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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: showed excellent decompression and an excellent position of plates and screws. Dr. Eichert noted that although Claimant reported continued neck pain to Dr. Crow, the treatment notes from the operating surgeon do not reflect significant complaint by Claimant during her follow-up treatment after surgery. The medical records of Claimant’s treating doctors do not contain clinical evidence of a disabling condition during the relevant time period or any restrictions imposed by the doctors. Indeed, the record shows that on August 22, 2005, Dr. Crow released Claimant to work but in the following appointment, on August 30, 2005, Dr. Crow found Claimant’s condition to be permanent without any testing in support of his determination. See Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012-13 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). In any case, whether there is work which Options: A. holding that where a treating physicians opinion is contradicted by a consulting physician the alj must explain on the record the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician B. holding alj properly relied on treating physicians wellsupported opinion especially when the contradictory evidence is plaintiffs own medical opinions about her condition C. holding that an alj may discount a treating physicians opinion where the physician has offered inconsistent opinions D. holding that the alj erred by failing to mention the contrary opinion of a treating physician E. holding that remand was not required and that the aljs failure to mention treating physicians opinion was harmless error because the alj adopted the treating physicians recommendations

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an alj may discount a treating physicians opinion where the physician has offered inconsistent opinions
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: Conduct all transactions otherwise not prohibited under the Loan Documents with any of its Affiliates (other than transactions exclusively among or between the Borrowers and/or one or more of the Guarantors) on terms that are fair and reasonable and no less favorable to the applicable Borrower than it would obtain in a comparable arm’s-length transaction with a Person not an Affiliate; provided, however, that all transactions pursuant to any operating leases that are in the standard form of operating lease used by the Borrowers, shall be deemed fair and reasonable.

assistant: Transactions With Affiliates
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 is governed by federal law, including without limitation the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 7001 et seq.) and, to the extent that state law applies, the laws of the State of California without regard to its conflicts of law rules.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive agrees that he will cooperate reasonably, without further compensation, with the Eagle Entities in connection with (a) any existing or future threatened or actual legal action or government investigation involving any of the Eagle Entities, whether regulatory, administrative, civil, or criminal in nature, in which and to the extent any Eagle Entity reasonably requests his cooperation, (b) any business or factual issues regarding the Eagle Entities about which he has relevant information, and (c) the transitioning of Executive’s duties and responsibilities, including with respect to the finalization of financial statements for the third quarter of 2016. Executive’s cooperation hereunder shall be subject to reasonable accommodations to his schedule and will not unduly interfere with his personal or business pursuits. Eagle International will reimburse Executive for his reasonable, pre-approved in writing out of pocket travel-related expenses incurred in connection with such cooperation upon receipt of appropriate documentation of such expenses.

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: The Company shall have the right to assign this Agreement and its rights and obligations hereunder in whole or in part to any corporation or other entity with or into which the Company may hereafter merge or consolidate, or to which the Company may transfer all or substantially all of its assets. The Executive may not assign or transfer this Agreement or any rights or obligations hereunder, except by will or the laws of descent and distribution, or as required to comply with the terms of a qualified domestic relations order.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) The Loans comprising each ABR Borrowing (including each Swingline Loan) shall bear interest at the Alternate Base Rate plus the Applicable Rate. The Loans comprising each Borrowing of Canadian Prime Rate Loans shall bear interest at the Canadian Prime Rate plus the Applicable Rate.

assistant: Interests
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 the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement nor the compliance with, or fulfillment of, the terms, conditions and provisions hereof by the Seller shall conflict with, result in a breach of the terms, conditions, or provisions of, or constitute a default, an event of default or an event creating rights of acceleration, termination, or cancellation or a loss of rights under, or result in the creation or imposition of any Lien upon the JV Interest, under: (i) any note, instrument, agreement, mortgage, lease, permit, right or obligation to which the Seller is a party or the JV Interest is subject or by which the Seller is bound; (ii) any court order to which the Seller is a party or the JV Interest is subject or by which the Seller is bound; or (iii) any requirements of laws, rules or regulations affecting the Seller, or the JV Interest or otherwise applicable to the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.

assistant: No Conflicts
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Plan was approved by the Board of Directors on March 20, 2015 and, subject to approval by the stockholders of the Company at the annual meeting of the Company’s stockholders to be held May 7, 2015 and, upon execution by an authorized officer of the Company, shall be effective as of May 7, 2015. In the event that the terms of this Plan are not approved by the stockholders of the Company, this Plan shall not become effective and any Awards issued hereunder prior to May 7, 2015 shall be automatically cancelled and of no force or effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties hereunder shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the law of the State of Delaware, without regard to the conflicts of laws principles thereof that would mandate the application of the laws of another jurisdiction.

