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: As of the Effective Date (after giving effect to the Transaction), no Loan Party has any Material Subsidiaries other than those specifically disclosed in Schedule 5.12, and all of the outstanding Equity Interests owned by the Loan Parties in such Material Subsidiaries have been validly issued and are fully paid and (if applicable) nonassessable, and all Equity Interests owned by a Loan Party are owned free and clear of all Liens except (i) those created under the Collateral Documents or under the Term Facility Documentation and secured Permitted Refinancing Indebtedness in respect of the Indebtedness under the Term Facility Documentation (which Liens shall be subject to the ABL Intercreditor Agreement) and (ii) any Lien that is permitted under Section 9.1 . As of the Effective Date, Schedule 5.12 (a) sets forth the name and jurisdiction of each Loan Party, (b) sets forth the ownership interest of Holdings, the Borrower and any other Subsidiary in each Subsidiary, including the percentage of such ownership and (c) identifies each Subsidiary that is a Subsidiary the Equity Interests of which are required to be pledged on the Effective Date pursuant to the Collateral and Guarantee Requirement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to damages. The theory being that to constitute a constructive eviction there must be some substantial interference which is injurious to the tenant’s beneficial use and enjoyment of the premises." Kaplan v. McCabe, 532 So.2d 1354, 1356-57 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988) (emphasis added) (quoting R.P. Davis, Annotation, Tenant’s or Subtenant’s Right to Damages for Claimed Constructive Eviction or Breach of Covenant Based Upon Notice to Tenant to Vacate or Other Termination Notice, 14 A.L.R.2d 1450, 1451 (1950)); see, e.g., Nygard v. Juneau Yacht Club, 126 F.Supp. 535, 536 (D.Ala. 1954) (adopting majority rule that mere notice to quit, followed by vacation of premises, is not itself sufficient to constitute constructive eviction); Lindenberg v. MacDonald, 34 Cal.2d 678, 214 P.2d 5, 8-9 (1950) (<HOLDING>); Asell v. Rodrigues, 32 Cal.App.3d 817, 108 Options: A. holding that a bad faith claim is a tort B. holding that if the town acted in bad faith in negotiations and litigation which prevented construction then the plaintiffs on remand cannot be deemed to have lost any rights to vest that they would have been able to exercise in the absence of bad faith C. holding that sublessee who vacated upon notice could not recover for constructive eviction in absence of showing that lessor acted in bad faith D. holding threat by lessor to resort to legal process when made in good faith is not intentional conduct supporting finding of constructive eviction E. holding the bad faith rationale inapplicable given that the defendants acted in good faith in appealing the case and in raising defenses to the plaintiffs claims

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that sublessee who vacated upon notice could not recover for constructive eviction in absence of showing that lessor acted in bad faith
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: No Person shall be admitted as an Additional Limited Partner without the consent of the General Partner, which consent shall be given or withheld in the General Partner’s sole and absolute discretion. A Person who makes a Capital Contribution to the Partnership in accordance with this Agreement, including, without limitation, pursuant to Section 401.C hereof, or who exercises an option to receive Partnership Units shall be admitted to the Partnership as an Additional Limited Partner only with the consent of the General Partner and only upon furnishing to the General Partner (i) evidence of acceptance in form satisfactory to the General Partner of all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including, without limitation, the power of attorney granted in Section 15.11 hereof and (ii) such other documents or instruments as may be required in the discretion of the General Partner in order to effect such Person’s admission as an Additional Limited Partner. The admission of any Person as an Additional Limited Partner shall become effective on the date upon which the name of such Person is recorded on the books and records of the Partnership, following the consent of the General Partner to such admission.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: There is no litigation, proceeding, governmental investigation or class action lawsuit existing or pending or to the knowledge of Seller threatened, or any order, injunction, decree or settlement agreement outstanding, relating to or arising out of the Mortgage Loan, nor does Seller know of any basis for any such litigation, proceeding, governmental investigation or class action lawsuit.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Schedule 5.25(a) of the Disclosure Letter sets forth a listing of all insurance maintained by the Borrower and its Subsidiaries as of the Closing Date (other than local insurance policies maintained by Foreign Subsidiaries of the Borrower), with the amounts insured (and any deductibles) set forth therein. Schedule 5.25(b) of the Disclosure Letter sets forth a listing of all insurance maintained by the Acquired Business as of the Acquisition Effective Date (other than local insurance policies maintained by Foreign Subsidiaries of the Target), with the amounts insured (and any deductibles) set forth therein.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: resolution by a future court and refrain from addressing Defendants’ contention that we have jurisdiction to hear their appeal pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § l-277(b). III. Standard of Review Having determined that this Court has jurisdiction to review Defendants’ appeal, we now consider, also as a matter of first impression, the appropriate standard of review to apply to the trial court’s comity decision. Defendants contend that the question of whether a North Carolina court should extend comity is a question of law reviewable de novo. For the following reasons, we agree. As an initial matter, we note that the decision of whether to extend comity to a sister state’s sovereign immunity request is solely determined by our state’s common law. See Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 416 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the United States Constitution, Options: A. holding that sovereign immunity bars an attorneys lien against the united states B. holding that the united states constitution does not entitle one state to sovereign immunity in a second states courts and stating a claim of immunity in another sovereigns courts necessarily implicates the power and authority of a second sovereign its source must be found either in an agreement or in the voluntary decision of the second to respect the dignity of the first as a matter of comity C. holding that the ats does not waive the united states sovereign immunity D. holding that federal courts have no subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim against the united states or one of its agencies absent a clear waiver of sovereign immunity E. holding that the united states is liable for interest only in the event of a clear statutory waiver of sovereign immunity

