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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in 29 U.S.C. § 1133 and the implementing regulations “have been read as ensuring that a full and fair review is conducted by the administrator, that a claimant is enabled to prepare an appeal for further administrative review or recourse to the federal courts, and that the courts can ... review! ] a claim denial.” Ellis, 126 F.3d at 236-37 (emphasis added). For that reason, this court has previously held, albeit in an unpublished opinion, that 29 U.S.C. § 1133 and 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1 require that judicial review be “limited to whether the rationale set forth in the initial denial notice is reasonable.” Thompson v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 30 Fed.Appx. 160, 164 (4th Cir.2002) (unpublished) (emphasis added); see also Robinson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 443 F.3d 389, 393 (5th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 Options: A. holding that notice must state the specific grounds for the departure B. holding that under 1133 the administrative review must focus on the specific reason for the administrators decision cited in the initial denial notice C. holding that a reversal of the plan administrators decision is in order under the most deferential arbitrary and capricious standard when no reasonable grounds exist to support the decision D. holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision E. holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that under 1133 the administrative review must focus on the specific reason for the administrators decision cited in the initial denial notice
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of a blow to his head. Just before he passed out, someone grabbed his arm and tried to slash his wrist. Claudia Plesea testified that she found her husband in a ditch covered in blood. Viorel Plesea te nt detention and beating of Plesea also demonstrate that the government was unwilling to control the elements of Romanian society that were intolerant of Plesea and his religious beliefs. See Singh v. INS, 94 F.3d 1353, 1360 (9th Cir.1996). Thus, we must reverse the BIA’s finding regarding persecution for the reasons explained above and remand for further proceedings. We also reverse the BIA’s finding that Plesea firmly resettled in Italy, because the government adduced no evidence of Plesea’s right to stay in Italy. See Maharaj v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 961, 976 (9th Cir .2006) (en bane) (<HOLDING>). We express no opinion as to whether the BIA Options: A. holding that under the regulations the ins bears the initial burden of producing evidence that indicates that the firm resettlement bar applies and should the ins satisfy this threshold burden of production both the burden of production and the risk of nonpersuasion then shift to the applicant to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she had not firmly resettled in another country B. holding that the government bears the initial burden of producing evidence that a third country offered the applicant some type of permanent resettlement or evidence a third country officially sanctioned the aliens indefinite presence C. holding that once the government presents some evidence indicating that asylum is unavailable on the grounds of firm resettlement the petitioner bears the burden of proving that such ground does not apply D. holding that for purposes of claim 4 another country means a country other than the first and second country explicitly rejecting tpllcs proposed construction E. holding that the state department country report constituted substantial evidence to support the agencys finding of changed country conditions in guatemala

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the government bears the initial burden of producing evidence that a third country offered the applicant some type of permanent resettlement or evidence a third country officially sanctioned the aliens indefinite presence
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: similar conclusion regarding a similar statute. HRS § 431:10-242 provides that when an insurer is ordered by the comts to pay a beneficiary, the beneficiary shall be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs of the suit. The Supreme Court of Hawaii concluded that HRS § 431:10-242 did not apply to an arbitration award. Labrador v. Liberty Mut. Group, 103 Hawai'i 206, 81 P.3d 386, 391 (2003). The arbitrator was aware of the Supreme Court of Hawaii’s holding in Labrador because it was referenced in Petitioner’s memorandum to the arbitrator. (Pet’r Opp’n Ex. 1 at 7-9.) Therefore, the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law when determining that interest on an award (not judgment) was within its scope of authority. See also Kalawaia v. AIG Hawaii Ins. Co., 90 Hawaii 167, 977 P.2d 175 (1999) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Respondent explicitly availed Options: A. holding that the ninth circuit looks to state contract law to determine whether an arbitration award is valid B. holding that award and rate of prejudgment interest are within trial courts discretion C. holding that the state circuit court did not have the authority to award prejudgment interest for matters occurring prior to arbitration award D. holding that arbitration award is binding on the parties E. holding that rule 60a is the proper vehicle for correcting a judgment in order to provide for an award of prejudgment interest where among other things governing law would make the interest award automatic or the district court clearly intended to make the interest award in its prior order

