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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Supplier shall keep and maintain sufficient accounting books, records, receipts, and related documents (collectively, “ Records ”) related to its supply of Sand to Customer so as to establish adequate performance under, and compliance with, the terms, conditions and obligations of this Agreement. The Records shall be maintained in accordance with commonly accepted accounting and oilfield industry practices. Supplier shall retain the applicable Records for a period of three (3) years following completion of each order, or for such longer period as may be required by applicable law, and for so long thereafter as a known dispute may exist between the Parties. Customer and its designated representatives shall have the right during reasonable business hours to inspect, copy and audit the Records of Supplier pertaining to Supplier’s supply of Sand to Customer, and the Parties’ performance, compliance and payment obligations hereunder.

assistant: Records
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: Porter v. Epps, 659 F.3d 440, 445 (5th Cir. 2011). According to Thorn, the dismissal of his ticket as part of a plea deal and the district attorney’s rejection of his drug charge demonstrate that Officer McGary’s initial stop and Officers McGary and Bryant’s subsequent arrest lacked foundation and, thus, demonstrate that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. We disagree. According to the facts deemed admitted, Thorn’s vehicle was parked in the roadway of a winding two-lane street, which an officer would reasonably view as posing a danger to both the vehicle’s occupants and other motorists and as constituting a traffic violation. Therefore, Officer McGary’s initial stop did not violate the' Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Rideau, 969 F.2d 1572, 1574 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Neither did Officers McGary and Bryant’s Options: A. holding that an officers reasonable mistake of law can give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a traffic stop under the fourth amendment B. holding that a dog sniff of a vehicle during a traffic stop conducted absent reasonable suspicion of illegal drug activity did not violate the fourth amendment because it did not implicate any legitimate privacy interest C. holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment D. holding that a search of a students purse that was not based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment E. holding that a stop based on reasonable suspicion and serving a community earetaking function did not violate the fourth amendment

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a stop based on reasonable suspicion and serving a community earetaking function did not violate the fourth amendment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement or in any other instrument referred to herein, shall, for any reason, be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement or any other such instrument and this Agreement shall be construed in a manner that, as nearly as possible, reflects the original intent of the Parties.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the parties shall hold, and shall cause its Representatives to hold, in confidence all documents and information furnished to it by or on behalf of the other parties in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby pursuant to the terms of the confidentiality agreement dated November 23, 2017 between Minas Santa María de Moris S.A. de C.V. and Coeur and the Joinder thereto dated December 22, 2017 (the “ Confidentiality Agreement ”), which shall continue in full force and effect until the Closing Date, at which time such Confidentiality Agreement and the obligations of the parties under this Section 6.5 shall terminate; provided , that after the Closing Date, the Confidentiality Agreement shall terminate only in respect of that portion of the Confidential Information (as defined in the Confidentiality Agreement) exclusively relating to the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. If for any reason this Agreement is terminated prior to the Closing Date, the Confidentiality Agreement shall nonetheless continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party hereto shall do and perform (or shall cause to be done and performed) all such further acts and shall execute and deliver all such other agreements, certificates, instruments and documents as any other party hereto reasonably may request in order to carry out the intent and accomplish the purposes of this Award Agreement and the Plan and the consummation of the transactions contemplated thereunder.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) Payments Free of Taxes . Any and all payments by or on behalf of any Loan Party hereunder or under any other Loan Document shall be made free and clear of and without deduction or withholding for any Taxes, except as required by applicable law. If any applicable law (as determined in the good faith of the applicable Withholding Agent) requires the deduction or withholding of any Tax from any such payment by a Withholding Agent, then the applicable Withholding Agent shall be entitled to make such deduction or withholding and shall timely pay the full amount deducted or withheld to the relevant Governmental Authority in accordance with applicable law and, if such Tax is an Indemnified Tax, then the sum payable by the applicable Loan Party shall be increased as necessary so that after such deduction or withholding has been made (including such deductions and withholdings applicable to additional sums payable under this Section 3.01(a) ) the applicable Recipient receives an amount equal to the sum it would have received had no such deductions or withholdings been made.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: “custom or practice can be inferred from evidence of repeated constitutional violations for which the errant municipal officers were not discharged or reprimanded” (internal quotations marks and ellipsis omitted)); Henry v. Cty. of Shasta, 132 F.3d 512, 519 (9th Cir.1997) (“When a county continues to turn a blind eye to severe violations of inmates’ constitutional rights — despite having received notice of such violations— a rational fact finder may properly infer the existence of a previous policy or custom of deliberate indifference”), as amended by 137 F.3d 1372, 1372 (9th Cir.1998) (order). Lastly, the district court gave an adequate limiting instruction explaining that the evidence was admitted only for a limited purpose, and what that purpose was. See Velazquez, 793 F.3d at 1028 (<HOLDING>); see also Dubria v. Smith, 224 F.3d 995, 1002 Options: A. holding that the probative value of contested evidence far outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice where any potential unfair prejudice was cured by a limiting jury instruction B. holding that an attorneys failure to sign a subpoena can be cured C. holding that any prejudice resulting from a misstatement of the law by the prosecutor was cured by trial courts proper instruction on applicable law D. holding that potential prejudice can be cured by an appropriate iimiting instruction E. holding almost any improper argument may be cured by an instruction to disregard

