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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: are insurable under Michigan law, there can be no overriding public policy concerns in providing coverage for business injury under antitrust laws. Beaumont reads the Michigan cases more accurately than Federal. Under those cases, the doctrine that an insured may not profit from its own wrongdoing relates to intentional tortious or criminal acts. See K & T Enters., 97 F.3d at 178 (finding public policy precluded recovery for losses sustained due to an insured’s arson); Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Harrington, 212 Mich.App. 682, 538 N.W.2d 106, 109-10 (1995) (finding a person who shot his neighbor’s guest was not entitled to coverage under his homeowners’ insurance policy); United Gratiot Furniture Mart, Inc. v. Mich. Basic Prop. Ins. Ass’n, 159 Mich.App. 94, 406 N.W.2d 239, 242 (1987) (<HOLDING>). As the district court noted, Federal has not Options: A. holding that the trustee could not bring a claim against sole shareholders of bankrupt corporation where shareholders had not looted or otherwise injured the corporation B. holding that a corporation exists as an entity apart from its shareholders even where the corporation has but one shareholder the general proposition of corporate identity apart from its shareholders leads us to conclude in accordance with decisions from other jurisdictions that the attorneys client is the corporation and not the shareholders C. holding that parent corporation could not recover for its lost profits incurred after subsidiary suffered a fire even though both were listed as named insured on the business interruption insurance policy D. holding an insured corporation could not recover for a fire loss caused by its controlling shareholders arson E. holding that the relationship between fire insurance regulation and rating fire loss fire prevention and fire investigation is rational and reasonable

assistant: The best answer is D. holding an insured corporation could not recover for a fire loss caused by its controlling shareholders arson
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: proper under the circumstances of this case. EVIDENCE OF DAMAGES UNDER PROPER MEASURE Matheus nevertheless contends that he produced legally sufficient evidence of damages under the benefit-of-the-bargain measure of direct damages. Initially, we disagree with Appellees’ argument that Matheus failed to offer any evidence of the fair market value of the property as represented. After negotiating, the parties settled on a sales price of $343,225. Matheus testified that the final sales price agreed upon reflects a price of $81.37 per square foot for a house represented to contain 4,218 square feet. The price agreed on between two parties is some evidence to support a fact finding on fair market value of property as represented in an action under the DTPA. Ford Motor Co., 125 S.W.3d at 799 (<HOLDING>); Barraza v. Koliba, 933 S.W.2d 164,169 Options: A. holding that the market price is understood to mean the current market price being paid for gas at the well where it is produced B. holding parties negotiated price of vehicle was evidence of market value as represented C. holding recovery precluded absent evidence of market value of vehicle when received D. holding that if repairs to a firedamaged vehicle with parts of like kind and quality would not restore the vehicle to its former market value the proper measure of damages was the difference in market value before and after the loss E. holding that there was no evidence of market value where owners testimony affirmatively showed that it was based on personal value

assistant: The best answer is B. holding parties negotiated price of vehicle was evidence of market value as represented
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 Party may assign this Agreement without the express prior written consent of the other Party; provided, however, that either Party may assign this Agreement in connection with a merger, acquisition, or sale of all or substantially all of such Party’s assets. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Observe and remain in compliance with all Applicable Laws (including ERISA and Environmental Laws) applicable to it, except where the failure to do so could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Compliance With 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: and convincing evidence of abuse inflicted by Smith. I believe this was error. An allegation.of an accident does not equate to the admission of an intentional act of child abuse for purposes of demonstrating evidence of a prior bad act. See State v. Northcutt, 372 S.C. 207, 218-19, 641 S.E.2d 873, 879 (2007) (reversing a death penalty conviction when the trial court admitted evidence of the victim’s spiral leg fracture at age ten-weeks despite the fact that the prior injury was, by all accounts, accidental and therefore not relevant to show the nature of defendant’s relationship with the victim). This is particularly true where, as is the case here, Smith did not have exclusive custody and control over the victim. See State v. Cutro, 332 S.C. 100, 105-06, 504 S.E.2d 324, 326-27 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, DSS was unable to determine who Options: A. holding admission of prior bad acts of child abuse was reversible error when the defendant did not have exclusive control over the children during the period when the prior bad acts occurred B. holding that the more similar the prior bad act is to the charged crime the more relevant the prior bad act becomes toward proving intent C. holding that it is error for a trial court to admit evidence of prior bad acts without properly conditioning the jurys use of that evidence D. holding on a criminal appeal that prior bad acts evidence is admissible to prove intent to commit the charged crime E. holding as to the admissibility of prior bad acts that allegedly took place fourteen and twelve years before the acts alleged in that case that the lapse of time between the defendants sexual acts goes to the weight of the evidence not to its admissibility