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: postconvietion proceeding. Therefore, the narrower approach does not clearly establish judicial economy. T48 Hinojos-Mendoza does not require a different conclusion. There, the supreme court recognized judicial economy in taking up an unpreserved confrontation issue under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). The court explained that the defendant could rely on Crawford because it had been decided during his direct appeal. But trial counsel could hardly have been expected to raise the issue the Crawford court decided, contrary to controlling Colorado precedent. See People v. Dement, 661 P.2d 675, 680-81 (Colo.1983) (relying on Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)), abrogated by People v. Fry, 92 P.3d 970 (Colo.2004) (<HOLDING>). 1 44 Here, in contrast, defendant does not Options: A. recognizing same B. recognizing crawford partially abrogated alacode 152532 C. recognizing rule D. recognizing general rule but treating as legal question because ohio statute set out qualifications for position that were not met by applicant E. recognizing the rejection of ohio v roberts by crawford v washington

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing the rejection of ohio v roberts by crawford v washington
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: § 113(f) may bring an action under § 107(a). See — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1144, 166 L.Ed.2d 910 (2007). Despite the unsettled waters created by Aviall and its recent progeny, it nevertheless remains for this court to decide whether Emhart, as a PRP subject to an EPA administrative order, may (1) pursue a claim for contribution under § 113(f) and (2) pursue an action for recovery (or contribution) under § 107(a) against another PRP. With respect to the first question, this court concludes that because the bal-anee of decisional authority suggests that the type of administrative order to which Emhart is subject is not a “civil action” within the meaning of § 113(f)(1), Emhart is precluded from bringing a claim for contribution under § 113(f)(1). See Ray-theon Aircraft, 435 F.Supp.2d at 1142 (<HOLDING>); Pharmacia, 382 F.Supp.2d at 1086-87 Options: A. holding under the circumstances that a criminal proceeding does not qualify as an alternate remedy under the federal fca B. holding that a section 106 administrative order wouldnot qualify as a civil action under 113f1 C. holding that wyoming is a unitary entity for purposes of 106 D. holding that an order granting a new trial in a civil action is appealable E. holding that a 106 administrative order does not qualify as a civil action and therefore does not authorize suit under 113f1

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a section 106 administrative order wouldnot qualify as a civil action under 113f1
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 covenants, provisions and sections of this Agreement are severable, and in the event that any portion of this Agreement is held to be unlawful or unenforceable, the same will not affect any other portion of this Agreement, and the remaining terms and conditions or portions thereof will remain in full force and effect. This Agreement will be construed in such case as if such unlawful or unenforceable portion had never been contained in this Agreement, in order to effectuate the intentions of the Company and Executive in executing this Agreement.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: 11.2 skype may terminate its relationship with you , or may terminate or suspend your use of the software , user account ( s ) , products or skype websites at any time and without recourse to the courts : ( a ) if you are in breach of these terms ; ( b ) if skype reasonably suspects that you are using the software , the products and/or skype websites to break the law or infringe third party rights ; ( c ) if skype reasonably suspects that you are trying to unfairly exploit or misuse the refund policy , or any of our policies ; ( d ) if skype reasonably suspects that you are using our products , software and/or skype websites fraudulently or that your user account is being used by a third party fraudulently ; ( e ) if you have purchased skype credit from an unauthorised reseller ; ( f ) in respect of a particular product , on thirty ( 30 ) days notice if skype decides to cease offering that product ; ( g ) immediately , if required due to a change in laws/regulation by a regulator or authority with a lawful mandate , or by any of skype 's partners ; ( h ) on thirty ( 30 ) days notice if skype decides to cease offering the software to users in your jurisdiction generally .