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that potential prejudice can be cured by an appropriate iimiting instruction
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: as follows: The respondent moves the Board pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 to reopen our decision dated November 15, 2005. The respondent seeks reopening to apply for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. As an initial matter, we note that the respondent’s March 8, 2006, motion to reopen is untimely, inasmuch as it was not filed within 90 day[s] of our November 15, 2005, final administrative order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). Furthermore, we find that the respondent has failed to establish that reopening is warranted pursuant to our sua sponte authority. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). We find that the respondent’s subsequent eligibility for discretionary relief does not establish exceptional circumstances. See Matter of J-J-, 21 I & N Dec. 976 (BIA 1997) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the motion is denied. Badreddine Options: A. holding that the district court cannot remand sua sponte for defects in removal procedure B. holding hardship is discovered in the rare case based on exceptional circumstances C. holding that bankruptcy courts have inherent power and authority under 11 usc 105a to sua sponte reconsider modify or vacate orders previously entered D. holding that where the board of immigration is permitted to reopen proceedings in exceptional circumstances its decision not to reopen a case is unreviewable because there are no statutory regulatory or caselaw definitions of exceptional circumstances and thus no manageable standard to apply on review E. holding that the boards power to reopen or reconsider cases sua sponte is limited to exceptional circumstances and is not meant to cure filing defects or circumvent the regulations where enforcing them might result in hardship

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the boards power to reopen or reconsider cases sua sponte is limited to exceptional circumstances and is not meant to cure filing defects or circumvent the regulations where enforcing them might result in hardship
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: a. The Receiving Party shall hold confidential and not disclose to any Person, without the prior written consent of the Disclosing Party, all Confidential Information and any information about the Proposed Transaction, or the terms or conditions or any other facts relating thereto, including, without limitation, the fact that discussions are taking place with respect thereto or the status thereof, or the fact that Confidential Information has been made available to the Receiving Party or its Representatives; provided, however, that the Receiving Party may disclose such Confidential Information to its Representatives who are actively and directly participating in its evaluation of the Proposed Transaction or who otherwise need to know the Confidential Information for the purpose of evaluating the Proposed Transaction; In addition to the foregoing, the Receiving Party will not use the Confidential Information (a) in any way detrimental to the Disclosing Party’s shareholders or (b) for any purpose other than in connection with the Proposed Transaction between the Parties.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If the Executive shall die during the Term, the Term and this Agreement shall terminate and no further amounts or benefits shall be payable hereunder, other than (i) for accrued, but unpaid, Base Salary as of the date of the Executive’s death; (ii) pursuant to life insurance provided under Section 3.5; and (iii) to the extent expressly required pursuant to the terms of the Company’s compensation and benefit plans and policies as in effect on the date of death.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Party (the “ Indemnifying Party ”) shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other Party, its shareholders, directors, officers, employees, representatives, Affiliates, agents, contractors and their respective directors, officers and employees (collectively the “ Indemnified Party ”), from and against all Claims made against or suffered by any Indemnified Party that arise from any misrepresentation, breach of warranty or non-fulfillment of any covenant, undertaking or agreement on the part of the Indemnifying Party in connection with this Agreement.

