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 may be executed in counterparts, each of which is an original. It shall not be necessary in making proof of this Agreement or any counterpart hereof to produce or account for any of the other counterparts. Facsimile signatures and signatures transmitted by PDF shall be equivalent to original signatures.

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: 830 P.2d 216, 218 (Utah 1991)). 119 A sufficient affidavit may be used to promote efficiency during a plea colloquy. See Gibbons, 740 P.2d at 1313. However, "an affidavit should be only the starting point, not an end point, in the pleading process." Id. "It is critical ... that strict [rJule 11 compliance be demonstrated on the record at the time the guilty or no contest plea is entered." State v. Smith, 812 P.2d 470, 477 (Utah Ct.App.1991). "Therefore, if an affidavit is used to aid [rlule 11 compliance, it must be addressed during the plea hearing." Id. "The trial court must conduct an inquiry to establish that the defendant understands the affidavit and voluntarily signed it." Id.; see also State v. Maguire, 830 P.2d 216, 217, 1992 Utah LEXIS 29, No. 900555, *2-3 (Utah 1992) (<HOLDING>). Then, "[aloy omissions or ambiguities in the Options: A. holding that in determining whether the defendant has a prior conviction for burglary under the armed career criminal act the federal court may look only to the terms of the charging document the terms of a plea agreement or transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual basis for the plea was confirmed by the defendant or to some comparable judicial record of this information B. holding that a signed plea form without a colloquy to establish that defendant read and understood the contents of the form was insufficient to conclusively refute defendants claim that he was not advised regarding the sentence to be imposed C. recognizing that plea colloquy demonstrated that the defendant understood his rights and voluntarily relinquished them D. holding that a courts inquiry as to disputed facts in connection with a prior conviction is limited to the terms of the charging document a plea agreement a transcript of the plea colloquy or a comparable judicial record E. holding a plea affidavit is properly incorporated in the record when the trial judge ascertains in the plea colloquy that the defendant has read has understood and acknowledges all the information contained therein

assistant: The best answer is E. holding a plea affidavit is properly incorporated in the record when the trial judge ascertains in the plea colloquy that the defendant has read has understood and acknowledges all the information contained therein
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 the cited driver will not appear in court or is under the influence, the officer is statutorily empowered with discretion to arrest or cite the driver. 16 The case before us is distinguishable from Collins v. State, 113 Nev. 1177, 946 P.2d 1055 (1997), and Ortega v. Reyna, 114 Nev. 55, 953 P.2d 18 (1998), which were decided based on the mandatory provision of NRS 484.795. 17 Black’s Law Dictionary 419 (5th ed. 1979) (emphasis added). 18 Id. (emphasis added). 19 Osburn v. State, 118 Nev. 323, 325-26, 44 P.3d 523, 525 (2002); see also Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U.S. 769, 772 (2001) (explaining states may restrict police power under state law to a greater degree than the Supreme Court holds is necessary under the Federal Constitution); California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 43 (1988) (<HOLDING>). 20 Zale-Las Vegas v. Bulova Watch, 80 Nev. Options: A. holding that the idaho constitution provides no greater protection from double jeopardy than does the federal constitution B. holding that our federal constitution undoubtedly imposes constraints on the states power to control the selection of ones spouse C. recognizing that state constitution imposes more stringent limitations on power of state to inquire into lawful associations and speech than those imposed by federal constitution D. holding that under leatherman a federal court may not apply a pleading requirement more stringent than that provided for in the federal rules of civil procedure even in 1983 litigation E. holding that individual states may construe their own constitutions as imposing more stringent constraints on police conduct than does the federal constitution

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that individual states may construe their own constitutions as imposing more stringent constraints on police conduct than does the federal constitution
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 the Company receives notice pursuant to Section 6(a) hereof of the commencement of a Proceeding that may be covered under D&O Insurance then in effect, the Company shall give prompt notice of the commencement of such Proceeding to the insurers in accordance with the procedures set forth in the respective policies.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and each of the other Credit Documents, taken together, constitute and contain the entire agreement of the Borrower, the Lenders and the Administrative Agent and supersede any and all prior agreements, negotiations, correspondence, understandings and communications among the parties, whether written or oral, respecting the subject matter hereof (including, except to the extent expressly set forth therein, the commitment letter dated as of October 23, 2014 among Holdings, the Borrower, Wells Fargo and WFS), excluding the Fee Letters.

