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: [its] opposition.'" (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 n. 5, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986))); Wichita Falls Office Assocs. v. Banc One Corp., 978 F.2d 915, 920 (5th Cir.1992) (”[W]hen a party is seeking discovery that is germane to the pending summary judgment motion it is inequitable to pull out the rug from under them by denying such discovery.”); Cowan v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 790 F.2d 1529, 1532-33 (11th Cir.1986) (“[Generally, summary judgment is premature when the moving party has not answered the opponent's interrogatories!,] ... especially ... where [the] ... interrogatories ... request information that is critical to the issues in dispute.”); Glen Eden Hosp., Inc. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Mich., Inc., 740 F.2d 423, 428 (6th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); see also 10B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Options: A. holding that the court was precluded from considering whether the district court had abused its discretion in ruling on defendants summary judgment motion before allowing plaintiff to conduct requested discovery where the plaintiff had not filed an affidavit pursuant to rule 56f and stating that when a party does not avail himself of relief under rule 56f it is generally not an abuse of discretion for the district court to rule on the motion for summary judgment citation omitted B. holding that grant of judgment was premature where plaintiff submitted properly supported rule 56f request for further discovery in opposition to defendants motion for summary judgment C. holding that denial of motion for summary judgment is interlocutory even though trial judge had stated that there was no just reason for delay because denial of motion for summary judgment was not a final determination of defendants rights and the appeal did not affect defendants substantial rights D. holding that a court may deny a rule 56f motion where the additional evidence sought for discovery would not have by itself created a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment E. holding denial of rule 56f motion improper where party moving for summary judgment had not been extremely forthcoming with respect to document requests and interlocutory appeal had interrupted discovery

assistant: The best answer is E. holding denial of rule 56f motion improper where party moving for summary judgment had not been extremely forthcoming with respect to document requests and interlocutory appeal had interrupted discovery
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: if the third party service or application you elect to use would access or extract content , you grant evernote the right and license to enable third party access to and extraction of your content .

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: F.3d at 660, 663. Applying these principles to this case, we observe that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1952, an ITAR crime of violence that does not result in death carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for a term of twenty years, while an ITAR crime of violence that results in death is punishable by a sentence up to and including a term of imprisonment for life. See 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(B). Thus, the death of a victim of an ITAR crime is a fact that may result in a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum. We hold, therefore, that the death of a victim of an ITAR crime is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment and proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt before a sentence above twenty years may be imposed. Cf. Thomas, 274 F.3d at 663 (<HOLDING>). Because the deaths of Kovach and Gould were Options: A. holding that statutory maximum is twenty years when drug quantity is not charged as element of offense and found by jury beyond a reasonable doubt B. holding that postapprendi drug quantity is an element of the offense to be proven to jury C. holding lopez was inapplicable to the language prior conviction for a felony drug offense in 21 usc 841b1a because felony drug offense was defined in 21 usc 80244 as an offense that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year under any law of the united states or of a state D. holding that when the indictment charges that a certain minimum quantity of drugs is involved in the offense proof of that quantity is a fourth element of the offense E. holding that drug quantity is an element of an offense under 21 usc 841

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that drug quantity is an element of an offense under 21 usc 841
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: During the Term (defined below), the Employer shall employ Executive to serve as, and the Company shall appoint or cause to be appointed the Executive to the position of, the CPO of the Company, upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, and Executive shall report directly to the Chief Executive Officer of the Company (the “ CEO ”), unless otherwise determined by the Board of Directors of the Company (the “ Board ”). In addition, during the Term, Executive shall serve as the CPO of the Operating Partnership and the Employer and shall report to the CEO, unless determined otherwise by the Board. For the avoidance of doubt, Executive shall be an employee of the Employer.

assistant: 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: exist). “Where a district court denies equitable re lief ... we review the matter for abuse of discretion.” In re Adoption Petition of Rebecca M., 2008-NMCA-038, ¶ 22, 143 N.M. 554, 178 P.3d 839. In this case, Aunt raised her extraordinary circumstances argument simultaneously with her assertion that the Act allowed her to intervene. Even presuming the existence of such extraordinary circumstances, however, we hold that, in the long run, though it eschewed a valid route for Aunt which leads to our reversal herein, the district court properly refused to consider Aunt’s custody claim because she had an “available or adequate remedy” under the Act. See In re Lupe C., 112 N.M. at 119, 812 P.2d at 368; see also Meiboom v. Watson, 2000-NMSC-004, ¶ 20, 128 N.M. 536, 994 P.2d 1154 (<HOLDING>). We consider that issue below. {12} Aunt’s Options: A. recognizing ability to affirm for any reason that finds support in record B. holding we may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even those not relied upon by the district court C. recognizing this court may affirm for any reason supported by the record D. holding that we may affirm a district court if its holding was right for any reason E. holding that it is axiomatic that this court can affirm a circuit court if the right result is reached even if for a different reason