assistant: Unilateral termination
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: Should it become necessary for any party to institute legal action to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the successful party will be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees at all trial and appellate levels, and in insolvency, bankruptcy and regulatory proceedings, and all related expenses and costs. Any suit, action or proceeding with respect to this agreement shall be brought in the courts of Lee County in the State of Florida or in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Florida. The parties hereto hereby accept the exclusive jurisdiction of those courts for the purpose of any such suit, action, or proceeding.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: upload , post , email , transmit , or otherwise make available any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising , promotional materials , `` junk mail , '' `` spam , '' `` chain letters , '' `` pyramid schemes , '' or any other form of solicitation , except in those areas ( such as shopping ) that are designated for such purpose ( please read our complete spam policy ) ;

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company and Employee have jointly participated in the negotiation of this Agreement. In the event that an ambiguity or question of intent or interpretation arises, this Agreement shall be construed as if it was drafted jointly by the Company and Employee and no presumptions or burdens of proof shall arise favoring any party by virtue of authorship of this Agreement.

assistant: Construction
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: ha-beas relief unless the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding,” id. § 2254(d)(2). B. Analysis Mr. Morehead argued in his § 2254 application that his conviction violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights based on “the suppression of evidence [Ms. Burbach’s academic records] which would have revealed perjury to the jury.” Aplt. App. at 10. He contended the suppression was contrary to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, which hold due .2012) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Mr. Morehead does not contest the Options: A. holding claims not raised in 2254 application are forfeited B. holding that a coa is required to appeal the denial of a rule 60b motion from a judgment in a 2254 proceeding C. holding a coa applicant forfeited a claim of error in district courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing by not seeking a hearing in his 2254 proceeding D. holding that defendants waived any challenge to the trial courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing E. holding that the magistrates recommended order terminating temporary supervision and placing the child in permanent guardianship was not supported by competent substantial evidence because the magistrate failed to hold an evidentiary hearing and that the failure to hold an evidentiary hearing violated the fathers due process rights

assistant: The best answer is C. holding a coa applicant forfeited a claim of error in district courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing by not seeking a hearing in his 2254 proceeding
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: member, etc.), there was no evidence of the ultimately fatal situation that existed inside Ms. Patterson’s home when Finley knocked on the door. Any conclusion that Ms. Patterson had, or did not have, a reasonably safe opportunity to warn Finley would be mere speculation. “Evidence ... which affords nothing more than mere speculation, conjecture, or guess is insufficient to warrant the submission of a ease to the jury.” Sprayberry v. First Nat’l Bank, 465 So.2d 1111, 1114 (Ala.1984). Thus, the evidence did not indicate sufficient special circumstances to impose a duty on Ms. Patterson to warn Finley. The trial court properly directed a verdict mative-conduct theory because he does not allege that Ms. Patterson took any affirmative action. Cf. Orr v. Turney, 535 So.2d 150 (Ala. 1988) (<HOLDING>). 2 . We note that it would be peculiar to Options: A. holding that a business owner has a duty to use reasonable care to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition for patrons B. holding that premises owner owed higher duty of reasonable care to visitor instead of lower duty to licensee where owners affirmative conduct of running with a pan of hot grease created a risk to a visiting child C. recognizing the general rule that a premises owner owes a licensee not only a duty to abstain from willfully or wantonly injuring the licensee but also a duty to avoid negligently injuring the licensee after the premises owner discovers that the licensee is in danger D. holding that ship owners have a duty of exercising reasonable care to protect passengers regardless of status as invitee or licensee E. holding that premises owner had duty to use degree of care in performing activities that owner of ordinary prudence would use under same or similar circumstances

