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: before magistrate or justice of peace “without any reference to the act for trial of small causes in this colony”). As the preceding statutes indicate, in colonial New Jersey, as in England, certain forfeiture and penalty proceedings to enforce police statutes and to punish minor criminal offenses, such as violations of the fish and game acts, proceeded before justices of the peace without juries. See Greely v. City of Passaic, 42 N.J.L. 429, 431 (E. & A. 1880) (noting that “[Pjarliament conferred upon the [justice of the peace] certain judicial functions, as a means of enforcing the game acts” by “a summary proceeding, technical in character, of a quasi-criminal nature, and totally unlike an action at law”); State v. Lakewood Mkt. Co., 84 N.J.L. 512, 523, 88 A. 194 (Sup.Ct.1913) (<HOLDING>); Carter Bros. v. Camden Dist. Court, 49 N.J.L. Options: A. holding denial of jury trial was harmless because evidence was insufficient to create issue of fact for submission to jury and insurer would have been entitled to directed verdict B. holding that penalty action instituted pursuant to fish and game procedure act of 1897 did not include jury trial because it has been repeatedly held in this state that in a summary procedure for the collection of a penalty for violation of a police regulation neither party is entitled to a trial by jury C. holding no right to jury trial in action to recover penalty for violation of 1882 act to prevent the adulteration and to regulate the sale of milk D. holding that jury trial not required before imposition of penalty for selling intoxicating liquors contrary to city ordinance reasoning that prior to 1776 the legality of convictions before magistrates for petty offenses and for violations of police regulations without trial by jury was unquestioned E. holding that the penalty is applicable

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that penalty action instituted pursuant to fish and game procedure act of 1897 did not include jury trial because it has been repeatedly held in this state that in a summary procedure for the collection of a penalty for violation of a police regulation neither party is entitled to a trial by jury
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice to be given hereunder by either party to the other may be effected by personal delivery, in writing, or by mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid with return receipt requested. Mailed notices shall be addressed to the parties at the addresses set forth below, but each party may change his, her or its address by written notice in accordance with this Section 23. Notices shall be deemed communicated as of the actual receipt or refusal of receipt.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties may execute this Agreement in any number of counterparts, which all taken together shall constitute a single agreement. Counterparts may be shared electronically, each such shared counterpart to have the same effect and validity as any original.

assistant: Counterparts
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: Without limitation of any other rights and remedies of any Party under this Agreement, the Parties agree that (i) Landlord shall have the right of specific performance to compel Lease Guarantor or its Affiliates, as applicable, to comply with this Article XXI , (ii) Lease Guarantor, Manager and Landlord shall have the right of specific performance to compel Tenant (or its successors and assigns) to comply with this Article XXI , and (iii) if Tenant (or its successors and assigns) does not cooperate with the foregoing, Lease Guarantor and Manager shall have the right to take such steps as they determine to be necessary to effect the Replacement Structure or as they shall determine to be comparable to such actions, including determining the ownership and identity of the Replacement Tenant (and including such other actions as may be necessary in order to implement Section 21.2 hereof, as applicable), without regard to the interests of Tenant or its successors and assigns.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable for any reason, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement, and the parties shall negotiate in good faith to modify the Agreement to preserve (to the extent possible) their original intent. If the parties fail to reach a modified agreement within thirty (30) days after the relevant provision is held invalid or unenforceable, then the dispute shall be resolved in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article 13. While the dispute is pending resolution, this Agreement shall be construed as if such provision were deleted by agreement of the parties.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Parties agree that irreparable damage for which monetary damages, even if available, may not be an adequate remedy would occur in the event that the Parties do not perform the provisions of this Agreement (including failing to take such actions as are required of it hereunder in order to complete the transactions contemplated by this Agreement) in accordance with its specified terms or otherwise breach such provisions. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the Parties shall be entitled to an injunction, specific performance and other equitable relief to prevent breaches or threatened breaches of this Agreement and to enforce specifically the terms and provisions hereof, this being in addition to any other remedy to which they are entitled at law or in equity. Each of the Parties agrees that prior to the valid termination of this Agreement in accordance with Article VIII , it will not oppose the granting of an injunction, specific performance and other equitable relief as provided herein on the basis that (x) either Party has an adequate remedy at law or (y) an award of specific performance is not an appropriate remedy for any reason at law or equity. Any Party seeking an injunction or injunctions to prevent breaches or threatened breaches of this Agreement and to enforce specifically the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall not be required to provide, furnish or post any bond or other security in connection with any such order or injunction and each Party hereby irrevocably waives any right it may have to require the provision, furnishing or posting of any such bond or other security.