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the state circuit court did not have the authority to award prejudgment interest for matters occurring prior to arbitration award
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: at $429,500. It shows that $429,500 as exempt from taxation. Nothing in the record indicates that the values shown on either the Real Property Tax List or the Exempt Property List changed between 1975 and 1982, and there is no dispute about the tax treatment of the property for those years. In May 1982, counsel for plaintiff wrote to Corporation Counsel for the City to say that plaintiff had constructed an addition to the original building. He said that the addition had cost $557,000 and asked whether the new structure was covered by the financial agreement. While the appendix does not show any response to that question, plaintiff acknowledges that the completed addition was not covered by the tax abatement agreement. See Tru, Urban Renewal Corp. v. City of Newark, 11 N.J.Tax 63 (1990) (<HOLDING>). For 1983, the Real Property Tax List shows Options: A. recognizing that exempt property ceases to be property of the estate B. holding that property not subject to sequestration is not therefore exempt C. holding that an addition to an abated property is not exempt D. holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate E. holding that because nondischargeable debt based on fraud was not one of the four enumerated exceptions to exempt property the exempt property was not liable for the creditors surviving claim

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an addition to an abated property is not exempt
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: offense of armed robbery. “At common law every simple larceny, whatever the value of the property stolen, was a felony____” State v. Gray, 14 Rich. 174, 175 (1867). However, common law larceny recognized two separate punishments based on the value of the goods stolen. Id. “If the value of the property was not above twelve pence, the theft constituted the offence known as petit larceny” and the convicted offender would be sentenced to either a term of imprisonment or a whipping. Id. A theft greater than twelve pence was considered grand larceny “and was punished with death, though with benefit of clergy.” Id. Thus, the common law regarded the petit/grand larceny distinction as merely a sentencing mechanism rather than an element of the offense. See 36 C.J. Larceny § 224 (1924) (<HOLDING>). Common law petit larceny became a statutory Options: A. recognizing common law grand larceny as separate and distinct from the statutory offense of breaking and entering with intent to steal B. recognizing petit and grand larceny as merely two separate degrees of larceny not elements of the offense C. recognizing the abolition of common law petit larceny with the 1866 enactment of a statute which defined petit larceny as simple larceny of goods below the value of 20 D. holding that two offenses are separate for the purposes of 4a12a1 where all the elements of the first offense occurred before any activity forming the basis of the second offense E. recognizing a charge of common law grand larceny as the basis of an action for malicious prosecution

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing petit and grand larceny as merely two separate degrees of larceny not elements of the offense
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Supreme Court determined that the "no set of facts" language set forth in Conley, 355 U.S. at 45, 78 S.Ct. 99, "has earned its retirement,” Bell Atl. Corp., 127 S.Ct. at 1969. 23 . The decision in Bannum was based upon RCFC 56.1, which was abrogated and replaced by RCFC 52.1. RCFC 52.1, however, was designed to incorporate the decision in Bannum. See RCFC 52.1, Rules Committee Note (June 20, 2006). 24 . As defendant notes, plaintiff does not cite 37 U.S.C. § 204 in his complaint. See Def.’s Mot. 6 n. 2. However, because 37 U.S.C. § 204 is the only money-mandating statute that could provide the basis for the relief sought by plaintiff, the court presumes that plaintiff's claim for back pay is premised on 37 U.S.C. § 204. See Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1315 (Fed.Cir. 2003) (<HOLDING>); see also Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991, Options: A. holding that 28 usc 2636c did not modify the filing requirement in 19 usc 1516aa2a B. holding that 10 usc 1201 is a moneymandating statute C. holding that visa revocations pursuant to 8 usc 1155 are not made unreviewable by either 8 usc 1252a2bii or 5 usc 701a2 D. holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc 1983 E. holding that 37 usc 204 is moneymandating

