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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement will be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Georgia applicable to agreements made and to be performed entirely in such State. This Agreement may not be assigned by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, and their respective successors and permitted assigns. Any right to trial by jury with respect to any dispute arising under this Agreement or any transaction or conduct in connection herewith is waived. Any dispute arising under this Agreement may be brought into the courts of the State of Georgia located in Fulton County or into the Federal Court located in Atlanta, Georgia and, by execution and delivery of this Agreement, the Company hereby accepts for itself and in respect of its property, generally and unconditionally, the jurisdiction of aforesaid courts. Each party hereto hereby irrevocably waives personal service of process and consents to process being served in any such suit, action or proceeding by delivering a copy thereof via overnight delivery (with evidence of delivery) to such party at the address in effect for notices to it under this Agreement and agrees that such service shall constitute good and sufficient service of process and notice thereof. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to limit in any way any right to serve process in any manner permitted by law. If either party shall commence an action or proceeding to enforce any provisions of this Agreement, then the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be reimbursed by the other party for its reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs and expenses incurred with the investigation, preparation and prosecution of such action or proceeding.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Justice SAYLOR. Appellant, Jerome Gibson, was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in 1995, and this Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. See Commonwealth v. Gibson, 553 Pa. 648, 720 A.2d 473 (1998). In proceedings under the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546 (the “PCRA”), a post-conviction court denied guilt-phase relief but awarded a new penalty hearing, and cross-appeals to this Court ensued. In light of the United States Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002) (<HOLDING>), the parties sought and obtained a remand to Options: A. holding that under the eighth amendment to the united states constitution the government may not execute a mentally retarded person B. holding that execution of the mentally retarded is prohibited under the eighth amendment to the united states constitution C. holding that the execution of mentally retarded criminals violates the eighth amendment D. holding that the eighth amendment to the united states constitution prohibits the execution of mentally retarded individuals E. holding execution of mentally retarded individuals fails to achieve legitimate penalogical objectives for punishment as required by the eighth amendment to the united states constitution and article i 16 of the tennessee constitution

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that under the eighth amendment to the united states constitution the government may not execute a mentally retarded person
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise set forth in these Award Terms, the Restricted Share Units shall vest in accordance with the Schedule for Vesting” set forth on the Grant Notice. Each Restricted Share Unit, upon vesting thereof, shall entitle the holder thereof to receive one Common Share (subject to adjustment pursuant to Section 10 hereof).

assistant: Vesting
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: literal reading of § 523(a)(2)(A) is inconsistent with our case law. See In re Levy, 951 F.2d 196, 198 (9th Cir.1991) (section 523(a)(2)(A) “limits nondis-ehargeability to the amount of benefit to the debtor or loss to the creditor the act of fraud itself created”). An action for nondischarge-ability under § 523(a)(2)(A) requires only: (1) a representation; (2) falsity; (3) scienter; (4) reliance; and “(5) that the creditor sustained the alleged loss and damage as the proximate result of the representations having been made.” In re Britton, 950 F.2d at 604. Malpractice is a foreseeable result of any medical procedure, id. at 604-05, and the fifth element can be proved if the debtor fraudulently induced the creditor to undergo a procedure that was then negligently performed. Id. at 605 (<HOLDING>). Lee-Benner alleged damage from negligent Options: A. holding finding of reliability not clearly erroneous despite lack of prior description B. holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination under title vii was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record C. holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record D. holding clearly erroneous bankruptcy courts conclusion that mobile home was property of the estate E. holding bankruptcy courts finding of proximate causation not to be clearly erroneous