assistant: Specific Performance
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: For purposes of this Article 3, the terms Life Annuity, Joint and Spouse Beneficiary Survivor Annuity, Joint and Nonspouse Beneficiary Survivor Annuity and Total Pension Value Guarantee shall have the same meanings as under the ERIP, as the same may be amended from time to time.

assistant: Definitions
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 may be executed in any number of counterparts (which may be effectively delivered by facsimile, in portable electronic format (“PDF”) or other similar electronic means) each of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same agreement.

assistant: Counterparts
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: Only Eligible Executives may participate in the Plan. The CEO shall automatically participate in the Plan for each Performance Period. Other Eligible Executives may participate in the Plan for a given Performance Period only if and to the extent the Committee, in its discretion, selects such other Eligible Executives to be Participants for that Performance Period. An Eligible Executive who is designated by the Committee as a Participant for a given Performance Period is not guaranteed or assured of being selected for participation in any subsequent Performance Period; provided that the CEO shall automatically be a Participant for all Performance Periods.

assistant: Participations
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 may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one agreement. Delivery of an executed signature page of this Agreement by facsimile transmission or electronic transmission (i.e., a “pdf” or “tif”) shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof.

assistant: Counterparts
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 125, 644 N.Y.S.2d 919. The City’s theory was that both it and the paint manufacturer had a duty to the tenants arising from the introduction of lead-based paint into their living residences, and so it would pay to remove the hazard and then sue the manufacturer for indemnification. Here, by contrast, the City alleges that Amtrak owed the City a duty to remove its electrical equipment from the bridge (which the City owned) and that the City owed the public a duty to keep the bridge in good repair. The City does not argue that, in paying for the removal of the electrical equipment, the City was performing its duty, but rather that it was performing Amtrak’s duty to it. That does not amount to a claim for indemnification, and so the court will grant summary judgment to Amtrak. IV 4) (<HOLDING>). 3 . See Jarcho Decl., Ex. 15 (Deed from Penn Options: A. holding that the restraint of a covenant not to compete must be reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the particular case and that only a legitimate business interest may be protected by the covenant B. holding that a roadway benefitting land outside the subdivision was not a residential purpose and was therefore a violation of the restrictive covenant C. holding that a roadway is a structure and its construction would violate the restrictive covenant limiting the land to residential purposes D. holding employment agreement consisting entirely of a covenant not to compete unenforceable because the covenant must be supported by valuable consideration E. holding that covenant to maintain and repair fences runs with the land and is an encumbrance