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the united states constitution does not entitle one state to sovereign immunity in a second states courts and stating a claim of immunity in another sovereigns courts necessarily implicates the power and authority of a second sovereign its source must be found either in an agreement or in the voluntary decision of the second to respect the dignity of the first as a matter of comity
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement and shall become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the parties and delivered to the other parties. The exchange of a fully executed Agreement (in counterparts or otherwise) by facsimile or by electronic delivery in .pdf format shall be sufficient to bind the parties to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event of the breach or threatened breach by the Executive of this Section 5, the Company, in addition to all other remedies available to it at law or in equity, will be entitled to seek injunctive relief and/or specific performance to enforce this Section 5.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that marijuana must also stimulate the appetite of a cancer patient. The only basis for his conclusion was his opinion that: "I think almost everyone over the age of 15 in this society knows that marijuana makes you hungry.” On this record, we conclude that Mr. Randall’s opinion that marijuana is beneficial in the treatment of cancer was based on nothing more than pure speculation. Although Pittman properly points out that Mr. Randall has a considerable amount of practical experience concerning the medical uses of marijuana, his practical experience does not obviate the need for a scientific basis for his opinion. In the absence of a scientific basis, Mr. Randall’s opinion lacked an adequate foundation and was properly excluded by the trial court. See McGrath, 63 Wn. App. at 178 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, any error in the trial court’s Options: A. holding the experts opinion testimony lacked a proper foundation when there was no physical evidence of sexual abuse and the experts admitted that their conclusions were based solely on the childrens statements that they had been abused B. holding that trial court didnot abuse its discretion in admitting experts opinion which was based primarily on his own experience in the field C. holding even though experts are permitted to give an opinion they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of others 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 trial court abused its discretion in admitting alcoholism experts opinion that the insureds mental capacity was so impaired at the time of the shooting that he could not form intent to injure opinion lacked an adequate foundation when there was no scientific basis regarding the effects of intoxication on mental capacity to form intent to injure

