALING, STATEMENTS (WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN) OR ACTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT, ANY OTHER SECURED PARTY OR ANY OBLIGOR IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. EACH GUARANTOR ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT IT HAS RECEIVED FULL AND SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION FOR THIS PROVISION (AND EACH OTHER PROVISION OF EACH OTHER CREDIT DOCUMENT TO WHICH IT IS A PARTY) AND THAT THIS PROVISION IS A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT AND EACH LENDER ENTERING INTO THE CREDIT 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: but the Names who are personally hable on the contracts, it is therefore the Names who are the real parties in interest in this lawsuit. See Stipulation, ¶¶ 16-21, 39. In other district courts, the question of jurisdiction of a Lloyd’s London syndicate has been probed and resolved. While the decisions of the other districts do not bind this Court, the Court finds the reasoning and analysis of the other courts to be persuasive on this issue. The District Courts for the District of Maine, the Northern District of Illinois, and the District of Hawaii have thoroughly examined and analyzed the proper way to categorize a Lloyd’s syndicate for diversity jurisdiction purposes. See Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Certain Member Cos. of the Inst. of London Underwriters, 870 F.Supp. 3 (D.Me.1994) (<HOLDING>); International Ins. Co. v. Certain Options: A. holding that the citizenship of lloyds is determined by that of all names B. holding that for diversity purposes the citizenship of a llc is determined by the citizenship of all of its members C. holding that although the question of diversity jurisdiction is distinct from that of immunity the analysis of citizenship determinations for eleventh amendment immunity and diversity jurisdiction are the same D. holding that defective allegations of citizenship may be amended to establish diversity jurisdiction E. holding that citizenship of active underwriters and names with lloyds london had to be considered for purposes of diversity jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that citizenship of active underwriters and names with lloyds london had to be considered for purposes of diversity jurisdiction
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 forum State.”). TH Agric. & Nutrition, LLC v. Ace Eur. Grp. Ltd., 488 F.3d at 1287-88. Thus, to establish specific personal jurisdiction that satisfies due process, a plaintiff must present evidence of “three salient factors that together indicate ‘purposeful direction’: (a) an intentional action ... that was (b) expressly aimed at the forum state ... with (c) knowledge that the brunt of the injury would be felt in the forum state.” Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d at 1239-40 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court of the United States has held, however, that the mere foreseeability of harm occurring in a particular forum will not support a finding of minimum contacts. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 295, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980)(<HOLDING>). In Roberts v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 100 N.M. Options: A. holding that although an automobile is mobile by its very design and purpose thus indicating that it is foreseeable that a particular automobile may cause injury in a forum state foreseeability alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the due process clause B. holding that foreseeability of causing injury in forum state is not sufficient for specific personal jurisdiction C. holding that an exercise by the state of its police power is presumed to be valid when it is challenged under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment D. holding that choiceoflaw provisions are alone insufficient to establish jurisdiction although they can reinforce a deliberate affiliation with the forum state and the reasonable foreseeability of possible litigation there E. holding ejven though it is foreseeable that injury may arise by the negligent issuance of a credit card foreseeability alone does not give rise to duty