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that covenant to maintain and repair fences runs with the land and is an encumbrance
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: that granting relief in its case will not have been a “futile gesture.” Boyd v. Bulala, 905 F.2d 764, 769 (4th Cir.1990). Essentially, the law “requires a proffer of evidence which would permit a finding for the [moving] party or which would establish a valid counterclaim.” Augusta Fiberglass Coatings, Inc. v. Fodor Contracting Corp., 843 F.2d 808, 812 (4th Cir.1988). To prove a meritorious claim or defense, the movant need not show an actual likelihood of success at trial but must make allegations that, if established at trial, would constitute a valid claim or defense. See 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 60.24[2] (3d ed.1999). See, e.g., Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Local 59 v. Superline Transp. Co., 953 F.2d 17, 21 (1st Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). For purposes of gauging the movant’s claim or Options: A. holding that regardless of other factors as to harms a movants likelihood of success must carry at least a fair chance of success on the merits in order to warrant interim relief internal quotation omitted B. holding that although the movant need not establish an ironclad claim or defense which will guarantee success at trial it must at least establish that it possesses a potentially meritorious claim or defense which if proven will bring success in its wake C. holding that under the sliding scale approach a petitioner had made a sufficiently strong showing of likely success on the merits where he presented a case which raises serious legal questions or has a reasonable probability or fair prospect of success D. holding that in class action the claim or defense of the representative party must be typical of the claim or defense of each member of the class E. holding that the movant had to establish both of the first two factors ie likelihood of success and irreparable harm to receive a preliminary injunction

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that although the movant need not establish an ironclad claim or defense which will guarantee success at trial it must at least establish that it possesses a potentially meritorious claim or defense which if proven will bring success in its wake
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: factual allegations that show the origin of the damages rather than on the legal theories alleged” to determine whether the claims fall within the scope of the policy’s coverage. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Merchants Fast Motor Lines, Inc., 939 S.W.2d 139, 141 (Tex.1997) (per curiam); Huffhines v. State Farm Lloyds, 167 S.W.3d 493, 497 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.). The existence of coverage under the E & O policy in a suit against an “insured person” such as Primo therefore depends upon whether the petition states claims within the exclusion for suits “made against any Insured ... by, or for the benefit of, or at the behest of ... any person or entity which succeeds to the interest of [Briar Green].” See Pine Oak Builders, Inc., 279 S.W.3d at 654 (<HOLDING>). C. Great American failed to prove as a matter Options: A. holding insurers duty to defend is determined by allegations in the petition B. holding the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend C. holding that an insurers duty to defend arises from the allegations in the complaint against the insured D. holding despite authority for the general proposition that the duty to defend is determined based on the allegations of the complaint that an insurer had no duty to defend where the underlying claim was covered by the policy based on the facts pleaded in complaint but other facts not appearing in the complaint excluded coverage E. holding that there is a duty to defend if any of the complaints allegations fall within the risk covered by the policy

assistant: The best answer is A. holding insurers duty to defend is determined by allegations in the petition
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 HEREBY WAIVES ITS RIGHTS TO A JURY TRIAL OF ANY CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON OR ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT, OR THE SUBJECT MATTER HEREOF . THE SCOPE OF THIS WAIVER IS INTENDED TO BE ALL-ENCOMPASSING OF ANY AND ALL DISPUTES THAT MAY BE FILED IN ANY COURT AND THAT RELATE TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS TRANSACTION, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, CONTRACT CLAIMS, TORT CLAIMS (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), BREACH OF DUTY CLAIMS, AND ALL OTHER COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY CLAIMS. THIS SECTION HAS BEEN FULLY DISCUSSED BY EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO AND THESE PROVISIONS WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO ANY EXCEPTIONS. EACH PARTY HERETO HEREBY FURTHER WARRANTS AND REPRESENTS THAT SUCH PARTY HAS REVIEWED THIS WAIVER WITH ITS LEGAL COUNSEL, AND THAT SUCH PARTY KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVES ITS JURY TRIAL RIGHTS FOLLOWING CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Loan Party represents and warrants that after giving effect to this Amendment (a) the representations and warranties of the Loan Party set forth in Article VI of the Credit Agreement are true and correct in all material respects as of the date hereof, except to the extent that such representations and warranties specifically refer to an earlier date, in which case they shall be true and correct in all material respects as of such earlier date, and (b) no event has occurred and is continuing which constitutes a Default.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: § 4B1.1(a)-(b), and define “crime of violence” as “any offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that ... has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another,” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1). Consequently, cases dealing with the elements clauses of the ACCA and the career offender guidelines are instructive in this case. Cf. United States v. Lockley, 632 F.3d 1238, 1241 (11th Cir.2011). In Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010), the Supreme Court recently instructed that the type of “physical force” required under the ACCA’s elements clause is “violent force — that is, force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person.” Id. at 1271 (<HOLDING>). It further held that while the meaning of Options: A. holding that escape is categorically a violent felony under the acca B. holding that in pennsylvania lack of informed consent claims utilize a battery standard that is a physician commits battery where the patient does not consent to the procedure on his person thus constituting a harmful or offensive contact C. holding that battery is an inherently included offense of aggravated battery D. holding that simple battery the actual and intentional touching of another does not constitute a predicate offense because the acca requires violent force not merely offensive contact E. holding that following voisine reckless conduct can constitute use of force under the acca because the force clauses in 18 usc 921a33aii and the acca both define qualifying predicate offenses as those involving the use of physical force against another