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that premises owner owed higher duty of reasonable care to visitor instead of lower duty to licensee where owners affirmative conduct of running with a pan of hot grease created a risk to a visiting child
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 Transferee hereby makes, to each of the other Parties, as to itself only and (unless otherwise set forth therein) as of the date hereof and as of the Closing Date, the representations and warranties set forth in Article V of the Agreement; provided , however , for purposes of Sections 5.7(a) and 5.7(b) of the Agreement, the Transferee’s aggregate principal amount of Unsecured Notes Claims as of the date hereof is as set forth on the signature page hereto. The Transferee further agrees to provide the Requisite Documentation and any other information or documentation as Transferor or the Company may reasonably request to ensure the transfer is compliant with the Jones Act or other applicable law; provided , however , that a failure to deliver an affidavit of citizenship will result in treating such Commitment Party as a Non-U.S. Citizen, but shall not prevent such Commitment Party from receiving Common Shares (to the extent that there is capacity for Non-U.S. Citizens to receive Common Shares pursuant to Section 6.17 of the Agreement) or Jones Act Warrants.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: We disagree. We do not review the decisions of the IJ unless the BIA expressly adopts them. Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542 (3d Cir.2001) (“[Ajbsent special circumstances not present here, we review only decisions by the BIA and not those by immigration judges.”). Instead, we review the final order of the BIA. INA § 242(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Here, the final order of the BIA considered whether the second motion to reopen was properly dismissed. We see no reason why, in our review of the BIA’s final order, we may not consider its holding that the second motion to reopen was properly dismissed. And, because the BIA has ruled on the IJ’s dismissal of the first motion to reopen, Eremenko has exhausted his administrative remedies. Alleyne v. INS, 879 F.2d 1177, 1182-84 (3d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). We consider next whether the BIA abused its Options: A. holding that we will not review an issue or claim that was not presented to the bia in the petitioners notice of appeal or brief to the bia even if the bia considered the issue or claim sua sponte B. holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review legal arguments not raised before the bia C. holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review claims that have not been raised before the bia D. holding that review of questions not raised to the bia is barred E. holding that the bia rule is reasonable

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that review of questions not raised to the bia is barred
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., 798 F.Supp.2d 186, 196 (D.D.C. 2011)) (alteration omitted). First, the complaint alleges that Gregory submitted requests to DCHA for payment of federal funds provided by HUD. Such requests are cognizable as claims under the FCA. See, e.g., Doe v. Gormley, Civ. A. No. 15-2183, 2016 WL 4400301, at *5 (D. Md. Aug. 17, 2016) (collecting cases where “courts have specifically held that collecting illegal side-rent, in the context of housing voucher programs, violates the FCA”). Second, the complaint alleges that the claims submitted by Gregory were false. By submitting requests for payment, Gregory impliedly certified his compliance with HUD Program rules concerning the amount of rent he was permitted to charge Carmichael. See United States v. SAIC, 626 F.3d 1257, 1269 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>); United States ex rel. Wade v. DBS Options: A. holding monthly invoice qualified as a false claim under the fca B. holding that rule 9b applies to fca C. holding that while under a false association claim parties need not be direct competitors under a false advertising claim they do D. recognizing that information disclosed in private is not a public disclosure under the fca E. holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative

assistant: The best answer is A. holding monthly invoice qualified as a false claim under the fca
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 one or more counterparts (including via facsimile and electronic image scan (PDF), each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument and shall become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the parties and delivered to the other party.

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: RFC.”). Despite this clear directive from the regulations, Social Security Rulings, and our case law, which all require ALJs to take the claimant’s symptom testimony into account in determining the RFC, ALJs with frequency include the boilerplate language discrediting the claimant’s symptom testimony because it is “inconsistent with” the RFC in their disability determinations. See, e.g., Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1103 (9th Cir. 2014). By doing so, the ALJ indicates that he or she did not properly “incorporate a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective symptoms and pain into the RFC finding, as [he or she] is required to do.” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 862 F.3d 987, 1000 n.6 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 639 (4th Cir. 2015) (<HOLDING>). This practice “inverts the responsibility of Options: A. holding that a rule that conflicts with a subsequent adopted statutory amendment may not be enforced B. holding that 9 usc 1 conflicts with the inclusive language of the convention and thus may not restrict its scope C. holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it D. holding that the most significant relationship test as espoused in the restatement of conflicts governs conflicts cases sounding in tort in case where automobile collision occurred in mexico E. holding that this boilerplate language conflicts with the regulations and rulings

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that this boilerplate language conflicts with the regulations and rulings
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: Heska will pay Executive an annual salary of $230,000 as compensation for Executive’s services (the “ Base Salary ”). The Base Salary will be paid periodically in accordance with Heska’s normal payroll practices and will be subject to the usual, required withholdings and deductions. Executive’s salary will be subject to review, and adjustments will be made at the sole discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board (the “ Committee ”) and based upon Heska’s standard practices.