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: WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL . Each party hereto irrevocably and unconditionally consents to the jurisdiction of, and agrees, for the benefit of each party, that any legal action, suit or proceeding against it with respect to its obligations, liabilities or any other matter under or arising out of or in connection with this Agreement and with respect to the enforcement, modification, vacation or correction of an award rendered in an arbitration proceeding may be brought in, any Delaware State court or federal court of the United States sitting in the State of Delaware in any action or proceeding relating to this Agreement and consents to service of process in connection therewith by the delivery of notice to such Person’s address at the address for notices to such Person pursuant to this Agreement. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, EACH PARTY HERETO WAIVES ANY AND ALL RIGHTS THE PARTY MAY HAVE TO A JURY TRIAL WITH RESPECT TO ANY DISPUTE ARISING UNDER THIS AGREEMENT OR IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. Each party hereto waives any objection which it may now or hereafter have to the laying of venue of any of the aforesaid actions, suits or proceedings brought in any such Delaware court and hereby further waives and agrees not to plead or claim in any such Delaware court that any such action, suit or proceeding brought therein has been brought in an inconvenient forum. Furthermore, each Shareholder agrees to vote its voting Subject Shares to cause the Company to at any time make the foregoing consents, agreements and waivers in respect of any legal action, suit or proceeding against the Company by a Shareholder.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company may, without prejudice to any right or remedy it may have due to any failure of the Consultant to perform its obligations under this Agreement, terminate the Consultant and the Consulting Period upon fourteen (14) days’ prior written notice to the Consultant. In the event of such termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to payment for amounts accrued hereunder and for expenses paid or incurred prior to the effective date of termination in accordance with Section 3 above. Such payments shall constitute full settlement of any and all claims of the Consultant of every description against the Company. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company may terminate the Consultant and Consulting Period effective immediately upon receipt of written notice, if the Consultant breaches or threatens to breach any provision of Sections 3 or 8 of this Agreement or Sections 2.2 or 2.3 of the Employment Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company has (a) since the filing of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the “2014 10-K”) (i) disclosed all material information required to be publicly disclosed by it on Form 8-K, (ii) filed all reports on Form 10-Q and (iii) filed all other reports (other than any Form 8-K) required to be filed by it under the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) thereof (the “Exchange Act”) and (b) since the filing of the 2014 10-K, the Company has filed all reports required to be filed by it under the Securities Act and Exchange Act, (the foregoing materials being collectively referred to herein as the “SEC Reports” and, together with the Schedules to this Agreement (if any), the “Disclosure Materials”) on a timely basis or has timely filed a valid extension of such time of filing and has filed any such SEC Reports prior to the expiration of any such extension. As of their respective dates, the SEC Reports complied in all material respects with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations of the SEC promulgated thereunder, and none of the SEC Reports, when filed, contained any untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in the aggregate and in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading (except to the extent superseded by subsequently filed SEC Reports). The financial statements of the Company included in the SEC Reports comply in all material respects with applicable accounting requirements and the rules and regulations of the SEC with respect thereto as in effect at the time of filing. Such financial statements have been prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) applied on a consistent basis during the periods involved, except as may be otherwise specified in such financial statements or the footnotes thereto, and fairly present in all material respects the financial position of the Company and its consolidated Subsidiaries as of and for the dates thereof and the results of operations and cash flows for the periods then ended, subject, in the case of unaudited statements, to normal, immaterial, year-end audit adjustments.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the date hereof, there is no (i) action, proceeding or investigation pending or threatened against the Stockholder or any of its Affiliates; or (ii) outstanding Order to which the Stockholder or any of its Affiliates are subject or bound, in each case, that would reasonably be expected to or seeks to prevent, materially delay, hinder or impair the exercise by Parent of its rights under this Agreement or the performance by the Stockholder of its obligations under this Agreement.

assistant: Litigations
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: Enter into any arrangement, directly or indirectly, with any Person whereby any Loan Party shall sell or transfer any Property, real or personal, which is used or useful in its business, whether now owned or hereafter acquired, and thereafter rent or lease such Property or other Property which such Loan Party intends to use for substantially the same purpose or purposes as the Property being sold or transferred, except for the sale of Property, the aggregate value of which does not exceed $5,000,000 during the term of this Agreement, so long as (i) no Default or Event of Default then exists or would exist immediately after giving effect to such sale, and (ii) during a Cash Dominion Period, the net proceeds of such sale are used to prepay Loans pursuant to Section 5.15 (subject to the limitations in Section 5.15(g) ).