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that we may affirm a district court if its holding was right for any reason
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each person who is or was a member of the Committee, or of the Board, shall be indemnified by the Company against and from any damage, loss, liability, cost and expense that may be imposed upon or reasonably incurred by him in connection with or resulting from any claim, action, suit, or proceeding to which he may be a party or in which he may be involved by reason of any action taken or failure to act under the Plan, except for any such act or omission constituting willful misconduct or gross negligence. Such person shall be indemnified by the Company for all amounts paid by him in settlement thereof, with the Company’s approval, or paid by him in satisfaction of any judgment in any such action, suit, or proceeding against him, provided he shall give the Company an opportunity, at its own expense, to handle and defend the same before he undertakes to handle and defend it on his own behalf. The foregoing right of indemnification shall not be exclusive of any other rights of indemnification to which such persons may be entitled under the Company’s Articles or Certificate of Incorporation or Bylaws, by contract, as a matter of law, or otherwise, or any power that the Company may have to indemnify them or hold them harmless.

assistant: Indemnifications
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 waiver by either Party of any right hereunder or the failure to perform or of a breach by the other Party shall not be deemed a waiver of any other right hereunder or of any other breach or failure by said other Party whether of a similar nature or otherwise. The rights and remedies provided herein are cumulative and do not exclude any other right or remedy provided by Applicable Law or otherwise available, except as expressly set forth herein.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Indemnitee will, as a condition precedent to his or her right to be indemnified pursuant to this Agreement, give the Company notice in writing as soon as practicable of any claim made against Indemnitee for which indemnification will or could be sought under this Agreement. Such notice will contain the written affirmation of Indemnitee that the standard of conduct necessary for indemnification hereunder has been satisfied. Notice to the Company will be directed to the Chief Executive Officer or Chairman of the Board of the Company in the manner set forth below. Indemnitee will give the Company such information and cooperation as it may reasonably require and as is within Indemnitee’s power. A delay in giving notice under this Section 3 will not invalidate Indemnitee’s right to be indemnified under this Agreement except to the extent such delay prejudices the defense of the claim or the availability to the Company of insurance coverage for such claim. All notices, requests, demands and other communications under this Agreement will be in writing and may be given by email, facsimile or similar writing and express mail or courier delivery or in person delivery, but not by ordinary mail delivery. All such notices, requests and other communications will be deemed received: (i) if given by email or fax, when transmitted to the email address or fax number specified on the signature page of this Agreement, upon receipt; (ii) if given by express mail, air courier or in person, when delivered.

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: Damages in the event of breach of this Agreement by a party hereto may be difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain, and it is therefore agreed that each party, in addition to and without limiting any other remedy or right it may have, will have the right to an injunction or other equitable relief in any court of competent jurisdiction, enjoining any such breach, and enforcing specifically the terms and provisions hereof, and each of the parties hereto hereby waives any and all defenses it may have on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or competence of the court to grant such an injunction or other equitable relief. The existence of this right will not preclude any such party from pursuing any other rights and remedies at law or in equity that such party may have.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise permitted by this Agreement or applicable law, you agree that during your Employment with the Company and at all times thereafter you will not make disparaging or defamatory comments regarding the Company or its owners, members, directors, officers, employees, shareholders, agents, representatives or others with whom the Company has a business relationship as of the date of termination of your Employment or make any public statements that are intended to, or can reasonably expected to, damage the reputations of any of such entities or persons.