assistant: The best answer is E. holding bankruptcy courts finding of proximate causation not to be clearly erroneous
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 373 U.S. 59 83 S.Ct. 1050 10 L.Ed.2d 193 Robert Galloway WHITE, Petitioner,v.STATE OF MARYLAND. No. 600. Argued April 16, 1963. Decided April 29, 1963. Fred E. Weisgal, Baltimore, Md., for petitioner. Robert F. Sweeney, Baltimore, Md., for respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner, who was sentenced to death while his codefendant was given life, appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals which affirmed his conviction. 227 Md. 615, 177 A.2d 877. We granted certiorari 'limited to the point of law raised in Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114.' See 371 U.S. 909, 83 S.Ct. 259, 9 L.Ed.2d 169. 2 Petitioner was arrested on May 27, 1960, and brought before a magistrate on May 31, 1960, for a preliminary hearing. But that hearing was postponed and not actually held until August 9, 1960. At that time petitioner was not yet represented by a lawyer. When arraigned at that preliminary hearing he pleaded guilty. That Maryland calls the 'arraignment' was first held September 8, 1960; but since petitioner was not represented by counsel, his arraignment was postponed and counsel appointed for him on September 9, 1960. He was finally arraigned on November 25, 1960, and entered pleas of 'not guilty' and 'not guilty by reason of insanity.' At his trial the plea of guilty made at the preliminary hearing on August 9, 1960, was introduced in evidence.* Since he did not have counsel at the time of the preliminary hearing, he argued that Hamilton v. Alabama, supra, applied. The Court of Appeals disagreed, saying that arraignment in Alabama is 'a critical stage in a criminal proceeding' where rights are preserved or lost (368 U.S. 53—54, 82 S.Ct. 158), while under Maryland law there was 'no requirement (nor any practical possibility under our present criminal procedure) to appoint counsel' for petitioner at the preliminary hearing * * * nor was it necessary for appellant to enter a plea at that time.' 227 Md., at 625, 177 A.2d, at 882. 3 Whatever may be the normal function of the 'preliminary hearing' under Maryland law, it was in this case as 'critical' a state as arraignment under Alabama law. For petitioner entered a plea before the magistrate and that plea was taken at a time when he had no counsel. 4 We repeat what we said in Hamilton v. Alabama, supra, at 55, 82 S.Ct. at 159 that we do not stop to determine whether prejudice resulted: 'Only the presence of counsel could have enabled this accused to know all the defenses available to him and to plead intelligently.' We therefore hold that Hamilton v. Alabama governs and that the judgment below must be and is reversed. 5 Reversed. * Although petitioner did not object to the introduction of this evidence at the trial (227 Md., at 619—620, 177 A.2d, at 879), the rationale of Hamilton v. Alabama, supra, does not rest, as we shall see, on a showing of prejudice.

assistant: 1
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH PARTY ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT ANY CONTROVERSY WHICH MAY ARISE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT IS LIKELY TO INVOLVE COMPLICATED AND DIFFICULT ISSUES AND, THEREFORE, EACH SUCH PARTY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVES ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN RESPECT OF ANY LEGAL ACTION ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT or the transactions contemplated hereby. EACH PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT CERTIFIES AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT: (A) NO REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY OTHER PARTY HAS REPRESENTED, EXPRESSLY OR OTHERWISE, THAT SUCH OTHER PARTY WOULD NOT SEEK TO ENFORCE THE FOREGOING WAIVER IN THE EVENT OF A LEGAL ACTION; (B) SUCH PARTY HAS CONSIDERED THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS WAIVER; (C) SUCH PARTY MAKES THIS WAIVER VOLUNTARILY; AND (D) SUCH PARTY HAS BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATIONS IN THIS SECTION 6.12 .

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: The base salary (as set forth in Section 2.2) and Incentive Compensation (as defined in Section 2.3) payable to the Executive hereunder, as well as any stock-based compensation, including stock options, stock appreciation rights and restricted stock grants, shall be determined from time to time by the Board and paid pursuant to the Company’s customary payroll practices or in accordance with the terms of the applicable stock-based Plans (as defined in Section 2.4). The Company shall pay the Executive in cash, in accordance with the normal payroll practices of the Company, the base salary and Incentive Compensation set forth below. For the avoidance of doubt, in providing any compensation payable in stock, the Company may withhold, deduct or collect from the compensation otherwise payable or issuable to the Executive a portion of such compensation to the extent required to comply with applicable tax laws to the extent such withholding is not made or otherwise provided for pursuant to the agreement governing such stock-based compensation.

assistant: General
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 Amendment shall be deemed effective as of the date first written above, as if executed on such date. Except as expressly set forth herein, this Amendment shall not by implication or otherwise alter, modify, amend or in any way affect any of the terms, conditions, obligations, covenants or agreements contained in the Agreement, all of which are ratified and affirmed in all respects and shall continue in full force and effect and shall be otherwise unaffected.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower and its Subsidiaries have filed all federal and state and other material tax returns and reports required to be filed, and have paid all federal, state and other material Taxes levied or imposed upon them or their properties, income or assets, except those which (a) are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and for which adequate reserves have been provided in accordance with GAAP (to the extent required by GAAP) or (b) where failure to do any of the foregoing could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the representations and warranties of the Purchaser shall be true and correct in all material respects as of the date when made and as of the Closing Date as though made at that time, except for representations and warranties that are expressly made as of a particular date, which shall be true and correct in all material respects as of such date.