assistant: Sales
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 addition to the insurance required hereunder with respect to Collateral, maintain insurance with insurers (with a Best Rating of at least A7, unless otherwise approved by Agent) satisfactory to Agent, (a) with respect to the Properties and business of Borrowers and Subsidiaries of such type (including product liability, workers’ compensation, larceny, embezzlement, or other criminal misappropriation insurance), in such amounts, and with such coverages and deductibles as are customary for companies similarly situated; and (b) business interruption insurance.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither this Agreement nor any other Loan Document may be amended, changed, waived, discharged or terminated, nor shall any consent or approval of Lender be granted hereunder, unless such amendment, change, waiver, discharge, termination, consent or approval is in writing signed by Lender. In addition, Lender shall not waive the requirement that the Closing Date Diligence Provider Certificate be delivered on or prior to the making of the Loan.

assistant: Modifications
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 terminated by any Purchaser, as to such Purchaser’s obligations hereunder only and without any effect whatsoever on the obligations between the Company and the other Purchasers, by written notice to the other parties, if the Closing has not been consummated on or before June 27, 2016; provided , however , that such termination will not affect the right of any party to sue for any breach by any other party (or parties).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: “guilty of the aggravat (2nd Cir.1995) (“An oral grant of a motion for acquittal is no more than an interlocutory order, which the court has inherent power to reconsider and modify ... prior to the entry of judgment.”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. LoRusso, 695 F.2d 45, 52-53 (2nd Cir.1982)). We are not persuaded and decline the invitation to import such a rule into New Mexico for three reasons. {24} First, Defendant has not meaningfully distinguished this case from the general rule in New Mexico that oral rulings are ineffective and are not final judgments. Smith, 101 N.M. at 356, 683 P.2d at 38 (stating that a written order that is never filed is equivalent to an oral ruling and therefore is not a final judgment); Diaz, 100 N.M. at 525, 673 P.2d at 502 (<HOLDING>). The two current exceptions to this rule are Options: A. holding that if the record does not reflect that the sentence was pronounced in the defendants presence there is no sentence and the court is without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal B. holding that a court is free to change an orally pronounced sentence until a written judgment is filed C. holding that once a sentence is imposed it is a valid final judgment until it is reversed or vacated D. holding that modification of judgment and sentence to reflect an hfo designation that was not orally pronounced at sentencing violated double jeopardy and constituted an illegal sentence E. holding that sentence is imposed when the district court orally pronounces it

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a court is free to change an orally pronounced sentence until a written judgment is filed
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: Borrower is not a party to any agreement or instrument or subject to any restriction which is reasonably likely to materially and adversely affect Borrower or the Property, or Borrower’s business, properties or assets, operations or condition, financial or otherwise. Borrower is not in default in any material respect with respect to any order or decree of any court or any order, regulation or demand of any Governmental Authority, which default might have consequences that would materially and adversely affect the condition (financial or other) or operations of Borrower or its properties or might have consequences that would materially adversely affect its performance hereunder. Borrower is not in default in any material respect in the performance, observance or fulfillment of any of the obligations, covenants or conditions contained in any Permitted Encumbrance or any other agreement or instrument to which it is a party or by which it or the Property is bound.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties to each assignment shall execute and deliver to the Administrative Agent an Assignment and Assumption Agreement, together with a processing and recordation fee of Three Thousand Five Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($3,500.00), and the assignee, if it is not a Lender, shall deliver to the Administrative Agent an administrative questionnaire provided by the Administrative Agent.

assistant: Assignments
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: loan] is a mortgage back [sic] security . . . guaranteed by [Ginnie Mae] (Ginnie Mae II RPB Trust/Pool 2009)[,]” which resulted in Ginnie Mae having “rights of ownership [over] the said [m]ortgage [l]oan.” (Emphasis omitted.) This statement was properly excluded for two reasons. First, Ms. DeNiro claimed that she relied on “documents[]” and “county records[,]” and her use of “internet tools and commercial and government websites” in making her statements, but none of these sources were identified or attached to the affidavit, in violation of Rule 1-056(E). See Rule 1-056(E) (“Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith.”); cf. State v. Lopez, 2009-NMCA-044, ¶¶ 14, 26, 146 N.M. 98, 206 P.3d 1003 (<HOLDING>). Second, Ms. DeNiro’s statements are vague and Options: A. holding that an asylum applicants submission of false documents without an adequate explanation supported adverse credibility findings B. holding that pursuant to the best evidence rule trial testimony relying on documents was inadmissible without submission of such documents or an explanation as to why the documents were unavailable C. holding that it was appropriate for the district court to refer to the documents attached to the motion to dismiss since the documents were referred to in the complaint D. holding that unauthenticated documents may be considered in support of a motion for summary judgment where the documents were not objected to or their authenticity disputed E. holding that where original documents were illegally seized those documents as well as all copies had to be returned