assistant: Non-Disparagement
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: action, we are reluctant to cast doubt upon the Judge’s conduct, or to find that this procedure violated a constitutional right in any way. 2. Insufficiency of the court order Although the court order did not inform plaintiffs of the reason L.B. was being taken to shelter care, the police officers who took her informed her parents that there had been a report of child abuse and there would be a hearing within 48 hours. A post-deprivation hearing was not held, however; because the child was released to her parents the following morning. Therefore, plaintiffs’ claim that they might not have been able to prepare for a hearing because of the scant order is too speculative for our review. Cf. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 160-61, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 1725-26, 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990) (<HOLDING>). 3.. Reliability of the interview Although the Options: A. holding that speculative theory of possible injury insufficient to establish injury in fact under article ills case or controversy requirement B. holding that to have standing a plaintiff must establish an injury in fact a casual connection between the injury and that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision C. holding that the constitutional requirement for ripeness is injury in fact D. holding that in order to establish standing a plaintiff must show 1 it has suffered an injury in fact 2 the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and 3 it is likely as opposed to merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision E. holding that allegation of procedural injury does not affect the issues of injury in fact or causation

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that speculative theory of possible injury insufficient to establish injury in fact under article ills case or controversy requirement
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of showing insufficient service. Internet Solutions, 509 F.3d at 1165. Here, whether Defendant had notice of the proceeding before default was entered is a disputed issue of fact. (See Hearing Transcript at 6:21-7:1.) Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has proven that notice was properly served, it need not determine whether Defendant had actual notice and should bear the burden of proof for this Motion. 7 . See, e.g., Saxon Mortg. Servs., Inc. v. Hillery, No. C-08-4357 EMC, 2008 WL 5170180, at *2-3 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 9, 2008) (finding declarations of defendant and her co-habitant that process was not served properly insufficient to defeat presumption created by signed return of service); Holmes v. Plath, No. 1:01-cv-06359-AWI-GSAPC, 2011 WL 864301, at *1 (E.D.Cal. Mar. 10, 2011) (<HOLDING>); Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. AZGrafix, No. Options: A. holding that the presumption that rule 45 does not apply to the federal government can only be overcome by affirmative evidence B. holding that the defendant cannot overcome this presumption of service merely by denying that he did not receive the complaint C. recognizing this presumption D. recognizing presumption and finding that it was overcome E. holding evidence insufficient to overcome presumption of correctness

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the defendant cannot overcome this presumption of service merely by denying that he did not receive the complaint
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of guilt obtained through violations of the Fourth Amendment." United States v. Ienco, 182 F.3d 517, 526 (7th Cir. 1999). However, "just because a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred does not mean the exclusionary rule applies." Dearborn, 327 Wis. 2d 252, ¶ 35. Rather, we are to apply the exclusionary rule only as a "last resort," when doing so will "deter police misconduct and most appropriately when the deterrent benefits outweigh the substantial costs to the truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives of the criminal justice system." Id., ¶¶ 35, 38. ¶ 15. The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule dictates that the exclusionary rule "is not to be applied when the officers conducting an illegal search 'acted in the objectively reasonable belief that (Tex. Ct. App. 2002) (<HOLDING>). 5 At the time the court commissioner signed Options: A. holding that canine sniff not a search under the fourth amendment B. holding that a drug sniff outside the front door of the defendants residence was not a fourth amendment search because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy at the entrance to property that is open to the public including the front porch C. holding that a dog sniff outside the defendants door in his apartment building was not a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment so long as the police were lawfully present in the hallway when the search occurred D. holding a dog sniff outside the defendants front door was not a fourth amendment search E. holding that a drugdetection dog sniff outside a garage door at a home was not a search under the fourth amendment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding a dog sniff outside the defendants front door was not a fourth amendment search
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: the site , service , content and add-to link are provided `` as is '' , `` as available '' and are provided without any representations or warranties of any kind , express or implied , including , but not limited to , the implied warranties of title , non-infringement , merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose , and any warranties implied by any course of performance or usage of trade , all of which are expressly disclaimed , save to the extent required 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: the user agreement , the user privacy notice , and all polices posted through our services set forth the entire understanding and agreement between you and ebay , and supersede all prior understandings and agreements of the parties .