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that simple battery the actual and intentional touching of another does not constitute a predicate offense because the acca requires violent force not merely offensive contact
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 effect of this Note is to amend and restate the Original Note. This Note shall constitute a renewal, extension and modification of the terms of the Original Note and evidences the same indebtedness that existed under the Original Note. The Company and the Holder agree and acknowledge that any and all rights, remedies and payment provisions under the Original Note, as hereby amended and restated, shall continue and survive the execution and delivery of this Note. The Company and the Holder further agree and acknowledge that any and all amounts owing or otherwise due under or pursuant to the Original Note immediately prior to the effectiveness of this Note shall be owing and otherwise due pursuant to this Note. All references to the Original Note in any agreement, instrument or document executed or delivered in connection herewith or therewith shall be deemed to refer to this Note, as the same may be amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Ciba. As a result, its employees’ positions were essentially unaltered because they performed the same work under the same conditions for almost all of the same supervisors. Therefore, there was substantial continuity between the Brown & Root and Brown-Eagle operations. Second, but for its discriminatory hiring practices, as found by the NLRB based on substantial evidence, Brown-Eagle applicants would have constituted a majority of the Brown & Root workforce in this department, which would have satisfied the second prong of the successorship doctrine. Because it cannot benefit from its unlawful practices, we must uphold the NLRB’s finding that Brown & Root was a successor employer and had a duty to bargain with the Union. In re Galloway, 321 NLRB 1422, 1425, 1996 WL 514510 (1996) (<HOLDING>). In addition, because of its discriminatory Options: A. recognizing that when an entity exercises sufficient control over employees it may be considered a joint employer B. holding that a section 8a3 violation is sufficient to find that the new employer would have employed a sufficient number of predecessor employees to be a successor employer had it acted lawfully C. recognizing that an employer is liable for an employees action if the employer knew or should have known about an employees acts of harassment and fails to take appropriate remedial action D. holding that existence of deliberate and informed consent turns on whether it is understood between the employee and his employers that he is to remain in the allegiance of the first employer or is to be employed in the business and subject to the direction of the temporary employer E. holding that glc 152 15 provides that the only party immune from suit under the statute is the direct employer a special employer is not immune because the special employer is not liable for the payment of workers compensation and there was no agreement between the direct employer and the special employer that the special employer would be liable for the payment of such compensation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a section 8a3 violation is sufficient to find that the new employer would have employed a sufficient number of predecessor employees to be a successor employer had it acted lawfully
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 constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between the Company and Executive with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings (whether written or oral), between Executive and the Company, relating to such subject matter. None of the parties shall be liable or bound to any other party in any manner by any representations and warranties or covenants relating to such subject matter except as specifically set forth herein.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Participant hereby acknowledges that he or she has read and understood the terms regarding collection, processing and transfer of Data contained in Section 10 of the Agreement and, by accepting the Performance Option, Participant agrees to such terms. In this regard, upon request of the Company or the Employer, Participant agrees to provide an executed data privacy consent form to the Employer or the Company, or any other agreements or consents that the Company and/or the Employer may deem necessary to obtain Participant's consent to collect, process or transfer Participant's Data for purposes of administering his or her participation in the Plan under the data privacy laws in Russia, either now or in the future. Participant understands that he or she will not be able to participate in the Plan if he or she fails to execute any such consent or agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: barred by the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). In Heck, the Court held that a state prisoner’s claim for damages is not cognizable under § 1983 if it calls into question the lawfulness of his conviction or confinement, unless he can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Id. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364. To grant Johnson’s requested relief would necessarily invalidate the Parole Board’s decision to revoke his parole. See Williams v. Consovoy, 453 F.3d 173, 177 (3d Cir.2006) (applying Heck to parole revocation decisions). Accordingly, he is precluded from attacking it through § 1983. The fact that Johnson was re-released on parole does not preclude the application of Heck. Id. at 177-78 (<HOLDING>). Finally, Johnson alleged that, once he was Options: A. holding that federal maritime law and not state law applies to all actions for wrongful death in navigable state waters B. holding that an appellate court considers all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and grants the state all reasonable inferences C. recognizing that hecks favorable termination rule applies to all 1983 plaintiffs not just those in state custody D. recognizing that the rule of lenity applies only after courts exhaust all other evidence of congressional meaning E. recognizing rule