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that trial court abused its discretion in admitting alcoholism experts opinion that the insureds mental capacity was so impaired at the time of the shooting that he could not form intent to injure opinion lacked an adequate foundation when there was no scientific basis regarding the effects of intoxication on mental capacity to form intent to injure
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 Transactions (a) do not require any consent or approval of, registration or filing with, or any other action by, any Governmental Authority, except such as have been obtained or made and are in full force and effect and except for filings necessary to perfect Liens created pursuant to the Loan Documents, (b) will not violate any Requirement of Law applicable to any Loan Party or any Subsidiary, (c) will not violate or result in a default under any indenture, agreement or other instrument binding upon any Loan Party or any Subsidiary or the assets of any Loan Party or any Subsidiary, or give rise to a right thereunder to require any payment to be made by any Loan Party or any Subsidiary, and (d) will not result in the creation or imposition of any Lien on any asset of any Loan Party or any Subsidiary, except Liens created pursuant to the Loan Documents.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Seller Parties, Guarantors and their Subsidiaries have timely filed all tax returns that are required to be filed by them and have paid all taxes, except for any such taxes as are being appropriately contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings diligently conducted and with respect to which adequate reserves have been provided. The charges, accruals and reserves on the books of Seller Parties, Guarantors and their Subsidiaries in respect of taxes and other governmental charges are, in the opinion of Seller Parties or Guarantors, as applicable, adequate.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that you engage in fraud or misconduct involving the Company, then at the option of the Committee, all vested and unvested Units [awarded to you] will terminate and be forfeited, and you will be required to immediately pay to the Company all amounts that you [may] have received in connection with your sale of stock received upon the vesting of Units. Such forfeiture and clawback shall be in addition to any other right the Company may have with respect to any such fraud or misconduct. At the direction of the Board, the Company may undertake any legal action to collect and recover the amount of any such required payment.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: `` nintendo account '' refers to an individual account created by ncl for a person who submitted the registration request and accepted the terms of this agreement by means specifically provided by ncl for this purpose .

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: Id. Professor Larson notes that in addition to an employee’s failure to recognize the nature of his condition, a failure to recognize the seriousness of a condition is a second reason that may justify a delay in giving timely notice. Larson states that the “claimant must have had reason to be aware of the seriousness of the trouble. This feature is a salutary requirement, since any other rule would force employees to rush in with claims for every minor ache, pain, or symptom.” 7 Larson & Larson, supra, § 126.05[5] see also Rebiski v. Pioneer Tel. Co., 262 N.W.2d 424, 426 (Minn.1978) (noting evidence supported finding that employee reasonably believed that fall from telephone pole would not result in disability); Barcel v. Barrel Finish, 304 Minn. 536, 537-38, 232 N.W.2d 13, 15 (1975) (<HOLDING>). The third reason cited by Professor Larson Options: A. holding that an employees injury while on college grounds to report for first day of work before he reached either the administration building where he was to complete payroll forms or the athletic field house where he was to do the work was an injury suffered in the course of the employment B. holding that where symptoms of numbness in employees right hand and forearm were at first intermittent and did not interfere with his work the trivial injury rule applied to toll the statutory period for notice of injury to employer C. holding that an injury is not within the scope of employment after the employee has left work unless the injury was caused by the employers negligence D. holding in an employees action to recover for injury sustained during work against the employer and other defendants did not state an intentional tort claim against contractor E. holding that a notice of claim period did not begin to run until discovery of the injury

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that where symptoms of numbness in employees right hand and forearm were at first intermittent and did not interfere with his work the trivial injury rule applied to toll the statutory period for notice of injury to 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 6-7). Plaintiff attempts to excuse his non-compliance with these aspects of the interactive process with defendants by dismissing defendants’ efforts as “simply providing] plaintiff with some paperwork, then flatly refusing] to take any further steps until plaintiff provided unnecessary medical information.” Plaintiffs Response at 25. Plaintiff contends that the medical information was “unnecessary” because plaintiffs obesity is obvious. Id. However, counsel’s reliance upon a defense witness’s speculation that obesity might be listed as an example of a disability in defendants’ ADA policies is unsupported by the record of evidence. Moreover, obesity, by itself, may not constitute an ADA-recognized disability. See EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 468 F.3d 436, 441 (6th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Cook v. Rhode Island, Dep’t of Mental Health, Options: A. holding evidence of a 13 permanent partial disability insufficient to establish disability for purposes of ada B. holding that whether a person has a disability under the ada is an individualized inquiry C. holding that only obesity that results from a physiological disorder may constitute a disability under the ada D. holding that epilepsy qualifies as a disability under the ada E. holding that an employer cannot be held liable under the ada if it had no knowledge of the employees alleged disability