assistant: Base Salary
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: secrets claim. In light of this conclusion, it is unnecessary for the court to consider at this junction whether PSI is likely to succeed on any of its other claims in this litigation. Likelihood of Irreparable Harm The court also finds that PSI has demonstrated that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction. Ordinarily, economic injury is not considered irreparable, because monetary damages are available as an adequate remedy. Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir.1991). However, “intangible injuries, such as damage to ongoing recruitment efforts and goodwill, qualify as irreparable harm.” Id.; see also Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 841 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Here, defendant admitted that he tunneled PSI Options: A. holding that evidence of threatened loss of prospective customers or goodwill supports a finding of irreparable harm B. holding that the potential loss of valuable business may constitute irreparable harm C. holding that loss of the opportunity to fairly compete for a contract constitutes irreparable harm D. holding irreparable harm established where defendant faced loss of customers when employee resigned and attempted to take former clients E. holding that loss of customers and resulting injury to goodwill can constitute irreparable harm that is not compensable by an award of money damages

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that evidence of threatened loss of prospective customers or goodwill supports a finding of irreparable harm
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 Restricted Stock Units are restricted in that they (i) may not be sold, transferred or otherwise alienated or hypothecated until these restrictions are removed or expire as contemplated in Section 5 of this Agreement and as described in the Notice of Grant and (ii) may be forfeited to the Company (the “ Forfeiture Restrictions ”). Your rights with respect to the Restricted Stock Units shall remain forfeitable at all times prior to the date on which the Forfeiture Restrictions lapse.

assistant: Forfeitures
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: you will have to go to the second floor” or “I am sorry, you are going to have to walk up stairs.” (Kantrowitz Depo. at 107:22-108:7.) Although one of these administrators (Jennifer Bumford) was consulted by Dr. Lloyd when he was conducting his evaluation of plaintiff, it is undisputed that neither of these employees were the ultimate decision-makers with respect to the decision to abolish plaintiffs position. Indeed, when considered in the context of all the evidence, these alleged remarks are too “remote and oblique .... in relation to the employer’s adverse action” to permit a reasonable jury to find for plaintiff. Tomassi v. Insignia Fin. Grp., 478 F.3d 111, 115 (2d Cir.2007), abrogated in part on other grounds by Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 966, 968-69 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, given the undisputed facts — Options: A. holding defendant failed to meet burden for acceptance of responsibility reduction where he objected in the psi but only made arguments at sentencing without offering evidence B. holding that to meet his burden the plaintiff must show more than a few isolated incidents and that evidence solely of sporadic discrimination does not suffice C. holding plaintiff failed to meet de minimis burden where he introduced only two isolated comments made by individuals who had no involvement in his termination D. holding that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof because he offered absolutely no evidence to support his claim that the costs of arbitration will deny him an effective forum to vindicate his statutory rights E. holding that because plaintiff could not establish which portions of the tapes had been played in court plaintiff failed to meet his burden

assistant: The best answer is C. holding plaintiff failed to meet de minimis burden where he introduced only two isolated comments made by individuals who had no involvement in his termination
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties agree (a) to furnish upon request to each other such further information, (b) to execute and deliver to each other such other documents, and (c) to do such other acts and things, all as the other parties may reasonably request for the purpose of carrying out the intent of this Agreement and the documents referred to in this Agreement.

assistant: Further Assurances
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: 377 U.S. 126 84 S.Ct. 1156 12 L.Ed.2d 172 HATTIESBURG BUILDING AND TRADES COUNCIL et al.v.J. D. BROOME, etc., et al. No. 669. Decided April 27, 1964. Ralph N. Jackson, for petitioners. Richard C. Keenan, for respondents. Solicitor General Cox, Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli and Norton J. Come, for the United States, as amicus curiae. PER CURIAM. 1 After finding that the primary employer was not in commerce and ruling that the pre-emption rule of San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed.2d 775, was therefore not applicable, the state court enjoined picketing at the premises of the secondary employer. The judgment must be reversed. The jurisdictional standards established by the National Labor Relations Board (see 2o N.L.R.B.Ann.Rep. 8 (1958)) may be satisfied by reference to the business operations of either the primary or the secondary employer. Truck Drivers Local No. 649, 93 N.L.R.B. 386; Teamsters Local No. 554, 110 N.L.R.B. 1769; Madison Bldg. & Const. Trades Council, 134 N.L.R.B. 517. Here, as the record clearly shows, the secondary employer's operations met the jurisdictional requirements. Since the union's activities in this case were arguably an unfair labor practice, Sailors' Union of the Pacific, 92 N.L.R.B. 547, the state court had no jurisdiction to issue the injunction. San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed.2d 775; Local No. 438 Construction and General Laborers' Union AFL—CIO v. Curry, 371 U.S. 542, 83 S.Ct. 531, 9 L.Ed.2d 514. Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed.