assistant: Warranties
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 Trs. of Univ. of Ill., 2011 WL 577108, at *5 (C.D.Ill.2011). This is a difficult burden for a plaintiff to meet. See Powers, 2011 WL 577108, at *5, citing Creative Trade Group, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Alliance, Inc., 2009 WL 3713345, at *6 (N.D.Ill.2009). Plaintiff has the ultimate burden of persuasion to demonstrate he is entitled to judgment on his claims as a matter of law. Powers, 2011 WL 577108, at *5. It has been recognized that “[sjummary judg ment in favor of the party with the burden of persuasion ... is inappropriate when the evidence is susceptible of different interpretations or inferences by the trier of fact.” Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 553, 119 S.Ct. 1545, 143 L.Ed.2d 731 (1999); see also Frobose v. Am. Sav. Loan Ass’n of Danville, 152 F.3d 602, 615 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). II. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Options: A. holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment by default when the movants summary judgment proof is legally insufficient B. recognizing that questions of intent and credibility make it difficult to grant summary judgment in favor of the party with the burden of proof C. holding that a grant of summary judgment in favor of one party creates a final judgment allowing appellate review of denial of opposing partys summary judgment motion D. holding that movant is entitled to summary judgment when party with burden of proof fails to establish genuine fact issue E. holding that to survive a motion for summary judgment a party must make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that partys case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that questions of intent and credibility make it difficult to grant summary judgment in favor of the party with the burden of proof
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: Sellers and Purchaser shall use commercially reasonable efforts to cooperate with the Party contesting the Taxes (at no cost or expense to the Parties not contesting the Taxes other than any de minimis cost or expense or any cost or expense which the requesting Party agrees in writing to reimburse) and to execute and deliver any documents and instruments reasonably requested by the Party contesting the Taxes in furtherance of the contest of such Taxes. This Section 6.5.3 shall survive the Closing.

assistant: Cooperation
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: LXRT has all requisite authority and power, Licenses, authorizations, consents and approvals to enter into and deliver this Agreement and any of the other Transaction Documents to which LXRT is a party and any other certificate, agreement, document or instrument to be executed and delivered by LXRT in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby and to perform their respective obligations hereunder and thereunder and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby. The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the other Transaction Documents by LXRT and the performance by LXRT of its respective obligations hereunder and thereunder and the consummation by LXRT of the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby have been duly authorized by all necessary action on the part of LXRT. LXRT is not required to give any notice to, make any filing with, or obtain any authorization, consent or approval of any Person or Governmental Authority in order for the Parties to execute, deliver or perform this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby. This Agreement has been, and each of the Transaction Documents to which LXRT is a party will be, duly and validly authorized and approved, executed and delivered by LXRT.

assistant: Authority
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: for example , do not copy or distribute ( except through the available sharing functionality ) the posts or other content of others without their permission , which they may give by posting under a creative commons license ;