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that 37 usc 204 is moneymandating
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: same as that for pure negligence. See NAACP, 271 F.Supp.2d at 448. Allowing the nuisance claim to be prosecuted would extend evi-dentiary inquiries far beyond those needed for what is a relatively simple case of negligence. See id. The chance of preju dice and confusion of jurors would be enhanced were the nuisance claim to be tried. III.Negligence Claim Against Retailer Summary judgment is denied as to plaintiffs claim of negligence against Atlantic, the retailer of the gun. The evidence of a straw sale by the defendant and Atlantic’s relatively large number of alleged illegal or careless sales sufficiently supports a possible finding of negligence leading to a foreseeable death by shooting. See Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 96 N.Y.2d 222, 727 N.Y.S.2d 7, 750 N.E.2d 1055 (2001) (<HOLDING>). The retailer is much closer to the illegal Options: A. holding that handgun manufacturers do not owe a duty of reasonable care in the marketing and distribution of their handguns to persons injured or killed through the use of illegally obtained handguns but leaving open the question of retailers liability B. holding that where the adequacy of warnings associated with prescription drugs is at issue the failure of the manufacturer to exercise reasonable care to warn of dangers ie the manufacturers negligence is the only recognized basis of liability C. holding that a manufacturers insert in and of itself may not establish the relevant standard of care in a medical negligence action but may be considered by the fact finder along with expert testimony to define the standard of care D. holding that the law imposes on every person who enters upon an active course of conduct the positive duty to exercise ordinary care to protect others from harm and calls a violation of that duty negligence that a complete binding contract between the parties is not a prerequisite to a duty to use due care in ones actions and that architects may be held liable for a breach of the duty of care and breach of contract that results in foreseeable injury economic or otherwise E. recognizing the open question

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that handgun manufacturers do not owe a duty of reasonable care in the marketing and distribution of their handguns to persons injured or killed through the use of illegally obtained handguns but leaving open the question of retailers liability
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: ”) (citations omitted); see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 735, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (“Normally, although perhaps not in every case, the defendant must make a specific showing of prejudice to satisfy the ‘affecting substantial rights’ prong of Rule 52(b).”). The error in this case had an obviously prejudicial effect on the outcome of appellant’s trial. The DEA chemist’s report was the main, if indeed not the only, proof offered by the prosecution that the zi-plocks distributed by appellant contained a measurable amount of a mixture containing cocaine — an essential element of the drug distribution offense with which appellant was charged. See Hicks v. United States, 697 A.2d 805, 807 (D.C.1997); D.C.Code § 48-902.06(1)(D) (2001); cf. Bernard v. United States, 575 A.2d 1191, 1194-95 (D.C.1990) (<HOLDING>). This is enough to establish that the Options: A. holding that circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a cocaine conspiracy conviction B. holding circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish that defendant sold a usable amount of marijuana C. holding that circumstantial evidence alone may establish discriminatory intent D. holding conviction for possession that rests only on defendants cooccupancy of apartment where marijuana was sold and on defendants intimate relationship with a cooccupant who sold marijuana is not supported by sufficient evidence E. holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent

assistant: The best answer is B. holding circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish that defendant sold a usable amount of marijuana
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: appellate court in any case in which a final adjudication in an investigation of the mental condition of any person alleged to be disabled, incapacitated, or mentally ill has been made. The appeal may be made by the petitioner who applied for such adjudication, or by the person alleged to be disabled, incapacitated, or mentally ill, or by any relative of such person, or by any reputable citizen of the county in which the hearing occurred, or by an attorney for any of the foregoing persons. We agree as “any relative” of Whittaker’s, Nelson would have standing pursuant to this section to appeal. However, reading the plain language of this section, an appeal would be limited to challenging the probate court’s ruling that Whittaker was incapacitated. See Walker, 875 S.W.2d at 151 (<HOLDING>). Yet, Nelson does not question the propriety Options: A. holding an unappealed ruling is the law of the case and cannot be later challenged B. holding that a ruling from a prior decision of this court becomes the law of the case that cannot be challenged in a later proceeding quotation marks omitted C. recognizing the difference between jurisdiction over an action and jurisdiction over an issue and holding that although section 2074207 vests the family court with exclusive jurisdiction over actions to determine paternity under section 621302a1 the probate court has jurisdiction to resolve the issue of paternity when the issue is essential to the probate courts determination of heirs D. holding that texass probate statute does not affect whether the probate exception to federal jurisdiction applies to a case E. holding later in the opinion this court derived jurisdiction from section 472170 when second cousin challenged probate courts ruling ward was partially incapacitated

assistant: The best answer is E. holding later in the opinion this court derived jurisdiction from section 472170 when second cousin challenged probate courts ruling ward was partially incapacitated
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 and acknowledge that during the course of your employment you had access to certain information not generally known to the public relating to business plans or strategic plans of the Company; technology, trade secrets, processes, work in progress or other proprietary information that derives economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and any other confidential or proprietary information concerning the Company or its affiliates. You further agree that all such information is and shall remain the exclusive property of the Company whether or not such information was conceived or developed by the Company or you. You agree that you will not at any time use, disclose or in any way allow the use or disclosure of any such information, without the prior written permission of the Company.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, this Agreement shall be subject to consummation of the Merger in accordance with the terms of the Merger Agreement, as the same may be amended by the parties thereto in accordance with its terms. In the event the Merger Agreement is terminated for any reason or the Merger does not occur, this Agreement shall be deemed null and void.