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that only obesity that results from a physiological disorder may constitute a disability under the ada
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 not harmless. 4 . The City also argues that it was effectively denied its right under the Agreement and the AAA Rules to participate in the selection of the arbitrator in a meaningful manner because it might not have agreed to the selection of this arbitrator had it known that an out-of-class pay issue was involved. As the FOP notes, however, the City does not assert that it would have made some other selection. Further, once this arbitrator decided on the first day of the hearings to consider the possibility of out-of-class payments, it was incumbent upon the City to raise an objection at that time if the City truly objected to having this arbitrator in particular decide that issue. The City raised and preserved an objection to ns Board, 153 Pa.Cmwlth. 544, 621 A.2d 1184 (1993) Options: A. holding that the statute is mandatory B. holding that a transfer of work was a mandatory subject of bargaining because the motivation for the shift was to cut labor costs C. holding that a fiveminute change in employee starting time is a mandatory subject of bargaining D. holding that the number of rooms that housekeepers must clean is a mandatory subject of bargaining E. holding that giving the work of a bargainingunit sergeant to civilians in the revamping of communications center was a mandatory subject of bargaining

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that giving the work of a bargainingunit sergeant to civilians in the revamping of communications center was a mandatory subject of bargaining
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: Any term or provision of this Agreement which is invalid or unenforceable in any jurisdiction will, as to such jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such invalidity or unenforceability without rendering invalid or unenforceable the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement or affecting the validity or enforceability of any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement in any other 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: and Chukchi Seas.” The analysis of oil spill risks was updated in the EAs for both Lease Sale 195 and Lease Sale 202. There is no indication that the agency erred in relying on these documents in its review of this specific project. Petitioners argue that extensive discussion of spills in MMS’s prior analyses and the requirement that an oil response plan be prepared is evidence that an oil spill is a reasonably foreseeable event. Under their logic, the EA should therefore have included analysis on the possibility of such a spill. Petitioners support this contention by citing to cases where an agency was required to consider even remote risks that could cause great harm. See, e.g., San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 449 F.3d 1016, 1030-31 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Petitioners also point out that, even if an Options: A. holding that eight years between prior convictions and the beginning of the charged conspiracy was not too remote B. holding that collateral crime that occurred twelve years prior to charged offense not too remote in time C. holding the class too imprecise and speculative to be certified D. holding that deficiency as to particularity in warrant not prejudicial under art 14 where search was conducted as if warrant were in compliance and thus was not unreasonable E. holding that agency was unreasonable in categorically dismissing the possibility of a terrorist attack as too remote and highly speculative to warrant nepa consideration

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that agency was unreasonable in categorically dismissing the possibility of a terrorist attack as too remote and highly speculative to warrant nepa consideration
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 Executive shall be entitled to vacation of up to four (4) weeks per calendar year, pursuant to the applicable Company policy. All vacations shall be in addition to recognized national holidays. During all vacations, the Executive’s compensation and other benefits as stated herein shall continue to be paid in full. Such vacations shall be taken only at times convenient for the Company, as approved by the Chief Executive Officer.

assistant: Vacations
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: an interest in filing a motion for summary judgment, but apparently chose not to file a motion because it was untimely. Upon a review of defendants’ motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs’ response, and in view of the absence of any material facts in dispute, we granted plaintiffs leave to file a motion for summary judgment as to liability only. See Open Inns v. Chester County Sheriff s Department, Civ. No. 97-4822 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 22, 1998). 18 . Defendants LaRose, Clemens, and Freas all argue that they are protected by qualified immunity. As noted above, Sheriff Erling has been sued only in his official capacity. Thus, the suit against him is essentially a suit against the county. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Monell, 436 U.S. at 690 n. 55, 98 S.Ct. 2018 Options: A. holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the officials office B. holding that a damages suit against a state officer in his official capacity was barred because it was functionally a suit against the state C. holding that an official capacity suit should be treated as a suit against the entity D. holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state E. holding that suit against county sheriff in his official capacity was suit against county

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the officials office
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 to this Agreement hereby further acknowledges and agrees that (i) each has been advised by counsel during the course of negotiations (ii) each counsel has had significant input in the development of this Agreement and (iii) this Agreement shall not, therefore, be construed more strictly against any party responsible for its drafting regardless of any presumption or rule requiring construction against the party whose attorney drafted this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices, requests, documents delivered, and other communications hereunder must be in writing and will be deemed to have been duly given only if delivered personally, mailed (first class postage prepaid) or by email to the Parties at the below addresses, or e-mail addresses. For the avoidance of doubt when written notice or approval from Requisite Consenting Creditors is required by this Agreement, email from Requisite Consenting Creditors’ counsel to Company’s counsel shall be sufficient.