assistant: The best answer is A. holding admission of prior bad acts of child abuse was reversible error when the defendant did not have exclusive control over the children during the period when the prior bad acts occurred
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: whether or not the supplier has charged you for your room , product or service , or if we are facilitating the payment of the ( room/reservation ) price , you agree and acknowledge that the supplier is at all times responsible for the collection , withholding , remittance and payment of the applicable taxes due on the total amount of the ( room/reservation ) price to the relevant tax authorities .

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: Each of the Borrower and each Subsidiary has timely filed or caused to be filed all federal and material state, local and foreign Tax returns required to have been filed and has paid or caused to be paid all Taxes shown to be payable on such returns or on any assessments received from any taxing authority by any of them, except (a) Taxes that are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and for which the Borrower or such Subsidiary, as applicable, has set aside on its books adequate reserves (to the extent required by GAAP) and (b) to the extent that the failure to do so could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: xbox live , games for windows live and microsoft studios games , applications , services and content provided by microsoft ( collectively , the `` xbox services '' ) are only for your personal and noncommercial use .

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: provisions, so that no part will be inoperative, superfluous, void, or insignificant.’ ” (quoting Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 101, 124 S.Ct. 2276, 159 L.Ed.2d 172 (2004)). 2, Is VA’s Regulatory Definition of “Southwest Asia theater of operations" Arbitrary and Capricious? Having found section 1117 silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue of the definition of “Southwest Asia theater of operations” and that deference to VA’s interpretation is required, the question for the Court becomes whether the agency’s interpretation is based on a permissible construction of the statute or is instead arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute. See Mayo Foundation for Medical Educ. and Research v. United States, 562 U.S. 44, 53, 131 S.Ct. 704, 178 L.Ed.2d 588 (2011) (<HOLDING>); see also Taylor v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 158, Options: A. holding that regulations promulgated pursuant to an express congressional grant of rulemaking authority will be upheld unless they are arbitrary capricious or manifestly contrary to the statute B. holding the court will not disturb the decision of the abcmr unless it was arbitrary capricious contrary to law or unsupported by substantial evidence C. holding that legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary capricious or manifestly contrary to the statute D. holding that under chevron step two courts may not disturb an agency rule unless it is arbitrary or capricious in substance or manifestly contrary to the statute internal quotations omitted E. holding that under chevron usa inc v natural res def council inc 467 us 837 104 sct 2778 81 led2d 694 1984 courts may not disturb an agency rule unless it is arbitrary or capricious in substance or manifestly contrary to the statute

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that under chevron step two courts may not disturb an agency rule unless it is arbitrary or capricious in substance or manifestly contrary to the statute internal quotations omitted
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 commence on the Effective Date and shall continue for a period of one (1) year (the “ Initial Term ”), unless earlier terminated pursuant to the terms hereof. This Agreement shall automatically renew for additional one (1) -year periods (each a “ Renewal Term ” and, together with the Initial Term, the “ Term ”) at the end of the Initial Term or any Renewal Term unless either Ubiquity or Client provides notice of non-renewal at least ninety (90) days prior to the end of the Initial Term or any Renewal Term.

assistant: Terms
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: Thi s Agreement s hall be go v erned b y the internal la w of the State of New York without regard to the choice of l aw pro v i s ion s of an y juri s diction. Each party hereto irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located within Suffolk County, New York for the purposes of any action or claim arising out of this Agreement or any transaction contemplated hereby, and agrees to commence any such action or claim only in such courts. Each party acknowledges and agrees that any controversy which may arise under this Agreement is likely to involve complicated and difficult issues and, therefore, each such party irrevocably and unconditionally waives any right it may have to a trial by jury in respect of any legal action arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the District had no grounds to file termination charges against him. Instead, Olmsted posits that the District has a statutory duty to report teachers that are under investigation. Assuming this statutory duty, Olmsted infers that the District had no basis to file any charges against him because it did not report him to the Board of Teaching. But the District presented evidence that it did not make a report every time a teacher was suspended, so the absence of a report neither proves nor disproves the validity of any charges under investigation at time of his resignation. Olmsted has not pointed to any record evidence that would support his claim that the District unlawfully threatened him. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Even if Olmsted could demonstrate that the Options: A. holding that at the summary judgment stage there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could find for the plaintiff B. holding that the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence is insufficient to create a dispute of fact that is genuine C. holding that on a motion for summary judgment the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs position will be insufficient and there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff D. holding that hearsay in affidavit which would be inadmissible in evidence at trial could not be considered on motion for summary judgment E. holding that where the new york times clear and convincing evidence requirement applies the summary judgment inquiry will be whether the evidence presented is such that a jury applying that evidentiary standard could reasonably find for either plaintiff or defendant