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that although an automobile is mobile by its very design and purpose thus indicating that it is foreseeable that a particular automobile may cause injury in a forum state foreseeability alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the due process clause
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: blue sky laws of . . . Nevada . . . parallel Rule 10b-5 .... Since . . . Nevada . . . chose to enact laws paralleling Rule 10b-5, we think it only logical that [Nevada] intended the statutes to be interpreted consistently with the federal rule”). 14 See Bulbman, Inc. v. Nevada Bell, 108 Nev. 105, 111, 825 P.2d 588, 592 (1992) (stating that in order to prevail on claim alleging common law fraud, each of the following elements must be proven by clear and convincing evidence: (1) a misrepresentation made by the defendant; (2) defendant’s knowledge of the misrepresentation; (3) defendant’s intent to defraud the plaintiff (scienter); (4) reliance by the plaintiff; and (5) resulting damage to the plaintiff from such reliance). 15 See, e.g., State v. Gunnison, 618 P.2d 604, 607 (Ariz. 1980) (<HOLDING>); State v. Shama Resources Ltd. Partnership, Options: A. holding the connection is an element B. holding that scienter is not an element of a violation of ariz rev stat 4419912 cf nrs 905702 even though it may be an element of ariz rev stat 4419911 cf nrs 905701 C. holding that scienter is an essential element of a claim alleged under 121 of the illinois security law D. holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a 2 claim E. holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that scienter is not an element of a violation of ariz rev stat 4419912 cf nrs 905702 even though it may be an element of ariz rev stat 4419911 cf nrs 905701
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as and to the extent required by Law, without the prior written consent of the other party, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, neither New Operator nor Kindred (or any of their respective Affiliates) shall, and each shall direct its agents and representatives not to, directly or indirectly, make any public comment, statement or communication with respect to, or otherwise disclose or permit the disclosure of, the existence of discussions regarding a possible transaction between the parties hereto or any of the terms, conditions or other aspects of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement or any confidential information of the other party, except that such comments, statements, communications and disclosures may be made by each of New Operator and Kindred (a) to such of their agents, accountants, financial advisors, lenders and representatives as need to know such information for the purpose of evaluating or otherwise effecting the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, (b) if it is required to do so by applicable securities Laws, provided that one party shall notify the other parties in advance of any such disclosure, (c) to Governmental Authorities and their agents as appropriate, and (d) for the purposes of obtaining Consents. Except with respect to subparagraph (c) above, if a party is required by Law to make any such disclosure, it shall provide the other party the contents of the proposed disclosure, the reasons such disclosure is required by Law, and the time and place that any such disclosure will be made.

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

user: 1. In consideration of the disclosure of Proprietary Information by the Disclosing Party, the Receiving Party hereby agrees: (iii) not to make any use whatsoever at any time of such Proprietary Information except to evaluate internally its relationship with the Disclosing Party, and

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: You agree to cooperate with Cerner by participating fully in an exit interview in the event you leave the employ of Cerner, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. You agree to give Cerner written notice of your intention to resign from employment at least ten (10) business days prior to the last day you intend to work at Cerner. To facilitate the provisions of paragraphs 7 and 8 of this agreement, you also agree to report to Cerner, in conjunction with your written notice of intent, the identity of your new employer and the nature of your proposed duties for that employer. Cerner, however, reserves the right either to accelerate your intended effective termination date to an earlier actual date or to allow your intended effective termination date to stand.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you must not post any user content to the service if you are not the copyright owner of or are not fully authorized to grant rights in all of the elements of the user content you intend to post to the service .

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: All notices, requests, consents, claims, demands, waivers and other communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given (a) when delivered by hand (with written confirmation of receipt); (b) when received by the addressee if sent by a nationally recognized overnight courier (receipt requested); (c) on the date sent by facsimile or e-mail of a PDF document (with confirmation of transmission) if sent during normal business hours of the recipient, and on the next Business Day if sent after normal business hours of the recipient; or (d) on the third day after the date mailed, by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid. Such communications must be sent to the respective parties at the addresses indicated below (or at such other address for a party as shall be specified in a notice given in accordance with this Section 13).

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: This Agreement, the other Transaction Documents, and the other agreements and documents referred to herein are intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement and intended to be a complete and exclusive statement of the agreement and understanding of the parties hereto in respect of the subject matter contained herein and therein. There are no restrictions, promises, warranties or undertakings, other than those set forth or referred to herein or the other Transaction Documents with respect to the rights granted by the Company or any of its Affiliates or the Purchasers or any of their respective Affiliates set forth herein or therein. This Agreement, the other Transaction Documents, the Statement of Resolutions and the other agreements and documents referred to herein or therein supersede all prior agreements and understandings between the parties with respect to such subject matter.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 28; Weiss, 176 F.Supp.3d at 285; In re Terrorist Attacks, 349 F.Supp.2d at 810-11. There is no question that Facebook has the required contacts with the Unite,d States as a whole. The Force Plaintiffs allege — and Facebook does not dispute— that Facebook is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in California. (Force FAC ¶ 19.) As a United States resident, Facebook could hardly argue that it lacks the required contacts with the country as a whole. Mariash, 496 F.2d at 1143 (“[W]here, as here, the defendants reside within the territorial boundaries of the United States, the ‘minimal contacts,’ required to justify the federal government’s exercise of power over them, are present.”); cf. Daimler AG v. Bauman, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 746, 760, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the court, finds that exercising Options: A. holding that for a domestic corporation the foreign principal place of business does not count B. holding that the location of a corporations principal place of business for diversity purposes is the state where the corporation has its headquarters or nerve center C. holding that if a domestic corporations principal place of business is abroad the foreign principal place of business cannot be considered for diversity jurisdiction purposes D. holding that a corporation is fairly regarded at home and so amenable to personal jurisdiction for suits relating to all of its activities including those outside the forum in its principal place of business and place of incorporation E. holding that for diversity purposes a national bank is a citizen of the state of its principal place of business and the state listed in its organizational certificate