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: Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the payment of any amount or provision of any benefit pursuant to Section 5.2, Section 5.3 and/or Section 5.4 above shall be conditioned upon and subject to the Clawback Policy.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Award, this Award Agreement and the Award Su mmary, and all determinations made and actions taken pursuant thereto, to the extent otherwise not governed by the Code or the laws of the United States, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Delaware and construed in accordance therewith without g iving effect to principles of conflicts of laws.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: claims, Gabriel v. O’Hara, 368 Pa. Super. 383, 534 A.2d 488 (1987), and a two-year statute of limitations to fraud and most other tort claims. 42 Pa.C.S. §5524. Depending on when the defendants’ allegedly improper actions took place, it is conceivable that some class members’ claims could be barred by the appropriate statute of limitations. The court also notes that the plaintiff’s claims had not been certified prior to the presentation of the settlement to the court. Addressing consumer claims such as this one as class actions secures a particular benefit for injured persons for a variety of reasons. However, it is far from certain that the plaintiff would have been able to establish those elements necessary for certification. Cf. Weinberg v. Sun Co., 565 Pa. 612, 777 A.2d 442 (2001) (<HOLDING>); Klemow v. Time Inc., 466 Pa. 189, 197 n.17, Options: A. holding that unlawful restraint could not even be an included offense B. holding that subject matter questions may be but are not necessarily decided before questions of personal jurisdiction C. holding that private utpcpl claim included individual questions of fact and could not be certified D. holding that issues of discriminatory intent and actual motivation are questions of fact for the trier of fact E. holding that private individual could not bring a claim to remove a judges name from the roll of attorneys

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that private utpcpl claim included individual questions of fact and could not be certified
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: 5 (ECF No. 218) (citations omitted). However, the PTAB’s Institution Decision is only preliminary and did not have any input from the patent owner. Plaintiff UUSI did not offer any construction of “a voltage signals” to the PTAB in support of its construction of “a voltage signals,” as it did before this Court. Instead, Plaintiff UUSI reserved its right “to offer constructions of the limitations in the dependent claims should the Board decide to institute the Petition.” Institution Decision 14 n.9. Plaintiff UUSI’s choice to abstain from proffering evidence in support of its construction before the PTAB undermines the persuasive weight of the PTAB’s construction of “a voltage signals” before this Court. See SkyHawke Techs., LLC v. Peca Int’l Corp., 828 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>). “power correction after removal or an Options: A. holding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars readjudication of issues when 1 the prior suit resulted in judgment on the merits 2 identical issues are involved 3 the issue was actually litigated 4 the issue was actually determined and 5 the determination was necessary to the resulting judgment B. holding arbitration decision disallowing insurers coverage defense binding in subsequent personal injury action where the issue was actually litigated and decided in prior action C. holding that trial by consent requires that the parties actually recognize the issue to have been litigated D. holding that the ptabs claim construction decision was not binding on the trial court in part because issue preclusion requires that the issues were actually litigated by the parties quoting in re trans tex holdings corp 498 f3d 1290 1297 fed cir 2007 E. holding that a civil claim is barred by collateral estoppel even though the prior adjudication was in criminal proceedings and the parties are not the same because the matters were actually litigated and decided in the prior trial

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the ptabs claim construction decision was not binding on the trial court in part because issue preclusion requires that the issues were actually litigated by the parties quoting in re trans tex holdings corp 498 f3d 1290 1297 fed cir 2007
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: agency’s decision not to prepare the original EIS, the “legal standard for determining when a supplemental EIS is required is ‘essentially the same as the standard for determining the need for an original EIS.’ ” Fritiofson, 772 F.2d at 1239 n. 8 (citation omitted). Oregon Natural has plainly emasculated our precedent applying the reasonableness standard with respect to the review of an agency’s decision to forego a supplemental EIS. See Oregon Natural, 109 S.Ct. at 1861 n. 23 (citing with disapproval our decision in Sierra Club v. Froelhlke, 816 F.2d 205, 210 (5th Cir.1987)). We believe that it has similarly undercut our precedent applying the reasonableness standard with respect to an agency’s decision to forego the original EIS. See Lockhart v. Kenops, 927 F.2d 1028, 1032 (8th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 186, 116 Options: A. holding that a threejudge panel may depart from circuit precedent that has not been expressly overruled when an intervening en banc or supreme court decision has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable B. holding that judicial review of an administrative agencys decision is limited solely to whether given the relevant standard and facts the agencys decision was arbitrary illegal capricious or unreasonable C. holding that an intervening supreme court case can overturn circuit precedent D. holding that the intervening decision of oregon natural undercut eight circuit precedent applying the reasonableness standard with respect review of an agencys decision to forego preparation of an original eis E. holding that an agencys decision not to prepare an eis was unreasonable because record demonstrated that four of the regulatory factors were implicated