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that pursuant to the best evidence rule trial testimony relying on documents was inadmissible without submission of such documents or an explanation as to why the documents were unavailable
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: Republic Mortg. Ins. Co., 35 F.Supp.2d at 486. The Court finds this factor slightly favors transferring venue to California. C. Conclusion Having conducted the evaluative test required under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the Court finds that the factors favor transferring venue to California because ACC’s “evidence of inconvenience is insufficiently strong to ‘overcome the counterweight of the parties’ private expression of their venue preference.” Scotland Memorial, 2003 WL 151852, *6 (citation omit ted). “The presence of a valid forum-selection clause ... causes the burden to shift from the party seeking transfer (and enforcement of the clause) to the party opposing enforcement of the clause.” Id.; see also Weiss v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 801 F.Supp. 1276, 1278 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (<HOLDING>). ACC “has failed to persuade the court that it Options: A. holding in addition that defendant must make at least some showing that under prevailing law he would be relieved of his contractual obligation to arbitrate if his factual allegations surrounding the arbitration agreement proved to be true B. holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum C. recognizing that where plaintiff is from the forum state and defendant is from an alternate forum each forum can claim a connection to one of the parties D. holding that once a mandatory choice of forum clause is deemed valid the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate exceptional facts explaining why he should be relieved from his contractual duty E. holding that the burden is on the plaintiff

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that once a mandatory choice of forum clause is deemed valid the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate exceptional facts explaining why he should be relieved from his contractual duty
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: connected to a clearly identified official act occurred. To the extent he does so, I would leave that issue to collateral review because the record on that point is not sufficiently developed to permit review and resolution of the issue. See United States v. Robinson, 967 F.2d 287, 290-91 (9th Cir.1992). 3 . Other circuits have either eviscerated or eliminated the potency of a multiple conspiracy defense to a RICO conspiracy indictment. See United States v. Carrozza, 4 F.3d 70, 79 (1st Cir.1993) (stating that a series of agreements that under pre-RICO law would constitute multiple conspiracies could under RICO be tried as a single enterprise conspiracy if the defendants have agreed to commit a substantive RICO offense); United States v. Ruggiero, 726 F.2d 913, 923 (2d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Sutherland, 656 F.2d 1181, Options: A. holding that conspiracies can serve as predicate acts for a rico conspiracy B. holding that the notion of enterprise conspiracy has largely rendered the old distinction between single conspiracy and multiple conspiracy irrelevant to rico conspiracy charges C. holding that congress intended to allow multiple punishments for rico conspiracies and conspiracies to commit the underlying predicate offense even though the offenses were the same under the blockburger test D. holding that 1962d does not violate the principle prohibiting conviction of multiple conspiracies under an indictment charging a single conspiracy E. holding that 1962d links in one proceeding a number of otherwise distinct crimes andor conspiracies through the concept of enterprise conspiracy

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that 1962d does not violate the principle prohibiting conviction of multiple conspiracies under an indictment charging a single conspiracy
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: February 14, 2000, threat was the only prior threat the State wanted to introduce at trial, Thus, Alvies' claim that the State purposefully sought to violate the court's order when it specifically referred Muscar to dates in April 2000, lacks merit. In addition, once Alvies moved for mistrial, the trial court, acting within its discretion, determined that a jury admonishment was appropriate and adequate. Again, a timely and accurate admonishment is presumed to cure any error in the admission of evidence. James v. State, 613 N.E.2d 15, 22 (Ind.1998). And even where a witness violates a motion in li-mine, a trial court may determine that a mistrial is not warranted and, instead, admonish the jury to disregard the improper testimony. See Underwood v. State, 644 N.E.2d 108, 111 (Ind.1994) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Alvies cannot demonstrate that the Options: A. holding that a party failed to preserve error by not pursuing a ruling at trial where the courts motion in limine ruling invited the party to attempt to admit the evidence during trial B. holding that for error to be preserved on appeal with regard to admission of evidence in violation of a ruling on a motion in limine that the evidence is inadmissible an objection should be made at the time the evidence is offered C. holding that trial courts have discretion to decide whether litigation conduct violates a ruling on a motion in limine D. holding that adaptation to adverse ruling on motion in limine did not waive established objection E. holding admonishment not mistrial appropriate where police officer made statement in violation of ruling on motion in limine