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: plaintiff against Costanzo. We disagree. Pa.R.C.P. § 1028(a)(3) provides that preliminary objections may be filed for insufficient specificity in a pleading. The content of pleadings is governed by Pa.R.C.P. § 1019(a) which requires that “the material facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in concise and summary form.” Pa.R.C.P. §1019(a). Pennsylvania is a fact pleading state. Pleadings in a fact pleading jurisdiction serve the purpose of putting an opponent on notice of what he will be called upon to meet at trial and to define the issues for trial. Mansour ex rel. Mansour v. Gnaden Huetten Memorial Hospital, 2007 WL 5234151 (Pa. Com. Pl.), 3 Pa. D. & C.5th 149; Estate of Swift v. Northwestern Hospital of Philadelphia, 690 A.2d 719, 723 (Pa. Super. 1996) (<HOLDING>). “The purpose behind the rules of pleading is Options: A. holding that a claim including a constitutional claim must have been asserted to the trial court to be raised on appeal B. holding that the allegations must apprise the defendant of the claim being asserted and summarize the essential facts to support the claim C. holding estoppel claim could not lie in tort where the facts that support the claim could not support a claim for fraud or misrepresentation D. holding that a wrongful death claim related back to a personal injury claim in an automobile accident case where the wrongful death claim arose from the same transaction or occurrence as the original complaint and the defendant was advised of the essential facts necessary to prepare his defense even with the added claim E. recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the allegations must apprise the defendant of the claim being asserted and summarize the essential facts to support the claim
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 Warrant may be amended or supplemented only by an instrument in writing signed by the parties hereto. This Warrant, together with the Purchase Agreement and the Note, taken together, contain the full understanding of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and thereof and there are no representations, warranties, agreements or understandings with respect to the subject matter hereof and thereof other than as expressly contained herein and therein.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices, demands, consents, requests, instructions and other communications to be given or delivered or permitted under or by reason of the provisions of this Agreement or in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be delivered and received by the intended recipient as follows: (i) if personally delivered, on the business day of such delivery (as evidenced by the receipt of the personal delivery service), (ii) if mailed certified or registered mail return receipt requested, two (2) business days after being mailed, (iii) if delivered by overnight courier (with all charges having been prepaid), on the business day of such delivery (as evidenced by the receipt of the overnight courier service of recognized standing), or (iv) if delivered by facsimile or electronic transmission, on the business day of such delivery if sent by 6:00 p.m. in the time zone of the recipient, or if sent after that time, on the next succeeding business day (as evidenced by the printed confirmation of delivery generated by the sending party’s telecopier machine). If any notice, demand, consent, request, instruction or other communication cannot be delivered because of a changed address of which no notice was given (in accordance with this Section 11.3), or the refusal to accept same, the notice, demand, consent, request, instruction or other communication shall be deemed received on the second business day the notice is sent (as evidenced by a sworn affidavit of the sender). All such notices, demands, consents, requests, instructions and other communications will be sent to the following addresses or facsimile numbers as applicable.

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: If Licensee becomes aware of any Unauthorized Use with respect to any of the Licensed Marks, Licensee shall promptly notify Licensor in writing and provide relevant information in its possession relating to such Unauthorized Use, and the Parties shall cooperate and consult in good faith regarding appropriate action to address the Unauthorized Use, consistent with the provisions of this Section 3.5.