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: (Bankr.D.S.C.1992). 10 . See, e.g., Polishuk v. Polishuk (In re Polishuk), 243 B.R. 408, 419 (Bankr.N.D.Okla.1999) ("This Court concludes that the purpose behind requiring Mr. Polishuk to pay the Credit Card Debt was to ensure that Ms. Polishuk would not have to pay the same, and to ensure that her income would be available to pay her expenses and service her debts.”); Krein v. Hanagan (In re Krein), 230 B.R. 379, 386 (Bankr.N.D.Iowa 1999) (concluding that the debtor's assumption of credit card debt was in the nature of support, the court stated: “Considering the parties' financial disparities, the Court concludes Debtor’s assumption of the marital debts functioned to allow Ms. Hanagan to afford basic necessities.”); Ianke v. Ianke (In re Ianke), 185 B.R. 297, 301 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1995) (<HOLDING>); Schurman v. Schurman (In re Schurman), 130 Options: A. holding arbitration clause in credit card agreement unconscionable B. holding the assumption of a credit card debt to be nondischargeable based on a waiver of alimony and a significant disparity of income C. holding that at a minimum a credit check must be preformed before a credit card is issued in order to have any resulting debt declared nondischargeable D. holding promise to indemnify for credit card debts to be nondischargeable support obligation in part because if the spouse were to pay the credit card and attorneys fee debts from this monthly income her ability to meet the regular monthly family expenses would be severely impaired E. holding that the code excepts from discharge debts resulting from agreements by the debtor to hold the debtors spouse harmless on joint debts to the extent those debts are in the nature of alimony maintenance or support

assistant: The best answer is D. holding promise to indemnify for credit card debts to be nondischargeable support obligation in part because if the spouse were to pay the credit card and attorneys fee debts from this monthly income her ability to meet the regular monthly family expenses would be severely impaired
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: extend coverage. 324 Md. at 60, 595 A.2d 469. The court also made clear that while the policy definition of “bodily injury” includes sickness and disease, “bodily injury” also includes damage to the body which may be detectable only on a subelinical or microscopic level. See id. at 60-61, 595 A.2d 469 (citing cases for the proposition that “nothing in the policy language expressly requires that the injury be diagnosed or identified within [the policy] period, or that the injur J. 437, 478-79, 650 A.2d 974 (N.J.1994) (adopting the continuous-trig ger theory for activating insurers’ obligation to respond in the context of progressive indivisible injury resulting from exposure to asbestos products); J.H. France Refractories Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., PMA 534 Pa. 29, 626 A.2d 502 (Pa.1993) (<HOLDING>); Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood, 209 Options: A. holding that all stages of asbestosis disease process were bodily injury triggering insurers obligation to indemnify B. holding that rule 43aentitles a defendant to be present at all stages of his trial and that cjommunication between the judge and the jury or a single juror is one of those stages C. holding that the fatal injury to a murder victim may be considered as satisfying the bodily injury component of the capital felony of kidnapping with bodily injury D. holding that the defendant is entitled to be present at all stages of his trial and a judges response to a note from the jury is one of those stages E. holding that the policys exclusion of coverage for any obligation of the insured to indemnify another because of damages arising out of such bodily injury operates where the genesis of the action is an employees workrelated bodily injury quoting national union fire ins co 906 f2d at 200

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that all stages of asbestosis disease process were bodily injury triggering insurers obligation to indemnify
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 court of appeals to determine the validity of the temporary injunction that barred the NCAA from enforcing its eligibility rules against Jones. The issue of this injunction’s validity is now moot; to determine its validity, the court of appeals must issue an impermissible advisory opinion. Furthermore, Jones has all but withdrawn from this case, disclaiming any interest he may have had in the NCAA’s application of the Restitution Rule. Because this case presents no justiciable controversy between the NCAA and Jones, the only ic Ass’n, 119 F.3d 453, 458 (6 th Cir.1997). Similarly, the question of the injunction’s validity becomes moot when the athlete’s season has ended and his eligibility to participate has expired. See Fink v. Hinson, 243 Ga. 337, 253 S.E.2d 757, 758 (1979) (<HOLDING>). With the end of Texas Tech’s 1996 football Options: A. holding that plaintiffs who sought injunctive relief under 42 usc 1983 could get same relief in a state court mandamus action B. holding that inmates transfer mooted claims for injunctive and declaratory relief but that claims for monetary damages were not moot C. holding that the validity of injunctive relief sought by students was mooted by football seasons end D. holding that a prisoners transfer mooted claims for declaratory and injunctive relief E. holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the validity of injunctive relief sought by students was mooted by football seasons end
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Each party shall disclose Confidential Information only to those officers, directors, employees and contractors who are required to have the information in order to evaluate or engage in discussions concerning the contemplated business relationship, and such party shall remain responsible for compliance with the terms of this Agreement by its officers, directors, employees and contractors.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of law is authoritative to the extent necessary for the decision, and must be applied in subsequent cases to similarly situated parties. The Court found that the precedential effect of judicial opinions derives from the nature of judicial power, and the limitation place thereon by Article III of the United States Constitution. Any attempt to avoid the precedential effect of a prior decision merely because of a decision to not publish same would expand judicial power beyond the bounds envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. We, therefore, affirm the bankruptcy court’s conclusions in this case because we are bound by the Eighth Circuit’s opinion in Wegner. Moreover, we affirm the bankruptcy court’s legal conclusions because we find that secti R. 235, 240 (Bankr.E.D.Ark.1995) (<HOLDING>); In re Flitter, 181 B.R. 938, 941 Options: A. holding that a plaintiff who has not sustained any damage as the result of a transfer of property cannot seek to set that transfer aside as fraudulent B. holding that debtors cannot claim an exemption in a homestead after trustee avoided the transfer of the property as a fraudulent conveyance because the transfer by the debtors was voluntary C. holding that a debtors technically incorrect exemption in a wrongful death claim based on west virginias homestead exemption stands as claimed because the trustee did not object to the exemption in time D. holding that in chapter 7 context the debtors had no power to transfer the property without the approval of the trustee E. holding that even though a transfer of property eg money incidentally benefits another it cannot be said as a matter of law or logic that the transaction was a fraudulent transfer as to the party benefited