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 authorized capital stock of the Parent consists of 10,000 shares of common stock, $.01 par value per share, of which 100 shares are issued and outstanding. The authorized capital stock of the Company consists of 1,000 shares of common stock, no par value per share, of which 1,000 shares are issued and outstanding. All of the issued and outstanding Shares have been duly authorized, are validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable, and are held of record and beneficially by the Seller. All of the issued and outstanding equity interests of the Company have been duly authorized, are validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable, and are held by record and beneficially by the Parent. The Shares are, and as of the Closing Date will be, all of the issued and outstanding capital stock and equity securities of the Parent. The rights, preferences and privileges of the Shares are as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation of Parent. There are no outstanding or authorized options, warrants, purchase rights, subscription rights, conversion rights, exchange rights, or other Contracts or commitments that could require the Parent or the Company to issue, sell, or otherwise cause to become outstanding any of its capital stock. There are no outstanding or authorized stock appreciation, phantom stock, profit participation, or similar rights with respect to the Parent or the Company. There are no voting trusts, proxies, stockholder agreements, rights of first offer, rights of first refusal or other agreements or understandings with respect to the transfer or voting of, or otherwise relating to, the capital stock of the Parent or the Company.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and proprietors of similar establishments, see Brewer v. Roosevelt, 295 A.2d 647, 651 (Me. 1972); Schultz v. Gould Academy, 332 A.2d 368, 371 (Me. 1975); Tenney v. Atlantic Assocs., 594 N.W.2d 11, 17 (Iowa 1999); jailers, see Harrison v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation & Correction, 90 Ohio Misc.2d 32, 695 N.E.2d 1248, 1253 (1997); and schools, see Hill v. Safford Unified Sch. Dist., 191 Ariz. 110, 952 P.2d 754, 756 (1997). 7 . We do not address herein duties created by statute. See, e.g., Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 1666, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999) (recognizing a statutorily imposed duty on the part of schools to protect children from abuse by other children or adults). 8 . Accord Gragg v. Wichita State Univ., 261 Kan. 1037, 934 P.2d 121, 128 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Hoff v. Vacaville Unified Sch. Dist., 19 Options: A. holding the university owes a landownerinvitee duty to its students to take reasonable steps to protect against foreseeable acts of violence on its campus and the harm that naturally flows therefrom B. holding that corporate sponsors of fireworks on a university campus had no duty to control conduct of third party C. holding authority to control limits duty to control D. recognizing duty of parent to control conduct of child E. holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that corporate sponsors of fireworks on a university campus had no duty to control conduct of third party
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: two concepts — transfer and obligation — are very closely related, but they are not identical. The parsing of English can be difficult, but even when the word “transfer” is given a most expansive meaning that encompasses every conceivable means of disposing or parting with property or an interest in property, it still fails to capture the meaning of the undefined term “incurrence of an obligation.” Becoming obligated to a counterparty is not the same as parting with property. This conclusion is supported by several cases that have distinguished between “transfers” and “obligations” in other contexts not involving section 546(e), including sections 547 and 548. See Pls.’ Opp’n at 19-35, citing, inter alia, In re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd., 333 B.R. 199, 203-204 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2005) (<HOLDING>); Covey v. Comm. Nat’l Bank of Peona, 960 F.2d Options: A. holding that 502d applies to prevent payment of any part of administrative expenses due creditor until preferential property transfer is recovered B. holding that transfer was proper remedy for improper venue even though the issue of transfer was not raised until the motion hearing in circuit court C. holding that the failure to condition a transfer on death or remarriage of the wife was a factor showing that the transfer was not in the nature of alimony 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 a guar anty was not a transfer in the context of section 502d