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a corporation is fairly regarded at home and so amenable to personal jurisdiction for suits relating to all of its activities including those outside the forum in its principal place of business and place of incorporation
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: the services , content , site and any software are provided on an `` as is '' basis , without warranties of any kind , either express or implied , including , without limitation , implied warranties of merchantability , fitness for a particular purpose or non-infringement .

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: 10b-5 Actions: Actual or Inquiry Discovery?, 30 San Diego L.Rev. 917, 948 (1993)). However, Congress’s extension of the relevant limitations period from one to two years alleviates this concern and allows us to conclude that an inquiry n ute of limitations begins running, we first determine when the plaintiff had inquiry notice of the facts giving rise to his or her securities fraud claim. A plaintiff is on inquiry notice when there exists sufficient suspicion of fraud to cause a reasonable investor to investigate the matter further. Like our sister circuits, we caution that inquiry notice should not be construed so broadly that the particular plaintiff cannot bring his or her suit within the limitations period. The facts constituting inquiry notice “must be suffic 252 (3d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Great Rivers Coop, of S.E. Iowa v. Farmland Options: A. holding that the core inquiry is whether the police would have discovered the evidence if the misconduct had not occurred B. holding that extreme nervousness potentially inconsistent stories and other suspicious answers did not amount to a reasonable or articulable suspicion C. holding that an inquiry into trip destination is permissible even in the absence of suspicious circumstances D. holding that inquiry notice exists where a reasonable investor of ordinary intelligence would have discovered the suspicious information and recognized it as suspicious E. holding that reasonable suspicion existed based on defendants nervousness expired drivers license and suspicious story regarding travel plans

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that inquiry notice exists where a reasonable investor of ordinary intelligence would have discovered the suspicious information and recognized it as suspicious
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 authorizations, approvals or permits, if any, of any Governmental Entity that are required in connection with the lawful issuance and sale of the Shares pursuant to this Agreement shall have been obtained and effective as of the Closing.

assistant: Qualifications
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 and delivery of this Amendment and the performance of each Loan Party’s obligations under this Amendment (a) have been duly authorized by all requisite corporate and, if required, stockholder action of each of the Loan Parties and (b) will not (i) violate (A) any provision of law, statute, rule or regulation, or of the certificate or articles of incorporation or other constitutive documents or by-laws of Holdings, the Borrower or any Subsidiary, (B) any order of any Governmental Authority, (C) any provision of any indenture, agreement or other instrument to which Holdings, the Borrower or any Subsidiary is a party or by which any of them or any of their property is or may be bound, except, in each case, the failure to do so, individually or in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect, (D) the HPUC Decision and Order, or (E) the DCCA Decision and Order, (ii) be in conflict with, result in a breach of or constitute (alone or with notice or lapse of time or both) a default under, or give rise to any right to accelerate or to require the prepayment, repurchase or redemption of any obligation under any such indenture, agreement or other instrument except, in each case, the failure to do so, individually or in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect, or (iii) result in the creation or imposition of any Lien upon or with respect to any property or assets now owned or hereafter acquired by Holdings, the Borrower or any Subsidiary (other than any Lien created under the Security Documents) other than such Liens as may be permitted hereunder.