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that on a motion for summary judgment the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs position will be insufficient and there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff
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: Interpretation of the Plan shall be within the sole discretion of the Committee or the Administrator with respect to their respective duties hereunder. If any member of, or delegate of, the Committee or the Administrator shall also be a Participant or Beneficiary, then such individual may not participate in any determinations affecting the individual’s benefits under the Plan. The Committee’s and the Administrator’s determinations shall be final and binding on all parties with an interest hereunder, unless determined to be arbitrary and capricious.

assistant: Interpretations
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. at 738 (internal citation omitted); see Coldwell Banker & Co. v. Karlock, 686 F.2d 596, 599 (7th Cir.1982) (finding that “[a] real estate brokerage contract is generally characterized as a contract for personal services rather than a contract conveying an interest in land,” and performing a conflict-of-law analysis by assessing contacts with brokerage arrangements, including, inter alia, the situs of the property); Dorothy K. Winston & Co. v. Town Heights Dev., Inc., 376 F.Supp. 1214, 1218-19 (D.D.C.1974) (concluding that situs rule did not control contacts analysis and Florida broker’s law did not bar commission for a District of Columbia broker who procured a purchaser for property in Florida); see also Scott/Hubbard Co. v. Sika Chem. Co., 694 F.Supp. 1311, 1314-15 (N.D.Ill.1988) (<HOLDING>); Ames v. Ideal Cement Co., 37 Misc.2d 883, 235 Options: A. holding that the situs of an acquired missouri corporation was not determinative of choiceoflaw question as to finders fee contract between a finder and a purchaser both nonmissouri corporations B. holding that corporate law should apply because key question was legal effect of contracts between corporations C. holding that securities of other corporations may of course be acquired by a delaware corporation D. holding that while a state statute granted a foreign corporation the rights and privileges enjoyed by domestic corporations it did not transform such corporations into domestic or resident corporations E. holding that plaintiff an officer and shareholder of a corporation with signatory authority over the corporations checking account was not a customer of the bank and could not file suit for wrongful dishonor of the corporations checks

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the situs of an acquired missouri corporation was not determinative of choiceoflaw question as to finders fee contract between a finder and a purchaser both nonmissouri corporations
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 539 U.S. 111 DOW CHEMICAL CO. ET AL.v.STEPHENSON ET AL. No. 02-271. Supreme Court of United States. Argued February 26, 2003. Decided June 9, 2003. 273 F. 3d 249, vacated and remanded in part, and affirmed by an equally divided Court in part. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Seth P. Waxman argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Louis R. Cohen, Andrew L. Frey, Philip Allen Lacovara, Charles A. Rothfeld, Richard B. Katskee, Michele L. Odorizzi, Steven Brock, and John C. Sabetta. Gerson H. Smoger argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Mark R. Cuker and Ronald Simon.* PER CURIAM. 1 With respect to respondents Joe Isaacson and Phyllis Lisa Isaacson, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U. S. 28 (2002). 2 With respect to respondents Daniel Raymond Stephenson, Susan Stephenson, Daniel Anthony Stephenson, and Emily Elizabeth Stephenson, the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. 3 JUSTICE STEVENS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Notes: * Briefs ofamici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Insurance Association et al. by Herbert M. Wachtell, Jeffrey M. Wintner, Craig A. Berrington, Lynda S. Mounts, Jan S. Amundson, Quentin Riegel, and Robin S. Conrad; for the Product Liability Advisory Council by John H. Beisner; and for the Washington Legal Foundation by Daniel J. Popeo and Richard A. Samp. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Louisiana et al. by Richard P. Ieyoub, Attorney General of Louisiana, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Mike Beebe of Arkansas, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland, Mike Hatch of Minnesota, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon of Missouri, and Mike McGrath of Montana; for the American Legion et al. by William A. Rossbach and P. B. Onderdonk, Jr.; for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America by Jeffrey Robert White; for Law Professors by David L. Shapiro, John Leubsdorf, and Henry P. Monaghan; for the Lymphoma Foundation of America et al. by Raphael Metzger; for Public Citizen by Brian Wolfman; and for Trial Lawyers for Public Justice by Brent M. Rosenthal, Leslie Brueckner, and Misty A. Farris. Patrick Lysaught filed a brief for the Defense Research Institute as amicus curiae.