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a guar anty was not a transfer in the context of section 502d
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: ¶28 In determining that Café Arizona’s negligence arose out of assault or battery, Alea relied on well-established Washington case law. In Toll Bridge Authority v. Aetna Insurance Co., 54 Wn. App. 400, 404, 773 P.2d 906 (1989), the Court of Appeals interpreted the phrase “arising out of” in an insurance contract to mean “ ‘originating from’, ‘having its origin in’, ‘growing out of’, or ‘flowing from,’ ” id. (quoting Avemco Ins. Co. v. Mock, 44 Wn. App. 327, 329, 721 P.2d 34 (1986)), and expressly noted that it “has a broader meaning than ‘caused by’ or ‘resulted from,’ ” id. (quoting State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 14 Wn. App. 541, 543, 543 P.2d 645 (1975)). In McAllister v. Agora Syndicate, Inc., 103 Wn. App. 106, 11 P.3d 859 (2 3, 706-07, 850 P.2d 533 (1993) (<HOLDING>). ¶29 I agree that the foregoing cases are Options: A. holding that the phrase arising out of the use is ambiguous and interpreting it as originating from or growing out of or flowing from B. holding that an arising out of exclusion applies to claims flowing from or growing out of the excluded activity C. holding that 1658 applies to claims arising out of the 1991 act D. holding that the underlying action arose out of insureds exercise of his personal and political rights and not out of business pursuits and thus the policy exclusion for claims arising out of business pursuits did not apply because the exception to the exclusion for nonbusiness pursuits was applicable E. holding a limitation on damages arising out of bodily injury to one person involved in an accident applies to all claims arising from the death of that person

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an arising out of exclusion applies to claims flowing from or growing out of the excluded activity
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: explains: "One who supplies a chattel to others to use for any purpose is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to inform them of its dangerous character ... if, but only if, he has no reason to expect that those for whose use the chattel is supplied will discover its condition and realize the danger involved.” 12 . The Court notes for the sake of clarity that, with respect to allegedly inadequate warnings, maritime law recognizes both strict product liability causes of action (i.e., defective warning or defective design) and 1184 (D.N.J.1984) (also holding that defense may only be raised in context of negligent failure to warn claims); O’Neal, 10 F.3d at 251 (citing Kennedy v. Mobay Corp., 325 Md. 385, 601 A.2d 123 (Md.1992), aff'g 84 Md.App. 397, 579 A.2d 1191 (Md.App.1990)) (<HOLDING>); Johnson, 43 Cal.4th at 71, 74 Cal.Rptr.3d Options: A. holding defense applicable to both types of claims B. recognizing distinction between two types of waiver C. holding that plaintiff who filed administrative charge for racial harassment and discrimination could add claim for retaliation because some of the same facts supported both types of claims D. recognizing that legal expenses incurred can be characterized as both deductible and nondeductible when the litigation is rooted in situations giving rise to both types of expenditures E. holding rule applicable to witness

assistant: The best answer is A. holding defense applicable to both types of claims
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: “factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law” unless those findings lack trustworthiness. If mem-oranda reflecting the preliminary opinions of agency staff members were admissible under Rule 803(8)(A), then Rule' 803(8)(C)’s limitations would be meaningless. We further conclude that the memoranda do not satisfy Rule 803(8)(C). The memoranda do not reflect “factual findings” of the NHTSA. Rather, they embody the positions and opinions of individual staff members, which the agency ultimately declined to accept. Our conclusion is in accord with other circuits that have held that interim agency reports or preliminary memoranda do not satisfy Rule 803(8)(C)’s requirements. See Figures y. Board of Pub. Util., 967 F.2d 357, 360 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Gray, 852 F.2d 136,139 (4th Options: A. holding absolutely privileged a communication to an administrative agency designed to prompt action by that agency B. holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review C. holding that a draft of a proposed letter from an area director of a government agency to a municipal administrative agency was properly excluded because it did not represent an agency finding D. holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to exclude an agency finding of no discrimination on the ground that the report would suggest to the jury that it should reach the same conclusion as the agency E. holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency to address it in the first instance

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a draft of a proposed letter from an area director of a government agency to a municipal administrative agency was properly excluded because it did not represent an agency finding
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: was incorrect because there is no evidence in the administrative record of any occupations available to her, given her education, training, or experience, nor is there any proof that she was able to obtain employment with a salary equal to 80% of her Indexed Covered Earnings, or $3,620.61 per month. Id. Vol. 3 at 300674. In holding that LINA rightfully terminated Ms. Null’s LTD benefits, the district court found that [t]he medical records in the administrative record dating from October 2005 through May of 2006 do not show that plaintiff, by reason of her rhematoid [sic] arthritis, arthralgia and/or myalgia ifts when the plan administrator is attempting to terminate benefits. See Gunderson v. W.R. Grace & Co. Long Term Disability Income Plan, 874 F.2d 496, 499 & n. 4 (8th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); see also Quinn v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Options: A. holding claimant suffered permanent total disability where functional disability was only twentyfive or thirty percent claimant was fiftynine years of age claimant had little or no education and the injury kept the claimant from performing physical work B. holding that before terminating benefits the plan should have obtained a vocational experts opinion to determine if claimant is presently capable in light of his physical impairment to perform any occupation and observing that claimant met his burden when he proved his disability initially C. holding that vocational experts testimony that there were jobs claimant could perform constituted substantial evidence D. holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant E. holding that when the claimant has established that his impairment prevents him from returning to his previous employment the burden shifts to the commissioner who must produce evidence to show the existence of alternative substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy and which the claimant could perform considering not only his physical and mental capability but also his age education experience and training