assistant: 10
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 shall have the authority and right to withhold an amount sufficient to satisfy federal, state, local and foreign taxes required by law to be withheld with respect to any payments or benefits under the Plan. The provisions with respect to Sections 280G and 409A of the Code on Exhibit B are incorporated into the Plan as if fully set forth herein.

assistant: Withholdings
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: Grant or permit to exist (voluntarily or involuntarily) any lien, claim, security interest or other encumbrance whatsoever on any of its assets, other than Permitted Liens (as defined in the Senior Credit Agreement as in effect as of the date hereof).

assistant: Liens
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: Moreover, although the Burberry Check mark does not include an equestrian knight, it is undisputed that Burberry has obtained trademark protection for an equestrian knight mark, and that it often sells handbags and other goods displaying a combination of the two marks. It is also undisputed that Appellants used their mark on handbags — the same category of goods on which Burberry used its marks. The district court was therefore correct to afford the jury the opportunity to view the government’s evidence and form an independent conclusion regarding whether Appellants’ plaid design was substantially indistinguishable from the Burberry Check mark and whether the inclusion of the equestrian knight figure made any difference. See United States v. Yi, 460 F.3d 623, 629 n. 4 (5th Cir.2006)(<HOLDING>). And this evidence was sufficient to support Options: A. holding that when determining prejudice under the objective test relevant considerations include 1 whether the extrinsic evidence was received by the jury and the manner in which it was received 2 whether it was available to the jury for a lengthy period of time 3 whether it was discussed and considered extensively by the jury 4 whether it was introduced before a jury verdict was reached and if so at what point during the deliberations and 5 whether it was reasonably likely to affect the verdict considering the strength of the governments case and whether the governments case outweighed any possible prejudice caused by the extrinsic evidence B. holding that it was for the jury to determine whether a battery that used the signature duracell copper top and black body was a counterfeit even though the text on the counterfeit battery read dinacell C. holding that the trial court must determine whether there was ever an agreement when the party resisting arbitration alleged that its signature was a forgery D. holding that the jury must determine whether the partys conduct was reasonable under the cireumstances E. holding the excluded testimony was relevant to whether a signature was that of a deceased party and since a statement regarding the issue was the only testimony that could be given by the witness no offer to prove was necessary because the substance of the evidence was apparent from the context of the question asked

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that it was for the jury to determine whether a battery that used the signature duracell copper top and black body was a counterfeit even though the text on the counterfeit battery read dinacell
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: agreement] in any respect, whether or not the amendment or the subject of the amendment was originally contemplated .... [S]uch amendment may change terms by the addition of new terms or by the deletion or modification of existing terms, whether relating to ... arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. 5 Del Code Ann. § 952(a). A plain reading of Rule 23 and the Delaware statute reveals that there is no collision between them. A finding that Chase did not give fair notice of this litigation to cardholders does not restrict Chase’s contractual rights under Delaware law. Chase is free to amend its revolving credit agreements under Delaware law, so long as its actions do not impair the integrity of this litigation. See Burlington N. R.R., 480 U.S. at 8, 107 S.Ct. 967 (<HOLDING>); Hanna, 380 U.S. at 473-74, 85 S.Ct. 1136 (“To Options: A. holding that courts should consider the merits of the litigants claims the nature of the factual issues the litigants ability to present his claims and the complexity of the legal issues B. holding that a rule which affects only the process of enforcing litigants rights and not the rights themselves does not exceed the constraints of the rules enabling act C. holding that it is well settled that while one tenant in common may acquire homestead rights in the common property the rights so acquired are not superior to the rights and remedies of the other joint owners he can acquire no such rights as will prejudice or in anywise interfere with the rights of the other tenants in common D. holding that state rights are equivalent to federal rights in this area E. holding a judgment in the absence of notice violates due process rights