assistant: Authorizations
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: violated Doyle in his closing argument. First, he impeached Fields’ trial testimony that he did not remember the stabbing by calling attention to his response, “I ain’t saying nothing,” to the question of whether he had stabbed Fodness raised by Officer Mattson during his first post -Miranda warnings interview. See supra note 2. Second, the prosecutor also referenced Fields’ response, “I won’t talk to you about that without an attorney,” to questions by Detective Norlin regarding what happened when Fodness and Fields were in the bushes across the street from the Pomp Room. See supra note 2. Under Greenfield, both of the statements that the prosecutor used to impeach Fields’ trial testimony were invocations of Fields’ Miranda rights. Cf. Greenfield, 474 U.S. at 295, 106 S.Ct. at 640 (<HOLDING>). Further, Anderson v. Charles, 447 U.S. at Options: A. holding that although defendants voluntarily given initial statement was inadmissible because of miranda violation subsequent statement made after careful miranda warnings were given and waiver was obtained was admissible B. holding that juveniles request for parent is invocation of fifth amendment rights C. holding that defendants invocation of miranda rights is inadmissible to prove defendants sanity D. holding that defendants request to call his mother to get an attorney was an invocation of miranda rights requiring that further questioning must end E. holding that evidence of a defendants invocation of the right to remain silent ordinarily is not admissible at the defendants criminal trial

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that defendants invocation of miranda rights is inadmissible to prove defendants sanity
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, to the extent that it does so generally for its officers and directors and to the extent permitted by its corporate by-laws, shall provide Executive with directors and officers liability insurance and shall indemnify, defend, and hold Executive harmless from and against any and all demands, actions, claims, suits, liabilities, losses, damages, fees (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) and expenses relating to any acts or omissions in the course or scope of the duties he performs on behalf of the Company while employed by it and/or while serving as an officer and/or director of the Company. The provisions of this Section 16, though only with respect to acts or omissions by Executive while still employed by the Company, shall survive the expiration of this Agreement or the termination of Executive's employment with the Company for any reason.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue in full force until *, unless extended by mutual agreement or earlier terminated by dissolution of the Company or as set forth in Sections 9.2(c)(ii), 9.2(d)(ii), 9.2(e)(ix), 9.2(f)(v), 12.3(c)(vi) or this Article 16; provided, however , that this Agreement may be terminated upon the mutual consent of Solazyme, Inc. and BGI (such period during which this Agreement remains in full force and effect, the “ Term ”).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: consecutively to each other and to the sentence imposed on the first count. The district court did not articulate a reason for imposing the consecutive sentences. This appeal followed. ISSUES I. Did the district court abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences? II. Does appellant’s sentence violate the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial under Blakely v. Washington? ANALYSIS I. Rannow argues that the district court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences on each of his five convictions of violation of a restraining order. We will not reverse a district court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences absent a clear abuse of discretion. Neal v. State, 658 N.W.2d 536, 548 (Minn.2003). But the threshold issue presented here is whether the consecutive sente (<HOLDING>). Rannow pleaded guilty to five felony Options: A. holding that under the applicable statutory provisions a person need not be impoverished or devoid of all assets to qualify as an indigent sick person but only that the person be unable to pay for necessary medical care B. holding a person is not an accomplice if the person knew about the offense and failed to disclose it or helped the accused conceal it C. holding that possession of burglary tools is an offense separate from burglary D. holding that burglary may qualify as offense against person if as committed it is in fact a crime against a person E. holding that the government was to be treated as a private person and a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the agents exceeded their ability to arrest because while a law enforcement officer may arrest a person without a warrant given probable cause a private person may only arrest someone for a crime committed in his presence

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that burglary may qualify as offense against person if as committed it is in fact a crime against a person
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: These terms and the Plan constitute the entire agreement between the parties, and supersede all prior agreements and understandings, relating to the subject matter of this RSU award; provided that any separate employment, consulting, or severance plan or agreement between the Company and the Participant that includes terms relating to the acceleration of vesting of equity awards shall not be superseded by these terms.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: 1.4 if you choose to use the airbnb platform as a host or co-host ( as defined below ) , your relationship with airbnb is limited to being an independent , third-party contractor , and not an employee , agent , joint venturer or partner of airbnb for any reason , and you act exclusively on your own behalf and for your own benefit , and not on behalf , or for the benefit , of airbnb .