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that before terminating benefits the plan should have obtained a vocational experts opinion to determine if claimant is presently capable in light of his physical impairment to perform any occupation and observing that claimant met his burden when he proved his disability initially
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: late payment , wrong bank , debit or credit card details , invalid credit/debit cards or insufficient funds are for your own risk and account and you shall not be entitled to any refund of any ( non-refundable ) prepaid amount unless the supplier agrees or allows otherwise under its ( pre ) payment and cancellation 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: This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina, without giving effect to the choice of law rules of any jurisdiction. The parties agree that any litigation arising out of or related to the Option or this Agreement will be brought exclusively in any state or federal court in New Hanover County, North Carolina. Each party (i) consents to the personal jurisdiction of said courts, (ii) waives any venue or inconvenient forum defense to any proceeding maintained in such courts, and (iii) agrees not to bring any proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement in any other court.

assistant: Venues
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 demands, notices and communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered or mailed by registered or certified first-class United States mail, postage prepaid, hand delivery, prepaid courier service, or by e-mail (if an applicable e-mail address is provided on Schedule I to the Sale Agreement), and addressed in each case as specified on Schedule I to the Sale Agreement, or at such other address as shall be designated by any of the specified addressees in a written notice to the other parties hereto. Any notice required or permitted to be mailed to a Noteholder or Certificateholder shall be given by first class mail, postage prepaid, at the address of such Noteholder or Certificateholder as shown in the Note Register. Delivery shall occur only upon receipt or reported tender of such communication by an officer of the recipient entitled to receive such notices located at the address of such recipient for notices hereunder; provided , however , that any notice to a Noteholder or Certificateholder mailed within the time and manner prescribed in this Agreement shall be conclusively presumed to have been duly given, whether or not the Noteholder or Certificateholder shall receive such notice.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: building under the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, in perfecting the seizure of Defendant, the officers did not enter a residence or apartment unit. Because the Court decides the matter on this ground, there is no need to examine whether the officers could lawfully enter the building to execute the arrest warrants on Luna and Romero under Payton v. New York. See United States v. Veal, 453 F.3d 164, 167 (3d Cir.2006) (“Payton requires that officers have ‘a reasonable belief the arrestee (1) lived in the residence, and (2) is within the residence at the time of entry.’ ”) (quoting United States v. Gay, 240 F.3d 1222, 1226 (10th Cir.2001)) (emphasis added). Nor must the Court perform an analysis under Steagald v. United States. See 451 U.S. 204, 213-214, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). In sum, Defendant’s motion Options: A. holding that challenges to an arrest warrant are not jurisdictional B. holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant C. holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant D. holding that in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances a law enforcement officer must procure a search warrant before searehing for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party E. holding that an arrest warrant without a search warrant does not permit law enforcement authorities to enter a third partys home to legally search for the subject of the arrest warrant

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an arrest warrant without a search warrant does not permit law enforcement authorities to enter a third partys home to legally search for the subject of the arrest warrant
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 Conveyance constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties covering the subject matter hereof, and there are no agreements, modifications, conditions, or understandings, written or oral, expressed or implied, pertaining to the subject matter hereof which are not contained herein.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Amended and Restated Note and the Related Documents are legal, valid and binding obligations of the Borrower and Guarantors (as applicable), enforceable against them in accordance with their terms, except as enforceability may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or other similar laws of general application affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights or by general principles of equity limiting the availability of equitable remedies.