assistant: Effectiveness
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 also the usefulness of the public land title information infrastructure”); Christopher L. Peterson, Two Faces: Demystifying the Mortgage Electronic Registration System’s Land Title Theory, 53 Wm. & Mary L.Rev. Ill, 120, 125-27 (2011) (criticizing the “incoherence of MERS’s legal position” regarding MERS’s status with respect to mortgages registered in the MERS System, which is “exacerbated by a corporate structure that is so unorthodox as to be considered arguably fraudulent,” and criticizing the unreliability of the MERS database); David P. Weber, The Magic of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System: It Is and It Isn’t, 85 Am. Bankr.LJ. 239, 239-40, 264 (2011) (describing MERS’s “imperfect implementation and lack of transparency”); 303 P.3d 301, 304-OS (2013) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175 Wash.2d Options: A. holding that mers was not the beneficiary of a deed of trust under the oregon trust deed act absent conveyance to mers of the beneficial right to repayment and that mers could not hold or transfer legal title to the deed as the lenders nominee B. holding that because mers receives no payments on the debt it is not the beneficiary even though it is so designated in the deed of trust C. holding that mers may be a beneficiary as nominee for the lender that assignments of the deed of trust between mers members need not be recorded that mers was not liable to the borrower in negligence and that the idaho consumer protection act did not provide a cause of action to the borrower D. holding that mers is an ineligible beneficiary within the terms of the washington deed of trust act if it never held the promissory note or other debt instrument secured by the deed of trust and that characterizing mers as the beneficiary has the capacity to deceive and may give rise to an action under the consumer protection act E. holding that mers lacked standing to foreclose as the lenders nominee

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that mers was not the beneficiary of a deed of trust under the oregon trust deed act absent conveyance to mers of the beneficial right to repayment and that mers could not hold or transfer legal title to the deed as the lenders nominee
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: Unless and only to the extent as may be expressly limited or prohibited under applicable Laws or as provided for herein or in any other Loan Document to the contrary, Borrower (A) waives protest of all commercial paper at any time held by Bank on which Borrower is any way liable; (B) waives notice of acceleration and of intention to accelerate; (C) waives notice and opportunity to be heard, after acceleration, before exercise by Bank of the remedies of self-help, set-off, or of other summary procedures permitted by any applicable Laws or by any agreement with Borrower, and except where required hereby or by any applicable Laws which requirement cannot be waived, notice of any other action taken by Bank; and (D) releases Bank Parties and their respective officers, attorneys, agents and employees from all claims for loss or damage caused by any act or omission on the part of any of them except willful misconduct.

assistant: Waivers
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 and all notices or other communications or deliveries to be provided by the Holder hereunder, including, without limitation, any Notice of Conversion, shall be in writing and delivered personally, by facsimile, or sent by a nationally recognized overnight courier service, addressed to the Company, at the address set forth in the Purchase Agreement or such other facsimile number or address as the Company may specify for such purposes by notice to the Holder delivered in accordance with this Section 8(a). Any and all notices or other communications or deliveries to be provided by the Company hereunder shall be in writing and delivered personally, by facsimile, or sent by a nationally recognized overnight courier service addressed to each Holder at the facsimile number or address of the Holder as set forth in the Purchase Agreement, or as appearing on the books of the Company, or such other facsimile number or address as the Holder may specify for such purposes by notice to the Company delivered in accordance with this Section 8(a). Any notice or other communication or deliveries hereunder shall be deemed given and effective on the earliest of (i) the date of transmission, if such notice or communication is delivered via facsimile at the facsimile number set forth on the signature pages attached hereto prior to 12:00 p.m. (New York City time) on any date, (ii) the next Trading Day after the date of transmission, if such notice or communication is delivered via facsimile at the facsimile number set forth on the signature pages attached hereto on a day that is not a Trading Day or later than 12:00 p.m. (New York City time) on any Trading Day, (iii) the second Trading Day following the date of mailing, if sent by U.S. nationally recognized overnight courier service or (iv) upon actual receipt by the party to whom such notice is required to be given.