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the intervening decision of oregon natural undercut eight circuit precedent applying the reasonableness standard with respect review of an agencys decision to forego preparation of an original eis
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: Energy, Inc., 188 F.3d 116, 122 (3d Cir.1999). As the relevant facts are undisputed, this appeal presents a pure question of law, which we review de novo. See id. II. A. Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides: For the purpose of distribution under this title, a claim arising from rescission of a purchase or sale of a security of the debtor or of an affiliate of the debtor, for damages arising from the purchase or sale of such a security, or for reimbursement or contribution allowed under section 502 on account of such a claim, shall be subordinated to all claims or interests that are senior to or equal the claim or interest represented by such security, except that if such security is common stock, such claim has the same priority as common stock. In this ca Bankr.S.D.Fla.1999) (<HOLDING>). In construing § 510(b), we begin, as we must, Options: A. holding that a claim for breach of a provision in a merger agreement arises from the purchase or sale of the debtors securities B. holding that plaims for breach of a merger agreement arise from the purchase or sale of debtors securities C. holding that claims for breach of the debtors agreement to use its best efforts to register its securities arise from the purchase of those securities for purposes of 510b D. holding that claims alleging that the debtor fraudulently induced the claimants to retain securities they had purchased from the debtor arise from the purchase or sale of those securities for purposes of 510b E. holding that claims that debtor fraudulently induced claimants to retain debtors securities arise from the purchase or sale of those securities

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that claims for breach of the debtors agreement to use its best efforts to register its securities arise from the purchase of those securities for purposes of 510b
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: 488 So.2d at 131. Federal courts and the majority of state courts have permitted a trial court to consider pending charges in imposing a sentence. See B.H. Glenn, Annotation, Court’s Right, in Imposing Sentence, to Hear Evidence of, or to Consider, Other Offenses Committed by Defendant, 96 A.L.R.2d 768, § 2 (1964 & Supp.); Daniels v. Commonwealth, 2002-CA-001684-MR, 2003 WL 22519882, at *2 (Ky.Ct.App.2003) (providing an overview of decisions from other jurisdictions that have allowed courts to consider pending charges when sentencing a defendant). Many of those courts allowing pending charges to be considered at sentencing include charges that arose from subsequent arrests among their permissible sentencing factors. See, e.g., Houle v. United States, 493 F.2d 915, 915 (5th Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Cimino, 659 F.2d 535, 537-38 Options: A. holding that it was not error plain or otherwise for a judge to rely on an unsubstantiated summary of a state indictment contained in the psr to determine that the prior offense was a crime of violence even though the defendant had not admitted that the summary of the indictment was correct B. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the defendants probation before the defendant completed his executed sentence C. holding that the court could in its discretion consider the fact that the defendant was arrested while on bail awaiting trial in determining what sentence to impose even though the arrest did not result in an indictment of the defendant D. holding that the guidelines did not strip the sentencing court of its discretion to impose a concurrent sentence E. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the court could in its discretion consider the fact that the defendant was arrested while on bail awaiting trial in determining what sentence to impose even though the arrest did not result in an indictment of the defendant
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 suppress evidence on the ground that it was illegally obtained. Under the rule, Ball was therefore required to file the motion no later than forty days after arraignment. His failure to file the motion in time constituted a waiver of his constitutional objection unless there was good cause shown to grant relief from such waiver. We have found a waiver even when the State did not resist the motion as untimely and unexcused. See, e.g., State v. Terry, 569 N.W.2d 364, 368 (Iowa 1997); State v. McCowen, 297 N.W.2d 226, 227-28 (Iowa 1980). The narrow question we must decide is whether the district court correctly ruled there was good cause to grant Ball relief from the waiver under rule 10(3). Our review is for abuse of discretion. Cf. State v. Hines, 225 N.W.2d 156, 160-61 (Iowa 1975) (<HOLDING>). The district court believed there was good Options: A. holding pendency of another trial constitutes good cause for delay and thus finding defendants statutory and constitutional speedy trial claims without merit B. holding that the dismissal of a frivolous action reviewed for abuse of discretion C. holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion D. holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion E. holding that review of good cause determination to avoid dismissal for speedy trial purposes is abuse of discretion