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that hecks favorable termination rule applies to all 1983 plaintiffs not just those in state custody
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Credit Parties own or possess adequate and legally enforceable rights or licenses to use all trademarks, trade names, service marks, service mark registrations, service names, patents, patent rights, copyrights, inventions, licenses, approvals, governmental authorizations, trade secrets and all other intellectual property rights necessary to conduct its business as now conducted (collectively, the “ IP Rights ”). All IP Rights, and any federal, state, local or foreign patent and trademark office, or functional equivalent thereof where any such IP Rights may be filed or registered, is set forth in Schedule 7.21 . All of the IP Rights are owned by the Credit Parties, except for IP Rights licensed by the Credit Parties, which licensed IP Rights are specifically outlined and described in Schedule 7.21 . If any IP Rights are licensed by any Credit Party, the underlying license agreement or other agreement pursuant to which such IP Rights are licensed (collectively, the “ License Agreements ”), permits Lender to encumber such License Agreements without any further consent or approval of any other Person, including the underlying owner of such IP Rights, such that if there was an Event of Default and Lender foreclosed on all Collateral, Lender would have the right to use such IP Rights under the License Agreements, subject only to Lender’s obligation to comply with the terms of such License Agreements. The Credit Parties do not have any knowledge of any infringement by any Credit Party of any IP Rights of others, and, to the knowledge of the Credit Parties, there is no claim, demand or Proceeding, or other demand of any nature being made or brought against, or to any Credit Party’s knowledge, being threatened against, any Credit Party regarding IP Rights or other intellectual property infringement; and is the Credit Parties are not aware of any facts or circumstances which might give rise to any of the foregoing.

assistant: Intellectual Property
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: any breach of any obligations implied by section 12 of the sale of goods act 1979 or section 2 of the supply of goods and services act 1982 .

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: v. Foundation Reserve Ins. Co, 77 N.M. 671, 676, 427 P.2d 29, 32 (1967) (stating that court will not be reversed when it reaches right result for wrong reason). Although Hansen’s deposition testimony standing alone was insufficient to overcome the apparent import of the “arising out of the accident” language, for reasons of policy discussed below we conclude that boilerplate universal release language such as that used here is circumstantially ambiguous. The best way of determining and enforcing the actual intent of the parties expressed in boilerplate language is to adopt a rebuttable presumption that a gener t release must identify persons in such a manner that parties to release would know who was to be benefitted); Beck v. Cianchetti, 1 Ohio St.3d 231, 439 N.E.2d 417, 420 (1982) (<HOLDING>); McMillen v. Klingensmith, 467 S.W.2d 193, 196 Options: A. holding that release discharges only those tortfeasors specifically named in the release agreement B. holding that release must specifically identify persons to be discharged in order to ensure that intent of parties is fulfilled C. holding that general release must name or specifically describe parties to be discharged D. holding that release must specifically name or otherwise specifically identify the persons to be discharged E. holding that in order to fulfill legislative intent to abolish commonlaw release rule general release must specifically identify parties to be released