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: essentially accidental injury to the person or property of another rather than coverage for disputes between parties to a contractual undertaking.” Redevelopment Auth., 685 A.2d at 589; see also Keystone Filler, 179 F.Supp.2d at 439 (“The policy defines an ‘occurrence’ as ‘an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.’ ”); Augenblick, 1999 WL 975118, at *2 (“An ‘occurrence’ is defined as ‘bodily injury or property damage resulting from an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to the same general condition.’ ”). The courts in these cases found that the insureds were not entitled to coverage because their underlying breaches of contract were not an “occurrence” or “accident.” Redevelopment Auth., 685 A.2d at 589 (<HOLDING>); Keystone Filler, 179 F.Supp.2d at 440 (“The Options: A. 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 B. recognizing in context of general liability policy if petition contains allegations which when fairly and reasonably construed state cause of action potentially covered by policy insurer has duty to defend insured in underlying suit C. holding that there was no coverage because there was no occurrence within the meaning of the policy because defective workmanship does not constitute an accident or an occurrence under a commercial general liability policy D. holding that an insurer had no duty to defend in the absence of any cause of action amounting to a potentially covered offense under the insurance policy E. holding that the insurer had no duty to defend the insured because the allegations of the initial complaint did not allege facts which would bring the case within the coverage of the title insurance policy

assistant: The best answer is A. 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
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: contact us.if you would like to contact us in connection with your use of the service , then please refer to the contact information below : by mail at musical.ly , inc. , 2461 santa monica blvd , p.o. box # 344 , santa monica , ca 90404 , and by email at privacy@musical.ly .

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: the district court’s decision to dismiss the case de novo. III. Discussion At the heart of this controversy lies a single question: whether a plaintiff must allege a concrete injury such as an overcharge in order to have standing for a RESPA violation. The Carters contend that the district court erred in finding that they lack standing to sue under § 8 of RESPA because they “do not allege any overcharge or other concrete injury.” Carter I, 493 F.Supp.2d at 927. Specifically, the Carters argue that the district court’s interpretation of § 8 does not accord with the plain meaning of the statutory language and is inconsistent with Congress’ intent. Appellant Br. 7-8. Further, the Carters believe that the court should have followed the reasoning in Kahrer. See Kahrer, 418 F.Supp.2d at 753 (<HOLDING>). In contrast, Appellees rely on the Moore, Options: A. holding only payee has standing to bring suit for banks violation of midnight rule B. holding that an overcharge is not necessary for a plaintiff to bring suit on a respa violation C. holding a plaintiff alleging a constitutional claim of gender discrimination may bring suit under 1983 alone and is not required to plead concurrently a violation of title vii D. holding that shareholders had standing to bring derivative suit against the government but not direct suit due to lack of privity E. holding that a prior suit and a subsequent suit between the same parties did not involve the same claim because the evidence necessary to sustain the subsequent suit was insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to relief in the prior suit

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an overcharge is not necessary for a plaintiff to bring suit on a respa violation
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 Award, this Award Agreement and the Award Summary, and all determinations made and actions taken pursuant thereto, to the extent otherwise not governed by the Code or the laws of the United States, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Delaware and construed in accordance therewith without giving effect to principles of conflicts of laws.