assistant: The best answer is E. holding admonishment not mistrial appropriate where police officer made statement in violation of ruling on motion in limine
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 Jerrels proposed tattooing and a plastic tagging method. After seriously considering these alternatives, the hearing officer ultimately rejected them as not sufficiently permanent or visible. The fact that DNR gave the Jerrels two years to come up with an alternative solution — from 1990 to 1992 — does not excuse the Jerrels’ complete failure to provide evidence that their horses had been branded. Even after the branding requirement was clarified, the Jerrels were given two more years to comply before the leases were finally terminated in 1994. The court’s opinion notes that DNR believed that the Jerrels worked with it in good faith until 1990. But by failing to consider the Jer-rels’ subsequent four years of promises, delays, and total non-compliance before DNR term (Alaska 1988) (<HOLDING>). 29 . See Op. at 144-145. 30 . See id. 31 Options: A. holding that the circuit court was not authorized to overturn state agencys decision where the sanction was lawful authorized and within the discretion of the agency and it was not shown to be arbitrary or capricious B. holding that agencys practical method for accomplishing its goal of safe disposal systems was reasonable and not arbitrary C. holding that when the agencys decision was based on an erroneous and completely unsupported assumption the decision was arbitrary and capricious D. holding that judicial review of an administrative agencys decision is limited solely to whether given the relevant standard and facts the agencys decision was arbitrary illegal capricious or unreasonable E. holding that the evidence must be sufficient to support the agencys findings of fact and that the agencys inferences from those facts must be reasonable

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that agencys practical method for accomplishing its goal of safe disposal systems was reasonable and not arbitrary
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: for failure to comply with such orders for discovery. Without concluding whether the Court has the constitutional authority to grant or deny final judgment on the merits of the matters pertaining to the underlying claims absent consent of the parties, this Court determines it may grant or deny the pending Joinder, Motion to Compel, Motion for Leave, Motion for Sanctions, and Motion to Reopen as doing so is not a final order that is potentially violative of Stem because there is not a “final determination of the rights of the parties to secure the relief they seek.” Williams v. Midwest Emp’rs Cas. Co., 243 F.3d 208, 209 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing to Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198, 204, 119 S.Ct. 1915, 144 L.Ed.2d 184 (1999)); see also In re Lopez, 2016 WL 4546884, at *2-4 (<HOLDING>). c. Joinder Requesting A Protective Order In Options: A. holding a bankruptcy court is not a court of the united states entitled to waive filing fees pursuant to 28 usc section 1915a B. holding that 28 usc 1257 does not permit interlocutory federal review of allegedly selective prosecution C. holding that under 28 usc 1292b the appellate courts may review only matters in the order not all issues in the case D. holding that the bankruptcy courts discoveryrelated order was interlocutory and not subject to review pursuant to the requirements of 28 usc 158a3 E. holding that order denying motion to dismiss a bankruptcy petition is final under 28 usc 1291

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the bankruptcy courts discoveryrelated order was interlocutory and not subject to review pursuant to the requirements of 28 usc 158a3
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 case to us for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. See Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 121 S.Ct. 924, 148 L.Ed.2d 807 (2001). Before us now are the merits of TSSAA’s appeal regarding the constitutionality of the recruiting rule. II. ANALYSIS A. Standard of review We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. See, e.g., Holloway v. Brush, 220 F.3d 767, 772 (6th Cir.2000). Summary judgment is proper when there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute an 58 (6th Cir.1985) (concluding that when a party knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally signs a jury waiver provision in a civil case, that party has waived its right to a jury trial); International Union v. Dana Corp., 697 F.2d 718, 719 (6th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); Lake James Cmty. Volunteer Fire Dep’t v. Options: A. holding that a settlement agreement between dana and the union rendered an appeal moot even though the agreement effectively prevented dana from communicating with its employees regarding a union campaign at one of danas subsidiaries B. holding that the disappearance by merger of a corporate employer which has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with a union does not automatically terminate all rights of the employees covered by the agreement and that in appropriate circumstances present here the successor employer may be required to arbitrate with the union under the agreement C. holding that a rico action by union members was properly dismissed where any financial improprieties occurred with union funds and directly injured solely the union D. recognizing that union members interests are adequately represented by the union E. holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a settlement agreement between dana and the union rendered an appeal moot even though the agreement effectively prevented dana from communicating with its employees regarding a union campaign at one of danas subsidiaries
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: netflix does not accept unsolicited materials or ideas for netflix content , and is not responsible for the similarity of any of its content or programming in any media to materials or ideas transmitted to netflix .