assistant: Binding 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: see infra ¶ 35, we should not force such changes on the legislature by judicial mandate. 15 . The dissent posits that equitable adoption may represent the wishes of some decedents and may not prolong all estate proceedings. See infra ¶¶ 47-48. But this hedging is significant; it ultimately supports the conclusion that equitable adoption adds uncertainty and complexity to the intestacy scheme. Justice DURHAM, dissenting: 4[ 34 I disagree with the majority's conclusion that it is "impossible" to follow both the doctrine of equitable adoption and Utah's version of the Uniform Probate Code (Probate Code o n the basis of policy, they are responsible for determining the constitutionality of challenged statutes. See, e.g., Gallivan v. Walker, 2002 UT 89, ¶¶ 64, 83, 54 P.3d 1069 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, courts can call the attention Options: A. holding the statutory scheme of two federal laws was not void for vagueness and did not violate equal protection or due process even though the defendants conduct violated both laws B. holding that an amendment to the colorado constitution that repealed all local and statewide laws prohibiting sexualorientation discrimination violated the federal equal protection clause C. holding that central assessment by the unit method of valuation did not violate the equal protection clause of the united states constitution or the uniform operation of laws provision in the utah constitution D. holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause E. holding that the multicounty signature requirement for initiatives violated the uniform operation of laws clause and the federal equal protection clause

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the multicounty signature requirement for initiatives violated the uniform operation of laws clause and the federal equal protection clause
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH LOAN PARTY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY SUBMITS, FOR ITSELF AND ITS PROPERTY, TO THE NONEXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK SITTING IN NEW YORK COUNTY AND OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND ANY APPELLATE COURT FROM ANY THEREOF, IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT, OR FOR RECOGNITION OR ENFORCEMENT OF ANY JUDGMENT, AND EACH OF THE LOAN PARTIES HERETO IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY AGREES THAT ALL CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING MAY BE HEARD AND DETERMINED IN SUCH NEW YORK STATE COURT OR, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN SUCH FEDERAL COURT. EACH OF THE LOAN PARTIES HERETO AGREES THAT A FINAL JUDGMENT IN ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE AND MAY BE ENFORCED IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS BY SUIT ON THE JUDGMENT OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW. NOTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT OR IN ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT SHALL AFFECT ANY RIGHT THAT ANY CREDIT PARTY MAY OTHERWISE HAVE TO BRING ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT AGAINST ANY LOAN PARTY OR ITS PROPERTIES IN THE COURTS OF ANY JURISDICTION.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any term, provision, covenant or restriction of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the terms, provisions, covenants and restrictions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated. It is hereby stipulated and declared to be the intention of the parties that the parties would have executed the remaining terms, provisions, covenants and restrictions without including any of such which may be hereafter declared invalid, void or unenforceable. In addition, the parties agree to use their best efforts to agree upon and substitute a valid and enforceable term, provision, covenant or restriction for any of such that is held invalid, void or enforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: court properly concluded that an exemption should apply. Minier v. CIA 88 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir.1996). The district court’s decision had an adequate factual basis because the EEOC presented declarations demonstrating that it had never had custody or control of the document Gaines sought and Gaines failed to rebut this evidence. See Marks v. U.S., 578 F.2d 261, 262-63 (9th Cir.1978). Therefore, the district court properly concluded that the EEOC had no disclosure obligation pursuant to FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(4)(B) (granting district courts jurisdiction to enjoin disclosure of “agency records”); 552(f)(2) (defining “record” as information “maintained by an agency”); Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150-51, 100 S.Ct. 960, 63 L.Ed.2d 267 (1980) (<HOLDING>). We reject Gaines’ remaining contentions as Options: A. holding that a condition was precedent to performance because the contract language did not explicitly state that it was precedent to formation B. holding that section 12309 is a condition precedent to the accrual of rights against a municipality C. holding agency must have had custody and control of document as condition precedent to improperly withholding it under section 552a4b D. holding the trial court may determine issue of condition precedent to enforcement of agreement to arbitrate E. holding that parol evidence is admissible to establish a condition precedent to the existence of a contract