assistant: Governing Laws
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: Landlord shall maintain all risk property and, if applicable, sprinkler damage insurance covering the full replacement cost of the Project. Landlord shall further procure and maintain (i) commercial general liability insurance with a single loss limit of not less than $2,000,000 for bodily injury and property damage with respect to the Project, and (ii) earthquake coverage (provided that such earthquake coverage may, at Landlord’s option, be included in a blanket policy and may be sublimited). Landlord may, but is not obligated to, maintain such other insurance and additional coverages as it may deem reasonably necessary, including, but not limited to, flood, environmental hazard, loss or failure of building equipment, errors and omissions, rental loss during the period of repair or rebuilding, workers’ compensation insurance and fidelity bonds for employees employed to perform services and insurance for any improvements installed by Tenant or which are in addition to the standard improvements customarily furnished by Landlord without regard to whether or not such are made a part of the Project. All such insurance shall be included as part of the Operating Expenses. The Project may be included in a blanket policy (in which case the cost of such insurance allocable to the Project will be reasonably determined by Landlord based upon the insurer’s cost calculations). At least 60% of the all risk capacity insurers under such blanket policy shall have a rating of not less than policyholder rating of A- and financial category rating of at least Class IX in “Best’s Insurance Guide”. Tenant shall also reimburse Landlord for any increased premiums or additional insurance which Landlord reasonably deems necessary as a result of the particular use of the Premises by Tenant or any Tenant Parties.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: plainly erred by imposing a condition of supervised release that required him to report to his probation officer within 72 hours of re-entering the United States because such a condition violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 441 F.3d 767, 772-73 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not Options: A. holding that a condition of supervised release that requires a defendant to report to his probation officer upon reentry to the united states does not violate the defendants fifth amendment right against selfincrimination B. holding that imposing supervised release condition that defendant report to his probation officer upon reentry into the united states is not plain error C. holding that the fifth amendments protection against selfincrimination is applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment D. holding that term of supervised release was not automatically terminated when defendant was deported from united states and thus defendants subsequent commission of another offense illegal reentry after deportation prior to expiration of term of supervised release violated condition of supervised release that defendant commit no new offenses E. holding that defendants exercise of right to testify in own behalf waives his fifth amendment privilege against selfincrimination

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a condition of supervised release that requires a defendant to report to his probation officer upon reentry to the united states does not violate the defendants fifth amendment right against selfincrimination
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: L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), which held that the Sixth Amendment did not bar admission of hearsay if the statement bore “adequate indicia of reliability,” i.e., if the statement fell within a firmly-rooted hearsay exception or there was “a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” In Crawford, the Supreme Court receded from Roberts where the evidence at issue is a testimonial statement, holding that “[w]here testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is the one the Constitution actually prescribes: confrontation.” 541 U.S. at 68-69, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (emphasis added). Following Crawford, the introduction of out-of-court testimonial statements violates the Sixth Amendment, regardless of any rule of eviden 2006) (<HOLDING>). Applying these principles to the instant Options: A. holding that driving record is nontestimonial as it is not accusatory and does not describe specific criminal wrongdoing of the defendant it contains no expression of opinion or conclusion requiring the exercise of discretion and it merely represents the objective result of a public records search B. holding that driving records were nontestimonial C. holding that it is not D. holding that a certified abstract of a defendants driving record was nontestimonial E. holding that the plaintiffs speech was not a matter of public concern because it did not bring to light actual or potential wrongdoing or breach of public trust on the part of the defendant and others

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that driving record is nontestimonial as it is not accusatory and does not describe specific criminal wrongdoing of the defendant it contains no expression of opinion or conclusion requiring the exercise of discretion and it merely represents the objective result of a public records search
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: ¶ 16. {33} Reasonable suspicion engages probabilities. See New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 346 (1985) (“[T]he requirement of reasonable suspicion is not a requirement of absolute certainty: sufficient probability, not certainty, is the touchstone of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). This does not endorse using general statistical probabilities or group characteristics to establish reasonable suspicion for a stop. New Mexico courts have consistently concluded that “[g]uilt by association and generalized suspicions are insufficient” to create reasonable suspicion for a search or seizure. State v. Prince, 2004-NMCA-127, ¶ 17, 136 N.M. 521, 101 P.3d 332; see also State v. Gage R., 2010-NMCA-104, ¶ 19, 149 N.M. 14, 243 P.3d 453 (<HOLDING>). {34} For example, in Jones the Court of Options: A. holding that probable cause inquiry is whether considering totality of the circumstances there is a fair probability that contraband will be found in a particular place B. holding that a search of a students purse that was not based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment C. recognizing that the fourth amendment demands more than a generalized probability and concluding that the search of a group of students gathering at the smokers corner without reason to suspect that any particular student is in possession of contraband is not constitutionally sound D. recognizing that for fourth amendment purposes an arrest warrant supported by probable cause carries with it limited authority to enter a dwelling in which a suspect lives when there is reason to believe that the suspect is within E. holding that search of middle school student violated her fourth amendment rights