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: be vacated and remanded for a new trial. [¶ 41] As the majority states, the use of deadly force is justified when the person reasonably believes it is necessary for self-defense and reasonably believes that the other person is about to use unlawful deadly force against him. 17-A M.R.S. § 108(2)(A)(1) (2010). A person is not justified in using deadly force if he knows that he can retreat with complete safety, “except that the person ... is not required to retreat if the person ... is in the person’s dwelling place and was not the initial aggressor.” Id. § 108(C)(3)(a). It is undisputed that the stabbing took place in Pabon’s home, and the parties agree that the dwelling-place exception to the duty to retreat rule applies in this case. See State v. Laverty, 495 A.2d 831, 833 (Me.1985) (<HOLDING>). Therefore the court’s failure to include this Options: A. holding that the penalty is applicable B. holding that the dwelling place exception to the retreat rule is applicable even if the assailant is lawfully present as in the case of a codweller C. holding that the constitutional right to be present is satisfied so long as the defendant is given an opportunity to register his opinions with counsel after juror questioning and is present when the exercise of strikes is given formal effect even if the defendant is not present when his lawyer actually exercises the peremptory challenges D. holding rule applicable to witness E. recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the dwelling place exception to the retreat rule is applicable even if the assailant is lawfully present as in the case of a codweller
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 plain language of the public disclosure bar to hold that "[i]t does not deny jurisdiction over actions based on disclosures other than those specified”); United States ex rel. O’Keeffe v. Sverdup Corp., 131 F.Supp.2d 87, 91 (D.Mass.2001). 71 .LeBlanc I, 913 F.2d at 20. 72 . See Mathews, 166 F.3d at 863-64; United States ex rel. Siller v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 21 F.3d 1339, 1348-49 (4th Cir.1994); O'Keeffe, 131 F.Supp.2d at 92; United States ex rel. LeBlanc v. Raytheon Co., 874 F.Supp. 35, 40 (D.Mass.1995) ("LeBlanc II"). 73 . O’Keeffe, 131 F.Supp.2d at 92 (quoting United States ex rel. Doe v. John Doe Corp., 960 F.2d 318, 324 (2d Cir.1992)) (emphasis in original); see also United States ex rel. Mistick PBT v. Housing Auth. of Pittsburgh, 186 F.3d 376, 386-88 (3d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); United States ex rel. Biddle v. Bd. of Options: A. holding that the disclosure is a public disclosure within the meaning of the fca if the the prior public disclosure contained enough information to enable the government to pursue an investigation against the defendant B. holding that the inadvertent disclosure of a privileged document does not waive the attorneyclient privilege if attorney took all reasonable steps to avoid disclosure and asserted the privilege as soon as the disclosure became known C. holding that where an authorized disclosure is voluntarily made to a nonfederal party whether or not that disclosure is denominated confidential the government waives any claim that the information is exempt from disclosure under the deliberative process privilege D. holding that a qui tam action is based upon a qualifying disclosure if the disclosure sets out either the allegations advanced in the qui tam action or all of the essential elements of the qui tam actions claims E. holding that a valid final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a qui tam action is based upon a qualifying disclosure if the disclosure sets out either the allegations advanced in the qui tam action or all of the essential elements of the qui tam actions claims
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: (2d Cir.1993)). Thus, with the exception of their respective first elements, the two torts are indistinguishable. “ ‘[I]t is well settled that mere allegations of breach of contract do not give rise to a claim for fraud or fraudulent inducement.’ ” OHM Remediation Servs. Corp. v. Hughes Envtl. Sys., Inc., 952 F.Supp. 120, 122 (N.D.N.Y.1997) (quotation and other citation omitted); see also D.S. Am. (East), Inc. v. Chromagrafx Imaging Sys., Inc., 873 F.Supp. 786, 795 (E.D.N.Y.1995). “General allegations that [the] defendant entered into a contract while lacking the intent to perform it are insufficient” to support a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment. N.Y. Univ. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 87 N.Y.2d 308, 318, 639 N.Y.S.2d 283, 662 N.E.2d 763 (1995); TVT Records, 412 F.3d at 91 (<HOLDING>) (other citations omitted). “A fraud claim Options: A. holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant B. holding thatthe intention to breach does not give rise to a duty to disclose instead the duty to disclose must exist separately from the duty to perform under the contract citing bridgestonefirestone inc v recovery credit servs inc 98 f3d 13 20 2d cir1996 C. holding state has affirmative duty to disclose favorable and material evidence to defense D. holding that negligent breach of a duty assumed in a contract does not give rise to a separate tort claim E. holding that erisas duty of loyalty creates a duty to disclose certain information to beneficiaries

assistant: The best answer is B. holding thatthe intention to breach does not give rise to a duty to disclose instead the duty to disclose must exist separately from the duty to perform under the contract citing bridgestonefirestone inc v recovery credit servs inc 98 f3d 13 20 2d cir1996
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that summary judgment be granted in its favor because it has presented uncontested evidence that “Plaintiff invited her own harm” and sought out “a known or obvious danger” by intentionally purchasing the cell phones. (Id. at 22-23 (internal quotations omitted).) In her sur-reply, Plaintiff argues that her intent is irrelevant because bad-faith defenses are inapplicable to the TCPA. (ECF No. 64 at 4-5, 7-9.) She also asserts that the doctrines of assumption of the risk and volenti non fi the common law affirmative defenses of assumption] of the risk and volen-ti non fit injuria apply to the TCPA. The Court will therefore follow the FCC’s July 10, 2015, rules and regulations implementing the TCPA. See Morse v. Allied Interstate, LLC, No. 3:13-CV-625, 2014 WL 2916480 (M.D.Pa.2014) (<HOLDING>). See also Leyse v. Clear Channel Broad, Inc., Options: A. holding that order could be appealed because ajlthough the district court did not make an express finding there is no doubt that the district court intended its orders to be final judgments for purposes of appeal B. holding that the plaintiffs did not fall within the zone of interests protected by the tcpa because they attempted to use the statute in a way not intended or contemplated by congress and because their damages are not of the vexatious and intrusive nuisance nature sought to be redressed by congress in enacting the tcpa C. holding that a district court may not disregard the fccs final orders simply because congress did not specifically grant the fcc express authority to regulate a specific subsection of the tcpa D. holding that the fcc may consistent with american telephone bar collateral challenges to other fcc orders in proceedings brought to adjudicate applications to provide inregion long distance service E. holding that court of appeals statutory jurisdiction over final orders of removal extends to reinstatement orders