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: 470, 472 & n. 1 (Tex.1991) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 431 cmt. a (1965)); see also Borg-Wamer Corp. v. Flores, 232 S.W.3d 765, 770 (Tex.2007). In other words, for an act or event to rise to the level of cause in the legal sense, the act or event must be such that reasonable jurors would identify it as being actually responsible for the ultimate harm. The cause must be more than one of the countless ubiquitous and insignificant causes that in some remote sense may have contributed to a given effect as, for example, simply getting up in the morning. That the term substantial factor is given to this commonsense aspect of legal causation simply makes plain to jurors that more than causation in this indirect, “philosophic sense” is required. See Staggs, 134 S.W.2d at 1030 (<HOLDING>). It does not demand, nor even imply, a higher Options: A. recognizing that butfor language repeated something already included in the usual and ordinary meaning of cause and draws juror attention to the importance of an unbroken causal connection B. holding that failure to demonstrate a causal connection is fatal to a 1983 cause of action C. holding that we must give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of a statutes language D. holding that the language of the statute clearly requires proof of a causal connection between the drivers intoxication and the death of another person E. recognizing that where the statutory language is not ambiguous the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute must be given effect

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that butfor language repeated something already included in the usual and ordinary meaning of cause and draws juror attention to the importance of an unbroken causal connection
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: are avoided, our duty is to adopt the latter.” Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 857, 120 S.Ct. 1904, 146 L.Ed.2d 902 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, we do not view the language of § 1341 as susceptible to the construction advanced by Appellants, at least not without considerable strain; nor do we discern a “grave and doubtful constitutional question[ ]” to arise from the construction we have settled on. Id. We are similarly unpersuaded by Appellants’ suggestion that Congress’s decision to protect private and interstate commercial carriers, in addition to the United States Postal Service, from being utilized to further fraudulent schemes where the use itself is intrastate, runs afoul of the respected federal-state balance. See e.g., id. at 858, 120 S.Ct. 1904 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted); United Options: A. holding that a change of venue has no affect on the applicable state law and that change of venue is but a change of courtrooms B. holding that restaurant that bought and sold products produced outside of state satisfied interstate commerce requirement for federal arson statute C. holding that a statutory amendment characterized by the state as a clarification could not be applied retroactively because the statute as written at the time of the crime was unclear and retroactive application of the statute as amended would result in an increased period of incarceration D. holding that arson of an owneroccupied residence not used for any commercial purpose does not qualify as property used in commerce and is not subject to federal prosecution under federal arson statute E. holding that application of federal arson statute to a private home would federalize a typically state crime and thereby significantly change the federalstate balance in the prosecution of crimes

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that application of federal arson statute to a private home would federalize a typically state crime and thereby significantly change the federalstate balance in the prosecution of crimes
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: were not parallel. See id. Here, the district court primarily rested its discretionary decision on the possibility that Crime Stoppers’s liability to Excellent Computing — and thus First Mercury’s coverage liability — will never arise. We acknowledge that “whether the judgment in the federal' declaratory action would settle the controversy” is one factor that a district court can consider in deciding whether to exercise its discretion. Id. But this factor is insufficient, standing alone, to close the courthouse door; it must be weighed against the potential that an insurance coverage determination could “serve a useful purpose in clarifying the legal relations at issue.” Id.; see, e.g., Britamco Underwriters, Inc. v. Cent. Jersey Invs., Inc., 632 So.2d 138, 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (<HOLDING>). There is no indication that the district Options: A. holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify B. holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage C. holding insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured since the underlying suit arises out of a breach of contract which is not an accident or occurrence contemplated or covered by the provisions of a general liability insurance policy D. recognizing the potential benefits of a coverage determination on the duty to indemnify before the conclusion of an underlying negligence suit including allowing for intelligent decisionmaking regarding settlement E. holding the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing the potential benefits of a coverage determination on the duty to indemnify before the conclusion of an underlying negligence suit including allowing for intelligent decisionmaking regarding settlement