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that the fourth amendment demands more than a generalized probability and concluding that the search of a group of students gathering at the smokers corner without reason to suspect that any particular student is in possession of contraband is not constitutionally sound
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 Lead Arrangers and Administrative Agent shall have received all fees and other amounts due and payable on or prior to the Amendment No. 3 Effective Date, including, to the extent invoiced, reimbursement or payment of all out-of-pocket expenses (including the reasonable fees, charges and disbursements of Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP , counsel to the Administrative Agent) required to be reimbursed or paid by the Borrower on or prior to the Amendment No. 3 Effective Date hereunder or under any other Loan Document.

assistant: Fees
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 the Administrative Agent or any assignment of rights by, or the replacement of, a Lender, the termination of the Commitments and the repayment, satisfaction or discharge of all obligations under any Loan Document or Letter of Credit.

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: of California has stated that to meet Silicon Graphics, “plaintiffs must couple each separate allegation in the [complaint] with details identifying the sources upon which such beliefs are based.” In re Vantive, 110 F.Supp.2d at 1216 (citing Silicon Graphics, 183 F.3d at 985.) Judge Orrick explained “[t]his requirement is the PSLRA’s single most important weapon against pleading fraud by hindsight because it forces plaintiffs to reveal whether they base their allegations on an inference of earlier knowledge drawn from later disclosures or from contemporaneous documents or other facts.” Id. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs are not required to always name their sources, but rather may, if they provide adequate corroborating details, rely on unnamed sources. In re McKesson, 126 F.Supp.2d at 1271 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, regardless of whether it would Options: A. holding that a lumpsum restitution order is valid where it does not specify the source of the restitution or direct liquidation of specific assets and the defendant may have other sources of payment B. holding that where accessible literature sources clearly provided a description of the teachings at issue the written description requirement does not require their incorporation by reference C. holding that although in some cases it may be proper to require a plaintiff to identify a source by name silicon graphics does not require naming as opposed to identification of sources it is possible to identify sources and provide other corroborating details without disclosing the names of the sources D. holding that it may not E. holding that the due process clause does not require courts to abandon their ageold practice of seeking information from outofcourt sources to guide their judgment toward a more enlightened and just sentence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that although in some cases it may be proper to require a plaintiff to identify a source by name silicon graphics does not require naming as opposed to identification of sources it is possible to identify sources and provide other corroborating details without disclosing the names of the sources
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and any certificate attached hereto or delivered in accordance with the terms hereof by or on behalf of YNXG in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, when taken together, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements contained herein and/or therein not misleading.

assistant: Disclosures
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: presentenee defendants and postsentence convicts may be in the same halfway house and subjected to identical conditions, we conclude that they are not similarly situated legally because their residence in a halfway house serves a fundamentally and functionally different purpose. Thus, it is not the type of detention, but the respective difference in legal status that is disposi-tive. The consequent divergent sentence credit treatment results directly from the different legal status occupied by pretrial, presentence defendants and postsentence convicts. Therefore, the BOP does not violate equal protection in according sentence credit to postsentenee convicts, but not to pretrial or presentence defendants. See Fraley v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 1 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION Dawson has challenged the Options: A. holding that a presentence defendant is not similarly situated with a postsentence convict and denial of sentence credit does not violate equal protection B. holding that the cap does not violate equal protection C. holding members of two distinct pension plans were not similarly situated for equal protection analysis D. holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection E. holding equal protection under the federal constitution applies to similarly situated persons

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a presentence defendant is not similarly situated with a postsentence convict and denial of sentence credit does not violate equal protection
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 Borrower will, and will cause each of its Subsidiaries to, comply with all laws, rules, regulations and orders of any Governmental Authority applicable to it or its property, except where the failure to do so, individually or in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. The Borrower will not, and will not permit any of its Subsidiaries, to be or become subject at any time to any law, regulation, or list of any government agency (including, without limitation, the U.S. Office of Foreign Asset Control list) that prohibits or limits any Lender from making any advance or extension of credit to the Borrower or Guarantor or from otherwise conducting business with the Borrower or Guarantor, or fail to provide documentary and other evidence of the Borrower’s or Guarantor’s identity as may be reasonably requested by any Bank at any time to enable such Lender to verify the Borrower’s or Guarantor’s identity or to comply with any Applicable Law or regulation, including, without limitation, Section 326 of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, 31 U.S.C. Section 5318.

assistant: Compliance With Laws