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that review of good cause determination to avoid dismissal for speedy trial purposes is abuse of discretion
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: right to file an application for leave to appeal and was instructed that he had this right. Halbert, 545 U.S. at 617, 125 S.Ct. 2582. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court should have appointed counsel to aid the indigent defendant in the preparation and review of his application for leave to appeal, even though he had waived the separate right to a full appeal. The review of applications for leave to appeal is the first-tier review referred to by the Supreme Court. In the instant case, even though the Court certifies this appeal is frivolous, or not taken in good faith, the Court of Appeals possesses authority to appoint Defendants with counsel to aid a challenge of this Court’s certification. Johnson v. United States, 352 U.S. 565, 566, 77 S.Ct. 550, 1 L.Ed.2d 593 (1957) (<HOLDING>). The appointment of counsel for the purpose of Options: A. holding that a court of appeals must appoint counsel to aid an indigent appellant who challenges a trial courts certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 usc 1915 unless he insists on representing himself B. recognizing that congress enacted the court of federal claims technical and procedural improvements act of 1992 authorizing the court to among other things adjudicate applications to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 usc 1915 C. holding that an indigent defendant cannot have a fair trial without being provided counsel D. holding that a questionnaire may be used to assist the court in determining whether cases should be dismissed under 28 usc 1915 E. holding trial court reversibly erred in not permitting appellant to withdraw his plea where court erroneously stated appellant could appeal motion was in fact not dispositive and appellant was entitled to rely on the courts statement

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a court of appeals must appoint counsel to aid an indigent appellant who challenges a trial courts certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 usc 1915 unless he insists on representing himself
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: Any Lender may at any time, without the consent of, or notice to, the Borrower or the Agent, sell participations to any Person (other than a natural Person or the Borrower or any of the Borrower s Affiliates or Subsidiaries) (each, a “ Participant ”) in all or a portion of such Lender’s rights and/or obligations under this Agreement (including all or a portion of its Commitment and/or the Advances owing to it); provided that (i) such Lender’s obligations under this Agreement shall remain unchanged, (ii) such Lender shall remain solely responsible to the other parties hereto for the performance of such obligations, and (iii) the Borrower, the Agent and Lenders shall continue to deal solely and directly with such Lender in connection with such Lender’s rights and obligations under this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, each Lender shall be responsible for the indemnity under Section 8.04(d) with respect to any payments made by such Lender to its Participant(s).

assistant: Participations
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: with putative class members). Indeed, a district court’s authority under Rule 23(d) is not limited to communications that actually mislead or otherwise threaten to create confusion, but extends to communications that interfere with the proper administration of a class action or those that abuse the rights of members of the class. Cobell v. Norton, 212 F.R.D. 14, 19 (D.D.C.2002). “A unilateral communications scheme, moreover, is rife with potential for coercion. If the class and the class opponent are involved in an ongoing business relationship, communications from the class opponent to the class may be coercive.” Kleiner, 751 F.2d at 1202 (internal quotations, citations and brackets omitted); see also Hampton Hardware v. Cotter & Co., 156 F.R.D. 630, 633-34 (N.D.Tex.1994) (<HOLDING>); Tedesco v. Mishkin, 629 F.Supp. 1474, 1484 Options: A. holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when class certification was granted in a prior case B. holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification C. holding evidence of letters discouraging participation in lawsuit an ongoing business relationship between the parties and plaintiffs dependence on defendant for supplies sufficient to prohibit all litigationrelated communication prior to class certification D. recognizing a defendants connection to dc because the plaintiff had argued and provided correspondence between the parties demonstrating an ongoing relationship between the parties including the defendant giving the plaintiff directions regarding other business projects that the defendant intended to pursue and argued that the contract would have been at least partly performed within dc E. recognizing correspondence appeared to establish a settlement relationship between the parties given the letters presented an attempt to curb further litigation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding evidence of letters discouraging participation in lawsuit an ongoing business relationship between the parties and plaintiffs dependence on defendant for supplies sufficient to prohibit all litigationrelated communication prior to class certification