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a district court may not disregard the fccs final orders simply because congress did not specifically grant the fcc express authority to regulate a specific subsection of the tcpa
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: approach to this issue, given the current split among the circuits. As might be expected, two camps have emerged following Salinas. On one side, courts have found that the government need not prove a link exists. The Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Circuits occupy this camp. See United States v. Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303 (5th Cir.2002); United States v. Suarez, 263 F.3d 468 (6th Cir.2001); United States v. Morgan, 230 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir.2000); United States v. Grossi, 143 F.3d 348 (7th Cir.1998). In these decisions, courts often rely on earlier precedents, which refused to recognize any nexus requirement. Some also infer that because Salinas skirted the issue, rather than impose a requirement when it had the chance, that no requirement is necessary. See, e.g., Dakota, 197 F.3d at 826 (<HOLDING>); Morgan, 230 F.3d at 1067 (Salinas no more Options: A. holding that some federal connection to the misconduct is required B. holding that no nexus is required in part because salinas left the nature of any necessary connection unanswered C. holding that no nexus was required in a determination involving a stateless vessel D. holding the connection is an element E. holding that no federal nexus is required

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that no nexus is required in part because salinas left the nature of any necessary connection unanswered
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 he did not pull his arm away or do anything that would lead Sergeant Palmer to conclude that he was not complying with the arrest. (Doc. 38-2, p. 84). More importantly, once Mr. Scott was on the ground and Sergeant Palmer was on top of him with one arm cuffed behind Mr. Scott, there was no reason for Sergeant Palmer to continue to hit Mr. Scott in the back and press his head into the ground. An arrestee’s right to be free from this level of force during an arrest is clearly established; no reasonable officer with the information available to Sergeant Palmer could have believed that the amount of force that Sergeant Palmer used to arrest Mr. Scott was constitutionally permissible. Post v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 7 F.3d 1552, 1559 (11th Cir. 1993); see Hadley, 526 F.3d at 1334 (<HOLDING>). Although the non-resisting plaintiffs in Options: A. holding that the right to be free from the use of excessive force has been well established since 1976 B. holding that arrest warrant can support entry into suspects residence when there is reason to believe the suspect is within C. holding that a reasonable officer would have known that repeatedly punching kicking and stomping a subdued individual violated the clearly established constitutional right not to be subjected to excessive force during arrest D. holding that punching a nonresisting criminal suspect for no apparent reason other than malice was a violation of the suspects clearly established right to be free from excessive force during an arrest E. holding that in excessive force cases the threshold question for the court is whether the officers conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that punching a nonresisting criminal suspect for no apparent reason other than malice was a violation of the suspects clearly established right to be free from excessive force during an arrest
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 389 U.S. 18 88 S.Ct. 1 19 L.Ed.2d 18 Robert B. ROBERTSv.UNITED STATES. No. 330. Oct. 16, 1967. Thomas F. Call, for petitioner. Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg, for the United States. PER CURIAM. 1 The petition for certiorari is granted. Petitioner's conviction is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2 In proceedings before the Court of Appeals pursuant to our previous remand, Levine v. United States, 383 U.S. 265, 86 S.Ct. 925, 15 L.Ed.2d 737, the Court of Appeals granted petitioner's codefendant Levine a new trial based upon a disclosure by the Government that, after the return of the indictment, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation monitored conversations between Levine and Levine's attorney. But the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for the same relief or, alternatively, for a remand to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he was prejudiced by the monitoring; the Court of Appeals stated, however, that the motion was denied 'without prejudice to such application by him to the District Court as may be appropriate.' In the circumstances of this case, and in light of the acknowledgment of the Solicitor General in his brief in opposition that 'the F.B.I. logs pertaining to the monitored conversations' are available, we think the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioner's alternative motion for an evidentiary hearing in the District Court. We therefore vacate petitioner's conviction and remand to the District Court with direction to afford petitioner such an evidentiary hearing. Depending upon its findings, the District Court will either reinstate the conviction or order a new trial, as may be appropriate. See United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 242, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1940, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149. 3 Vacated and remanded. 4 Mr. Justice BLACK dissents. 5 Mr. Justice MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