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that debtors cannot claim an exemption in a homestead after trustee avoided the transfer of the property as a fraudulent conveyance because the transfer by the debtors was voluntary
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: became very confused about the timing of her alleged abortion. An independent review of the record confirms that the petitioner’s awkward attempts to make sense out of a story that did not hang together cannot be lightly dismissed. A third basis for the IJ’s adverse credibility finding involves the high price that the petitioner paid to be smuggled into the United States. The IJ had difficulty believing that someone who complained so bitterly about a 5,000 yuan penalty could meet the $50,000 price tag set by the smugglers. The IJ also noted that this steep price, once paid, gave the petitioner a tremendous incentive to lie, if necessary, so as to remain in the United States. The petitioner attempts to debunk this reasoning as mere conjecture. See Cordero-Tre-jo, 40 F.3d at 487 (<HOLDING>). We regard it, however, as the drawing of a Options: A. holding that no deference is due when findings are based on inferences not grounded in the record or merely personal views of the immigration judge B. holding that when findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses rule 52 demands even greater deference to the trial courts findings for only the trial judge is in a position to be aware of the variations in demeanor including but not limited to the actions mannerisms and facial expressions that bear so heavily on the listeners understanding of and belief in what is said C. holding that clearly erroneous standard of review governs district courts factual findings based on state record documentary evidence and inferences from other facts D. holding that because the state court made no findings as to the merits of the petitioners claim it is axiomatic that there are no findings to which we can give deference and thus 2254d does not apply E. holding that while legislative findings are due deference that cannot foreclose a courts constitutional analysis

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that no deference is due when findings are based on inferences not grounded in the record or merely personal views of the immigration judge
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 court erred because Wal-Mart retained control over his work and is therefore directly liable for his injuries. A. Premises Liability (Vicarious) under Restatement § 422(a) ¶ 12 Arizona courts have consistently recognized that a landowner is not liable for the negligent conduct of an independent contractor unless the landowner has been independently negligent. See Welker v. Kennecott, 1 Ariz.App. 395, 401-04, 403 P.2d 330, 336-39 (1965) (citing Restatement (First) of Torts § 409 (1934) (“Except as stated in §§ 410 to 429, the employer of an independent contractor is not subject to liability for bodily harm caused to another by a tortious act or omission of the contractor or his servants.”)); see also E.L. Jones Constr. Co. v. Noland, 105 Ariz. 446, 454, 466 P.2d 740, 748 (1970) (<HOLDING>); Restatement § 409 cmt. b (explaining that the Options: A. recognizing general rule B. holding in part that the liability insurance company of the subcontractor which had named the general contractor as an additional insured on the subcontractors policy was liable to reimburse the general contractor for a settlement payment the general contractor had made to the subcontractors employee C. holding that subcontractor was not obligated to indemnify general contractor for general contractors own negligence where indemnification clause did not expressly state that subcontractor would indemnify general contractor for such negligence D. recognizing the general rule that a property owner is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor E. holding a premises owner is a general contractor for purposes of the statutory employer provision