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that general release must name or specifically describe parties to be discharged
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: now before the court is whether the alleged taking occurred before or after December 7, 2003. For the reasons set forth below, the court concludes that the complaint in this case was filed more than six years after the accrual of the takings claims raised by plaintiffs, and that those claims are therefore untimely. IV. Timeliness of Plaintiffs’ Claims A suit for just compensation under the Fifth Amendment must be filed in this court within six years of the date on which the takings claim first accrues. 28 U.S.C. § 2501. The United States Supreme Court has held that the six-year statute of limitations is an absolute jurisdictional limitation that cannot be waived by the government. John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130, 133-34, 128 S.Ct. 750, 169 L.Ed.2d 591 (2008) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs filed the instant suit on December Options: A. holding that the aedpa statute of limitations is not jurisdictional B. holding that the courts statute of limitations is jurisdictional in nature and is thus not subject to waiver or estoppel C. holding that the filing deadline under title vii is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court but a requirement that like a statute of limitations is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling D. holding that the timely filing of a discrimination charge with the eeoc is not a jurisdictional prerequisite but a requirement that like a statute of limitations is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling E. holding that the statute of limitations contained in section 2501 is jurisdictional and is not subject to tolling waiver or estoppel

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the courts statute of limitations is jurisdictional in nature and is thus not subject to waiver or estoppel
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: is not practicable. 11 U.S.C. § 1328(b). Most courts faced with a request for a hardship discharge have required the presence of catastrophic or compelling circumstances. See, e.g., In re Bandilli, 231 B.R. 836, 838 (1st Cir. BAP 1999) (an unanticipated death precluding payments under a confirmed plan held to be a catastrophic circumstance beyond the debtor’s control to support granting a hardship discharge). These debtors have not faced death or disability. Their reasons for the modification are just chronically poor economics, and they undoubtedly still need the case to help save their home. Therefore, hardship standards do not apply. This court has always looked askance at changes to the playing field this late in the game. See In re Zakowski, 213 B.R. 1003 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1997) (<HOLDING>). Here, the debtors moved to amend their plan Options: A. holding that property seized by a creditor prior to debtors bankruptcy was property of the estate even though creditor the irs held a secured interest a tax lien in the property B. holding it would not be fair to secured creditor to require release of its lien just a few months prior to plans completion when due to continuous negotiations throughout the pendency of the plan the bank expected to be paid in full C. holding that by virtue of section 1325a5 holder of secured claim retains the lien until the underlying debt is paid in full D. holding that the secured creditor was only entitled to the amount of its claim as provided in the debtors chapter 13 plan when the destruction of the vehicle yielded insurance proceeds greater than the secured creditors claim E. holding that a secured creditor is not entitled to receive any more than that to which it was entitled pursuant to the terms of the confirmed plan