assistant: 1
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: Subtenant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless Sublandlord and each of its affiliates, partners, members, directors, officers, employees, and agents, from and against any and all claims, suits, demands, liabilities, damages and expenses of every kind and description, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, arising from or in connection with (i) Subtenant’s use of the Sublease Premises or the conduct of its business therein; (ii) any activity performed or permitted by Subtenant or any of its affiliates, partners, members, directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors or licensees in or around the Building; (iii) any Event of Default; or (iv) the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of Subtenant or any of its affiliates, partners, members, directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, or licensees. Sublandlord shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless Subtenant and each of its affiliates, partners, members, directors, officers, employees, and agents, from and against any and all claims, suits, demands, liabilities, damages and expenses of every kind and description, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, arising from or in connection with (i) Sublandlord’s breach of this Sublease or the Master Lease after the expiration of any applicable notice and cure period or (ii) the gross negligence or willful misconduct of any Sublandlord Party within the Sublease Premises.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The New Administrative Agent shall have received all accrued and unpaid interest on the Original Term Loans and the Existing Revolving Credit Commitments, all fees required to be paid, and all expenses for which reasonably detailed invoices have been presented (including the reasonable fees and expenses of legal counsel), on or before the Restatement Effective Date.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: cannot assess the reliability of a remote anonymous informant in this manner. Moreover, the risk of “an in-person informant ... losing anonymity” is higher than that of a remote informant, furnishing more of an incentive for an in-person informant to be honest. Id. at 953. The information Ms. Thompson-Wright gave to Officer Chih was, if not technically an anonymous tip, functionally equivalent to one. The factors that render anonymous tips presumptively unreliable are plainly present here. Notwithstanding that Ms. Thompson-Wright was probably motivated by a desire to help bring her daughter’s assailant to justice, the motive of the source or sources of the information and photograph was completely unknown to Officer Chih. See United States v. Monteiro, 447 F.3d 39, 46 (1st Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>). For all Officer Chih knew, the source or Options: A. holding that the trial courts admonition of a witness even though detailed and strongly stated did not coerce the witness because the court did not threaten or badger the witness and the court provided the witness with her own counsel to ensure that the decision was voluntary B. holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness C. holding that a tip from an unnamed relative of a nonanonymous witness relayed by the witness was unreliable because inter alia even if the witness was honest in his interactions with the police his unnamed relative may have had her own motive for fabricating incriminating evidence D. recognizing that even evidence of a defendants and a witnesss prior bad acts was admissible to show inter alia the defendants familiarity with the witness E. holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a tip from an unnamed relative of a nonanonymous witness relayed by the witness was unreliable because inter alia even if the witness was honest in his interactions with the police his unnamed relative may have had her own motive for fabricating incriminating evidence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Co. v. American Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir.1998), which, if we adopted the Commonwealth’s view that the pro se petitioner bears the burden of anticipating exceptions to the statute of limitations, would prevent the petitioner from raising a tolling argument for the first time under Rule 59(e). And, even if a pro se petitioner is not required to anticipate the statute of limitations issue, we still believe that Rule 59(e) is not an adequate avenue for the petitioner to pursue a tolling argument because it affords a narrower basis for relief than is available prior to entry of a judgment. Thus, the better course is for the district court to provide a chance to respond before judgment is entered against the petitioner, not afterwards. See Herbst, 260 F.3d at 1043-44 (<HOLDING>). D. Finally, the Commonwealth argues that Hill Options: A. holding that rule 59e applies to a motion to reconsider B. holding that untimeliness is sufficient grounds for denying a motion to quash C. holding a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond D. holding that rule 59e is not sufficient to permit a pro se petitioner to respond to the sua sponte dismissal of a 2254 petition for untimeliness E. holding that a pro se party must be advised of consequences of failing to respond to a dispositive motion including an explanation that the failure to respond may result in the district court granting the motion and dismissing the case

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that rule 59e is not sufficient to permit a pro se petitioner to respond to the sua sponte dismissal of a 2254 petition for untimeliness
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 430 U.S. 704 97 S.Ct. 1671 51 L.Ed.2d 751 Willie Jasper DARDEN, petitioner,v.State of FLORIDA No. 76-5382 Supreme Court of the United States April 19, 1977 On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida. April 19, 1977. PER CURIAM. 1 The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. 2 Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice MARSHALL joins, dissents and, adhering to his view that capital punishment is in all circumstances prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments would set aside the death sentence imposed in this case.

assistant: 1
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: at the end of such trials , we may automatically start to charge you for the applicable paid subscription on the first day following the end of the trial , on a recurring monthly basis .

assistant: None