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing the general rule that a property owner is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor
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: to testify about causation. See, e.g., Hardyman v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 243 F.3d 255, 262 (6th Cir.2001) (reversing trial court’s ruling that plaintiff could establish causation only by showing a “dose/response relationship” between exposure levels and risk of disease); Wilson v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. E2002-00291-COA-R9-CV, 2003 WL 1233536, at *8 (Tenn.Ct.App. Mar. 18, 2003) (allowing admission of expert’s opinion that “occupational exposures caused, or contributed to the cause,” of the plaintiffs cancer, even though the expert “admitted in his deposition that he did not have any quantitative information about the amount of exposure or dosage [the plaintiff] had to the various chemicals at issue,” including diesel exhaust); accord Ambrosini v. Labarraque, 101 F.3d 129, 135 (D.C.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). In fact, some courts have pointed out why it Options: A. holding that experts medical opinion constituted no evidence because it was based upon speculation and surmise rather than reasonable medical probability B. holding even though experts are permitted to give an opinion they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of others C. holding that an experts opinion does not warrant exclusion simply because it fails to establish the causal link to a specified degree of probability D. holding that an experts opinion must be based on facts in evidence or within his or her knowledge and that the admission of an experts opinion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion E. holding that it is not the courts role to decide whether an experts opinion is correct

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an experts opinion does not warrant exclusion simply because it fails to establish the causal link to a specified degree of probability
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 three closing of the sale and purchase of the Shares as well as the issuance of one hundred thousand (100,000) shares of Common Stock to the Purchaser (each, a “ Closing ”) shall take place at such times and places as the Company and Purchaser may mutually agree (each such date is hereinafter referred to as a “ Closing Date ”).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All covenants, agreements, representations and warranties made by the Loan Parties in the Loan Documents and in the certificates or other instruments delivered in connection with or pursuant to this Agreement or any other Loan Document shall be considered to have been relied upon by the other parties hereto and shall survive the execution and delivery of the Loan Documents and the making of any Loans, regardless of any investigation made by any such other party or on its behalf and notwithstanding that the Administrative Agent or any Lender may have had notice or knowledge of any Default or incorrect representation or warranty at the time any credit is extended hereunder, and shall continue in full force and effect as long as the principal of or any accrued interest on any Loan or any fee or any other amount payable under this Agreement is outstanding and unpaid and so long as the Commitments have not expired or terminated. The provisions of Sections 2.12, 2.13, 2.14 and 9.03 and Article VIII shall survive and remain in full force and effect regardless of the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, the repayment of the Loans, the expiration or termination of the Commitments or the termination of this Agreement or any provision hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: employee’s consent to enter the special employment relationship. Those courts have not, however, considered whether the employee must know the corporate identity of the special employer for whom she agreed to work or whether her consent to work for a borrowing entity is tantamount to consent to work for the corporate entity of which the borrower is a part. Rather, the cases have analyzed only whether the employee agreed to work for an entity other than the general employer, an issue that is undisputed in this case. See Pacenti v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 245 N.J.Super. 188, 584 A.2d 843, 845 (App.Div.1991) (inferring requisite consent from the employee’s reporting to borrower’s place of business and accepting its supervisors’ decisions, policies and training); Murin, 573 A.2d at 991-94 (<HOLDING>); Chickachop v. Manpower, Inc., 84 N.J.Super. Options: A. holding that the employee must at least provide his employer with enough information for the employer to be put on notice that the fmla is a consideration B. holding an employee is an agent of his employer where the employer assumes the right to control time manner and method of work C. holding that existence of deliberate and informed consent turns on whether it is understood between the employee and his employers that he is to remain in the allegiance of the first employer or is to be employed in the business and subject to the direction of the temporary employer D. holding that glc 152 15 provides that the only party immune from suit under the statute is the direct employer a special employer is not immune because the special employer is not liable for the payment of workers compensation and there was no agreement between the direct employer and the special employer that the special employer would be liable for the payment of such compensation E. holding that section 319s mandate that the employer is subrogated to the extent of compensation payable does not mean that the sole right to recover from the tortfeasor is in the employer rather the right of action against the tortfeasor remains in the injured employee and suit is to be commenced in his name