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: elements of the vehicles’ emission control systems. See No. 7:16CV00197 Compl. ¶ 20; No. 7:16CV00198 Compl. ¶22. Although the plaintiffs note that the installation of such devices is prohibited by the Clean Air Act, they assert that the operation of motor vehicles containing such devices is prohibited by Virginia law, namely the statutory and regulatory provisions cited above. Thus, to the extent the plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief are based on the assertion that their vehicles are illegal to operate in Virginia, their claims could rise or fall entirely based on the interpretation of state law. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has recognized, “a plaintiffs right to relief for a given claim necess 670, 2016 WL 3067686 (D. N.J. May 19, 2016) (<HOLDING>). To the extent Volkswagen argues that the Options: A. holding that alleged violations of a state statute did not give rise to federal constitutional claims B. holding that the plaintiffs claims against volkswagen and others did not necessarily raise a federal question since they were also based on the assertion that the plaintiffs vehicle did not comply with state law C. holding that the plaintiffs state statutory claim against volkswagen did not give rise to federal question jurisdiction under grable since the claim was based on alternative theories some of which had no necessary federal element D. holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court E. holding that the first grable requirement was met where the plaintiff in order to prevail on his legal malpractice claim had to show that he would have prevailed on his claim under federal patent law

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the plaintiffs state statutory claim against volkswagen did not give rise to federal question jurisdiction under grable since the claim was based on alternative theories some of which had no necessary federal element
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 the unmarketability of one person’s title should not delay the payment of other entitled parties’ royalties, but it is not clear whether the unmarketa-bility of part of one person’s title justifies a delay in paying the rest of that same person’s proceeds. While the issue is not free from doubt, we believe that the Arkansas Supreme Court would not interpret this provision as excusing a delay in the payment of royalties on the interest in which Howell’s title was marketable. See Wright, The Arkansas Law of Oil and Gas, 10 U.Ark. Little Rock L.J. 5, 25 (1987-88) (“the Arkansas Supreme Court is likely to interpret section 53-525 in favor of the ... party entitled to receive lease proceeds” (citing, e.g., TXO Prod. Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank, 288 Ark. 338, 705 S.W.2d 423, 424-25 (1986) (<HOLDING>)). This is a case of “a company ... withholding Options: A. holding that a notice of claim period did not begin to run until discovery of the injury B. holding the sixyear limitations period begins to run upon date that payment is made C. holding that the statute does not begin to run until at least a demand has been made upon the government but determining that the facts of that case made it unnecessary to choose between the date of demand and the date of actual payment as the triggering date for the running of the statute of limitations D. holding that the time limits in section 53525 begin to run as soon as the oil or gas is delivered not when payment is actually made E. holding that because an indemnitor is not liable until the indemnitee actually makes payment interest does not accrue until the payment is made

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the time limits in section 53525 begin to run as soon as the oil or gas is delivered not when payment is actually made
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: - S.W.3d -, -, 2013 WL 5470089, at *6 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 30, 2013, orig. proceeding); Connolly v. Gasmire, 257 S.W.3d 831, 839 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.). 6 . See Tex. Bus. Orgs.Code Ann. §§ governs remedies and procedural matters). 29 . See Pate, 2003 WL 22682422, at * 1-2. 30 . See Tex. Ass’n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 445-46; Schwartzott, 403 S.W.3d at 498 n. 4; Trojacek, 2009 WL 909591, at *3; Saudi, 176 S.W.3d at 113. 31 . See Tex. Bus. Orgs.Code Ann. § 21.562; Arkoma Basin Exploration Co., 249 S.W.3d at 387; In re Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., 2013 WL 5470089, at *6; Connolly, 257 S.W.3d at 839; Pate, 2003 WL 22682422, at *1-2. 32 . See Tex. Ass’n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 445-46; Trojacek, 2009 WL 909591, at *3; Somers, 295 S.W.3d at 8, 10, 13. 33 (<HOLDING>); Cameron Appraisal Dist. v. Rourk, 194 S.W.3d Options: A. holding that lack of justiciable interest resulted in lack of standing to pursue claim and that lack of standing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to act B. holding that where one plaintiff has standing we need not consider whether the other individual and corporate plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit C. holding that stepgrandfathers suit should be dismissed because he lacked a justiciable interest and standing due to his failure to satisfy the requirements of the applicable standing statute in the family code D. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue E. holding that troxel opinion did not affect issue of grandparent standing because texas family code standing statute does not overrule parental presumption