assistant: The best answer is B. holding it would not be fair to secured creditor to require release of its lien just a few months prior to plans completion when due to continuous negotiations throughout the pendency of the plan the bank expected to be paid in full
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: describe a Fourth Amendment “seizure” because they tell us that the plaintiffs, in fact, did not submit to whatever restriction on their freedom Deputy Krieger attempted to impose. Id. (“A seizure occurs only when a person submits to the show of lawful authority... ,”). Nor do the plaintiffs’ other allegations state a claim under the Fourth Amendment. Ms. Christensen complained of being watched by Deputy Krieger as she went about her duties as an employee of a local gas station. At these moments, however, she did not enjoy a legitimate expectation of privacy. In her job at the gas station, she appeared in plain view of the public, and Deputy Krieger had no particular vantage point unavailable to the public generally. See United States v. Gonzalez, 328 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Thus, where Ms. Christensen’s job exposed her Options: A. holding defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in blood sample drawn by hospital B. holding that because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the expert report adequate as to the vicarious liability claim against the hospital based on the actions of the doctors plaintiffs suit against the hospital including her claim that the hospital was vicariously hable for the actions of its nurses could proceed C. holding that physicians as agents of the hospital are indistinguishable from the hospital for immunity purposes under the lgaa D. holding that a hospital employee caught on video in the mailroom of the hospital enjoyed no legitimate expectation of privacy E. holding that because the contract between the hospital and the health insurance company had a hold harmless provision which stated the hospital would not bill or hold insurance subscribers liable for any hospital expenses covered by the subscribers insurance contract and all expenses from the patients treatment for the automobile accident were covered in such contract there was no debt upon which the hospital could assert a lien pursuant to the states hospital lien statute

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a hospital employee caught on video in the mailroom of the hospital enjoyed no legitimate expectation of privacy
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: practices and to endeavor to eliminate, so far as possible, the last vestiges of discrimination.”) (quotations omitted); EEOC v. Frank’s Nursery & Crafts, Inc., 177 F.3d 448, 466 (6th Cir.1999) (noting that Congress approved of damages as a tool for eradicating discrimination “when it added the remedies of compensatory and punitive damages by enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1991”). Circuit City’s arbitration agreement, which limits punitive damages to the greater of $5,000 or the sum of a claimant’s backpay and front pay awards, eviscerates Congress’s intent to utilize punitive damages as a tool for combating discrimination, particularly in cases where no backpay or front pay is awarded. Even if Morrison were to receive the maximum amount of b t, Inc., 816 F.2d 1104, 1108 (6th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 913, 108 S.Ct. 259, 98 Options: A. holding that a prisoners claim was saved by his request for nominal and punitive damages even though he could not recover compensatory damages under the prison litigation reform act B. holding that a plaintiff who proves a cause of action under 1981 may recover punitive damages where the plaintiff is entitled to an award of compensatory damages even if nominal C. holding a court may not award punitive damages D. holding that when compensatory damages are nominal a much higher ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages can be contemplated E. holding that conduct must be beyond the fraud which supported compensatory damages to award punitive damages

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a plaintiff who proves a cause of action under 1981 may recover punitive damages where the plaintiff is entitled to an award of compensatory damages even if nominal
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: Ex. 2. She errs in her reliance, however, because Bryant qualifies his statement by stating that the “support” was “[d]uring [the plaintiffs] absence” and that “[t]o [his] knowledge, [the plaintiff] retained the ability and latitude to interact with the staff members.” Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 2. Accordingly, the plaintiff, relying on her own self-serving affidavit, offers no direct evidence of the reassignment of her work. See generally Pl.’s Opp’n & Exs. 1, 4. This Circuit has held that “under some circumstances ... a party relying on unsupported affidavits cannot survive summary judgment.” McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 271 F.3d 1101, 1109 (D.C.Cir.2001) (emphasis added), vacated in part on other grounds, 320 F.3d 280 (D.C.Cir.2003); see also Arrington, 473 F.3d at 343 (<HOLDING>). Because the plaintiff offers no corroboration Options: A. holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the defendants reasons for not hiring the plaintiff were pretext because the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence other than her own subjective testimony that she was more qualified for the job than the selectee B. holding that when a plaintiff relies entirely on his own selfserving testimony which lacks any corroboration and is contradicted by all the available evidence a court is not obligated to reward the plaintiff with a jury trial C. holding that the burden is on the plaintiff D. holding that 1 the complaint is deemed to include any documents incorporated in it by reference and any document upon which it solely relies and which is integral to the complaint and that the court may consider such documents on a motion to dismiss pursuant to fedrcivp 12b6 E. holding that where plaintiff by his own evidence shows two or more equally likely causes of the injury for only one of which defendant is responsible plaintiff can not recover