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that existence of deliberate and informed consent turns on whether it is understood between the employee and his employers that he is to remain in the allegiance of the first employer or is to be employed in the business and subject to the direction of the temporary employer
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 represents the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to its subject matter and supersedes and cancels all prior written or oral contracts, agreements and understandings of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. No amendment to this Agreement shall be effective unless in a writing executed by all Parties.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: v. United States, 757 F.2d 301, 308-09 (D.C.Cir.1985) (observing that “revenues and customers lost to competition which can be regained through competition are not irreparable”); see also Gulf Oil, 514 F.Supp. at 1026 (observing that the plaintiff must show that it will suffer harm that is “more than simply irretrievable”). Accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the potential loss of sales and market share rises to the level of irreparable harm. The plaintiff’s concerns about the potential loss of goodwill and reputation are founded entirely on its belief that the approved generic tacrolimus may be more harmful than Prograf®, a belief that, as has already been discussed, lacks evidentiary support and is entirely speculative. See Bristol-Myers, 923 F.Supp. at 221 (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, the court concludes that Options: A. holding that a drug manufacturer failed to demonstrate irreparable harm because its claim that it will suffer a loss of sales should an anda be approved and drug product marketed before this case is disposed of on the merits is pure speculation as it had failed to provide any proof of economic loss and merely states that it would probably lose 20 to 30 percent of its market during the first year B. holding that the threat of irreparable harm must be immediate C. holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish constructive notice because the plaintiff did not present any evidence to establish that the oil was on the floor for any length of time D. holding that the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm because there is nothing before the court which would lead it to conclude that the competing drug will cause any harmful health effects E. holding that the district court erred when it failed to consider the presumption of irreparable harm

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm because there is nothing before the court which would lead it to conclude that the competing drug will cause any harmful health effects
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 conclusion that Plautz’s firing was imminent. 2. Hostile Work Environment We borrow the standard for a hostile work environment claim under the Rehabilitation Act from the ADA. Under the ADA, a hostile work environment claim requires a plaintiff to demonstrate five elements: (1) he was disabled; (2) he was subject to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on his disability; (4) the harassment unreasonably interfered with his work performance; and (5) defendant either knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take corrective measures. See Blankenship v. Parke Care Ctrs., Inc., 123 F.3d 868, 872 (6th Cir.1997) (establishing the framework of proof under Title VII for sexual harassment); Crawford v. Medina Gen. Hosp., 96 F.3d 830, 834 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has explained that for a Options: A. holding that a hostile work environment is a form of discrimination that is actionable under the statute B. recognizing that the elements of title vii sexually hostile work environment claims apply to icra sexually hostile work environment claims C. recognizing hostile work environment discrimination in ada context D. holding that the elements of a hostile work environment claim are the same across discrimination contexts and applying those elements specifically to the age discrimination in employment act E. holding age discrimination claim barred

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the elements of a hostile work environment claim are the same across discrimination contexts and applying those elements specifically to the age discrimination in employment 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive’s annual salary is currently $265,000 (the “ Base Salary ”), paid in accordance with the Company’s payroll practices as in effect from time to time. The Base Salary will be reviewed annually by the CEO.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company is authorized to acquire the Mortgaged Property and to borrow the Loan from The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company (together with its successors and assigns, the " Lender "), and from time to time refinance the Loan. In furtherance of the conduct of the purposes described herein, the Company shall possess and may exercise all of the powers and privileges granted by the Act, and the Company is hereby authorized to do any act, enter into any agreement, contract or other instrument, and otherwise to engage in any activity and to do any action not prohibited under the Act or other applicable law which is necessary, useful, desirable or convenient to the conduct, promotion and attainment of the business and purposes of the Company. In addition, the Company, or the Member on behalf of the Company, may enter into and perform the Loan Documents and all documents, agreements, certificates, or financing statements contemplated thereby or related thereto, all without any further act, vote or approval of any other Person notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the Act or applicable law, rule or regulation. The foregoing authorization shall not be deemed a restriction on the powers of the Member to enter into other agreements on behalf of the Company in accordance with this Agreement.

assistant: Authorizations
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: On the Closing Date, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein, substantially concurrent with the execution and delivery of this Agreement by the parties hereto, the Company agrees to sell, and the Purchasers, severally and not jointly, agree to purchase, up to an aggregate of $2,005,296.10 of Shares and Warrants. Each Purchaser’s Subscription Amount as set forth on the signature page hereto executed by such Purchaser shall be made available for “Delivery Versus Payment” settlement with the Company or its designee. The Company shall deliver to each Purchaser its respective Shares and Warrants as determined pursuant to Section 2.2(a), and the Company and each Purchaser shall deliver the other items set forth in Section 2.2 deliverable at the Closing. Upon satisfaction of the covenants and conditions set forth in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, the Closing shall occur at the offices of Foley or such other location as the parties shall mutually agree.

assistant: Closings