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that stepgrandfathers suit should be dismissed because he lacked a justiciable interest and standing due to his failure to satisfy the requirements of the applicable standing statute in the family code
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: Licensee shall promptly notify Children’s of any actual or suspected infringement of any Licensed Patent and furnish any available evidence thereof (“Infringement Notice”). Both Parties shall use reasonable efforts and cooperate to terminate infringement in the Licensed Territory and within the Field of Use without litigation.

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: As of June 23, 2017, the aggregate number of shares and type of all authorized, issued and outstanding classes of capital stock, options and other securities of the Company (whether or not presently convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for shares of capital stock of the Company) consists of (i) 50,000,000 authorized shares of Common Stock, with 20,820,190 shares of Common Stock outstanding; (ii) 10,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock, none of which are outstanding; (iii) 2,430,114 shares of Common Stock, on a diluted basis, reserved for issuance upon the exercise of outstanding warrants; and (iv) 5,011,811 shares of Common Stock, reserved for issuance upon the exercise of outstanding employee stock options and/or restricted stock units. Since June 23, 2017, the Company has not issued or granted, as applicable, any capital stock, options or other securities of the Company (whether or not presently convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for shares of capital stock of the Company). All outstanding shares of capital stock are duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable and have been issued in compliance with all applicable securities laws and regulations. Except as disclosed in this Section 3.1(g) or in Section 3.1(g) of the Disclosure Letter, the Company does not have outstanding any other options, warrants, 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 entered into any agreement giving any Person any right to subscribe for or acquire, any shares of Preferred Stock or Common Stock, or securities or rights convertible or exchangeable into shares of Preferred Stock or Common Stock. There are no anti-dilution or price adjustment provisions contained in any security issued by the Company (or in any agreement providing rights to security holders) and 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 Investor) and will not result in a right of any holder of securities to adjust the exercise, conversion, exchange or reset price under such securities. To the knowledge of the Company, based solely on an examination of Schedules 13D and Schedules 13G on file with the SEC, except pursuant to this Agreement, no Person or group of related Persons beneficially owns (as determined pursuant to Rule 13d-3 under the Exchange Act) or has the right to acquire, by agreement with or by obligation binding upon the Company, beneficial ownership of in excess of five percent (5%) of the outstanding Common Stock.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you agree to not provide user content that is defamatory , libelous , hateful , violent , obscene , pornographic , unlawful , or otherwise offensive , as determined by uber in its sole discretion , whether or not such material may be protected by law .

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: securing approval would be denied overtime and regular pay for the excess hours. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 21). Plaintiff alleges that she told defendant that this policy was impermissible under the FLSA and continued to insist on overtime pay for one of the employees. Plaintiff claims that because of these acts, she was demoted on July 11, 2002, and then suspended on August 28, 2002. The FLSA provides, in part, that it is unlawful for any person to “discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because suc 11 (11th Cir.1989) (explaining that the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA “was designed to prevent fear or economic retaliation by an employer against an employee who chose to voice ... a grievance”); Love v. Re/Max of America, 738 F.2d 383, 387 (10th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Brennan v. Maxey’s Yamaha, Inc., 513 F.2d Options: A. holding under flsa B. holding that the complaint stated a claim under the flsa where it alleged that parties were an employer and employees within meaning of act and that the defendantemployers operation constitutes an enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of the act C. holding that the flsa applies to employee who sent memorandum to employer requesting a raise with a copy of the equal pay act attached and was fired within two hours D. holding that employee may claim contract created based on employer promise of severance pay to employee E. holding that nothing in the flsa bars an employer from contracting with his employees to pay them the same wages that they received previously

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the flsa applies to employee who sent memorandum to employer requesting a raise with a copy of the equal pay act attached and was fired within two hours