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a rule which affects only the process of enforcing litigants rights and not the rights themselves does not exceed the constraints of the rules enabling act
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: theory that the district court rejected before. Gore does not point to any change in the relevant law. This is also not a case in which the district court made findings on remand th nts, or any interest therein, shall be assignable by law in an instrument in writing.”) (emphases added). However, BPV has never claimed that in 2003 it had all substantial rights to the '135 patent. BPV’s position is only that it was an exclusive licensee with the right to sue for infringement. It is well established that the grant of a license does not need to be in writing. See Waymark Corp. v. Porta Sys. Corp., 334 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed.Cir.2003) (“Only assignments need be in writing under 35 U.S.C. § 261. Licenses may be oral.”); Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1552 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). In any event, in 1997 there was a Options: A. holding that to be an exclusive licensee a party may rely on either an express or implied promise of exclusivity B. holding that a contract for an exclusive agency to market a product contains an implied promise to use all reasonable efforts to market the product C. holding that the other source of law might be a moneymandating constitutional provision statute or regulation that has been violated or an express or implied contract with the united states D. holding that an implied contract may not be found if there is an express contract between the same parties on the same subject matter quoting 42 cjs implied and constructive contracts 34 p 33 E. holding that a promise to make a loan is not covered by 1823e because a promise is not an asset

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that to be an exclusive licensee a party may rely on either an express or implied promise of exclusivity
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: could conclude that the action was within the scope of the employment.” Boykin v. District of Columbia, 484 A.2d 560, 562 (D.C.1984). In this case, the facts establish as a matter of law that Sullivan was acting outside of the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. First, by driving under the influence of alcohol, Sullivan engaged in conduct far removed from “the kind he Court otherwise. Third, Sullivan admitted in a sworn statement that he was off duty and was driving home at the time of the accident. Under such circumstances, Sullivan’s conduct could not be viewed by a reasonable finder of fact to have served the activities, interests, or objectives of the United States or of the District of Columbia. See Smith v. United States, 762 F.Supp. 1511, 1513 (D.D.C.1991) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 957 F.2d 912 (D.C.Cir.1992). See also Options: A. holding as a matter of law that a police officer was not acting within the scope of his employment when assaulting an acquaintance of a woman he had detained B. holding as a matter of law that an offduty government agent was not acting within the scope of his employment when he was driving home intoxicated after completing his tour of duty because on no basis would the court conclude that drinking and driving after work hours fell within the scope of the dea agents employment C. holding that the employers party was a social event thus the employee was not acting within the scope of her employment when drinking at a party or when she was driving home afterwards D. holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes E. holding that even when employee was driving employers vehicle employee was not acting within the scope of his employment absent evidence that he had undertaken a special mission at his employers direction

assistant: The best answer is B. holding as a matter of law that an offduty government agent was not acting within the scope of his employment when he was driving home intoxicated after completing his tour of duty because on no basis would the court conclude that drinking and driving after work hours fell within the scope of the dea agents employment
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 officers called D.H. into the classroom, read D.H. her rights, and searched her bag, where they found a small bag of marihuana. On appeal, D.H. contends that (1) her backpack was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when she was required to leave it behind in her classroom while she went into the hallway as instructed, and (2) because neither the school nor the officers had reason to believe she was engaged in criminal activity or in violation of school rules, they lacked reasonable suspicion to seize her bag. For those reasons, she ai'gues that the seizure of her backpack was a violation of her constitutional rights and that the marihuana, as the fruit of an improper seizure, should have been suppressed. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) (<HOLDING>). Standard of Review In reviewing a trial Options: A. holding that evidence obtained by improper search or seizure is inadmissible B. holding that evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures is inadmissible in state court C. holding that evidence resulting from an unconstitutional search or seizure must be suppressed D. holding that the admission of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure is subject to a harmlesserror analysis E. holding all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the constitution is by that same authority inadmissible in a state court

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that evidence obtained by improper search or seizure is inadmissible