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that when a plaintiff relies entirely on his own selfserving testimony which lacks any corroboration and is contradicted by all the available evidence a court is not obligated to reward the plaintiff with a jury trial
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 acknowledge and agree that the yahoo services and any necessary software used in connection with the yahoo services ( `` software '' ) contain proprietary and confidential information that is protected by applicable intellectual property and other laws .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The capitalization of the Company is as set forth on Schedule 3.1(g) . No Person has any right of first refusal, preemptive right, right of participation, or any similar right to participate in the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents. Except as disclosed on Schedule 3.1(g) , there are no outstanding options, employee or incentive stock option plans, warrants, scrip rights to subscribe to, calls or commitments of any character whatsoever relating to, or securities, rights or obligations convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for, or giving any Person any right to subscribe for or acquire any shares of Common Stock, or contracts, commitments, understandings or arrangements by which the Company or any Subsidiary is or may become bound to issue additional shares of Common Stock or Common Stock Equivalents. Except as set forth on Schedule 3.1(g) , the issuance and sale of the Securities will not obligate the Company to issue shares of Common Stock or other securities to any Person (other than the Purchasers) and will not result in a right of any holder of Company securities to adjust the exercise, conversion, exchange or reset price under any of such securities. All of the outstanding shares of capital stock of the Company are duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable, have been issued in material compliance with all federal and state securities laws, and none of such outstanding shares was issued in violation of any preemptive rights or similar rights to subscribe for or purchase securities. No further approval or authorization of the Board of Directors is required for the issuance and sale of the Securities. There are no stockholders agreements, voting agreements or other similar agreements with respect to the Company’s capital stock to which the Company is a party or, to the knowledge of the Company, between or among any of the Company’s stockholders.

assistant: Capitalization
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 church did not “use the property for the benefit of an indefinite class of people.” In making this argument, plaintiffs relied on our analysis of § 462 in MacDonough-Webster Lodge No. 26 v. Wells, 2003 VT 70, 175 Vt. 382, 834 A.2d 25. There we held that the an.1ytic framework for applying the charitable-use exemption from property taxation contained in 32 V.S.A. § 3802(4) also applied to the charitable-use exemption of § 462. This entailed application of the three-part test for “public” use announced in American Museum of Fly Fishing, Inc. v. Town of Manchester, 151 Vt. 103, 110, 557 A.2d 900, 904 (1989), and later extended to “charitable” use in, among other decisions, Institute of Professional Practice v. Town of Berlin, 174 Vt. 535, 536, 811 A.2d 1238, 1240 (2002) (mem.) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 48. The elements of the American Museum Options: A. holding that the mortgaging or conveying of exempt property to a creditor is not against the public policy of the state of michigan and that that the bankrupt had the power to convey to a creditor his existing exemptions resulting in the exempt property not being property of the debtor or the debtors bankruptcy estate B. holding that a charitable organizations religious purposes will not remove it from the purview of a property tax exemption C. holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate D. holding that to be exempt from property tax as a public or charitable use the property must meet the american museum test E. recognizing that exempt property ceases to be property of the estate

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that to be exempt from property tax as a public or charitable use the property must meet the american museum test
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: Upon the request of an Agent, Borrower shall execute and deliver, or cause to be executed and delivered, all documents as shall be necessary or that such Agent shall reasonably request in connection with the rights and remedies of the Lender Parties under the Credit Documents and each Equipment Supplier Disbursement Certificate, and perform such other reasonable acts as may be necessary to carry out the intent of the Credit Documents and each Equipment Supplier Disbursement Certificate.

assistant: Further Assurances