assistant: The best answer is C. holding agency must have had custody and control of document as condition precedent to improperly withholding it under section 552a4b
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 a federal constitutional right and an allegedly retaliatory action[,]” Gorman-Bakos v. Cornell Coop. Extension, 252 F.3d 545, 554 (2d Cir.2001), some district courts have generally concluded that “a passage of two months between the protected activity and the adverse employment action seems to be the dividing line.” Cunningham v. Consol. Edison Inc., No. 03 Civ. 3522, 2006 WL 842914, at *19, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22482, at *55-56 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2006) (collecting cases). However, because the Second Circuit has found periods well beyond two months to be sufficient to suggest a causal relationship under certain circumstances, courts must carefully consider the time lapse in light of the entire record. See, e.g., Grant v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 622 F.2d 43, 45-46 (2d Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>); see also Richardson v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Options: A. holding eightmonth gap between eeoc complaint and retaliatory action suggested a causal relationship B. holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury C. holding that the more than three month gap between the plaintiffs eeoc complaint and the allegedly adverse action was insufficient to show causation D. holding that a close temporal proximity between a public employees speech and a defendants actions suggested a causal relationship E. holding in the context of a title vii retaliation claim that a twoyear gap between the plaintiffs protected activity and the claimed retaliatory act proves fatal to plaintiffs assertion that there is a causal connection

assistant: The best answer is A. holding eightmonth gap between eeoc complaint and retaliatory action suggested a causal relationship
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: Super.Ct. May 18, 2006). 8 . Precision Air, Inc. v. Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc., 654 A.2d 403, 406 (Del.1995). 9 . Id. (citing Kofron v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 441 A.2d 226, 227 (Del.1982)). 10 . While voluntary agreements to pay benefits should be filed and subsequently approved by the board, failure by the employer to submit such an agreement to the board does not affect the finality of such an agreement. Seserko v. Milford School Dist., 1992 WL 19941, at *2 (Del.Super.) ("For purposes of applying the principles in Huffman, the Court finds no meaningful distinction between an agreement approved by the Board pursuant to § 2344 and a valid, private agreement for which the employer sought no Board approval.”); see also Starun v. All Am. Eng’g, Co., 350 A.2d 765, 768 (Del.1975) (<HOLDING>). 11 . 19 Del. C. § 2349 ("An award of the Options: A. holding that an insurer may not capitalize on the fact that it failed to submit an agreement for compensation to the board B. holding that an insurer lacked standing to raise the issue of the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement to which it was not a party C. holding that a schoolteacher elected by the school board was an employee not an official and therefore entitled to benefits under the workers compensation act D. holding that if counsel retained by an insurer acts as an investigator and not as an attorney then the communications between the insured and insurer are not privileged E. holding that it may not

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an insurer may not capitalize on the fact that it failed to submit an agreement for compensation to the board
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: specifically informed, by Leske, that she had been served with papers intended for them. See, R. House Dep., at 41; Leske Dep., at 50. We conclude, given the fullness of the Record before us, that substitute service on Leske, who was an adult woman, and who was a daily visitor, and periodic overnight guest at the Defendants’ household during the Summer of 1996, is sufficient for purposes of Rule 4.03(a). Such service of process was intended to give notice to the Defendants, and was reasonably calculated to reach them. See, Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., supra; Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Kirke-vold, supra at 324. Our conclusion is supported by decisions from the Minnesota Courts, as well as from those of 'foreign jurisdictions. See, O’Sell v. Peterson, supra at 873-874 (<HOLDING>); citing, M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc. v. Austin, Options: A. holding that service was proper where a copy of the summons and complaint was left with the defendants wife at the defendants maryland house in which the defendant had lived before moving ahead of his family to arizona where he had purchased a house intending never to return to maryland and to move his family to arizona noting that the service was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of service at the defendants dwelling house or usual place of abode where the service succeeded in actually apprising him of the lawsuit B. holding that service of a statecourt summons and complaint after removal to federal court is valid service C. holding that actual notice of lawsuit is no substitute for substantial compliance with frcp 4d1 requiring service on person of defendant on suitable resident at defendants dwelling or on defendants agent a judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is void and may be set aside at any time pursuant to fedrcivp 60b4 personal jurisdiction is established either by proper service of process or by the defendants waiver of any defect in the service of process D. holding that leaving summons and complaint with the defendants 14yearold stepson who was staying at defendants home for a sixday noncustodial visitation constituted substitute service of process on defendant E. holding that service of summons was insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over defendant city where a copy of the summons and complaint was delivered to a person other than an official named in rule 4j5

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that leaving summons and complaint with the defendants 14yearold stepson who was staying at defendants home for a sixday noncustodial visitation constituted substitute service of process on defendant