assistant: 9
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 controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof, or arising out of Employee’s employment and the termination of such employment, shall be settled by arbitration in Connecticut, in accordance with the employment dispute rules then existing of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. Such claims shall include, without limitation, claims for breach of contract or breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, any claims of discrimination or other claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended by the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, ERISA, and/or any applicable or equivalent state or local laws, claims for wrongful termination, including employment termination in violation of public policy, and claims for personal injury including, without limitation, defamation, fraud and infliction of emotional distress. The parties shall be free to pursue any remedy before the arbitrator that they shall be otherwise permitted to pursue in a court of competent jurisdiction. As a material part of this agreement to arbitrate claims, the Employee and the Company expressly waive all rights to a jury trial in court on all statutory or other claims. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding. The costs of the American Arbitration Association and the arbitrator will be borne by the Company, and the parties will otherwise bear their own costs (including attorneys fees). Nothing contained herein, however, shall limit the right of the Company or any of its Affiliates to seek equitable or other relief from any court of competent jurisdiction for violation of any provision of Sections 4 and 5 above.

assistant: Arbitration
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: Upon the Obligations becoming due and payable, the Agent may enforce payment of the Obligations and the Agent shall have the rights and remedies of a secured party under the PPSA and other applicable law together with those rights and remedies provided by the Credit Agreement, this Agreement or otherwise provided by applicable law.

assistant: Remedies
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: 2000) (noting reasonable expectations doctrine “is a narrow doctrine that is primarily employed when the insurance coverage provided eviscerates terms explicitly agreed to or is manifestly inconsistent with the purpose of the transaction for which the insurance was purchased”). In the summary judgment proceedings, Goodwin filed his own affidavit that set forth his expectations of coverage. He did not, however, reveal any statements or other circumstances attributable to Nationwide, other than the policy provisions discussed above, that fostered his coverage expectations. See Am. Family Mut Ins. Co. v. Corrigan, 697 N.W.2d 108, 118 (Iowa 2005) (rejecting reasonable expectations a ntitled to coverage under this theory. See Shelter Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lincoln, 590 N.W.2d 726, 729 (Iowa 1999) (<HOLDING>). VI. Summary and Disposition. There is no Options: A. holding that under pennsylvania law the reasonable expectations of an insured may overcome unambiguous policy language only when the insured is a noncommercial entity B. holding when insured has failed to show circumstances attributable to the insurer that fostered coverage expectations or that an ordinary layperson would misunderstand the exclusion summary judgment against the insured is appropriate C. holding a personal profit exclusion applicable to an insured corporation where the purpose of the exclusion was to exclude coverage when the insured received profits to which the insured was not legally entitled D. holding that the use of the phrase any insured rather than the insured the same language used in the employers liability exclusion here meant that the exclusion was not limited to injuries sustained by the employees or contractors of one insured party E. holding despite a reservation of rights that when the insurer provides a defense to its insured the insured has no right to interfere with the insurers control of the defense and a stipulated judgment between the insured and the injured claimant without the consent of the insurer is ineffective to impose liability upon the insurer

assistant: The best answer is B. holding when insured has failed to show circumstances attributable to the insurer that fostered coverage expectations or that an ordinary layperson would misunderstand the exclusion summary judgment against the insured is appropriate
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: by vehicle in the second degree. Barker posted his bond, and Esquibel continued to work as an independent contractor for B&S for several more months. However, sometime in December 2008, Esquibel ceased all communication with Barker and could not be located to testify at trial. 4 Boston Men’s Health Ctr., Inc. v. Howard, 311 Ga. App. 217, 221 (1) (715 SE2d 704) (2011) (emphasis and punctuation omitted). 5 Id. (punctuation omitted). 6 Farzaneh v. Merit Constr. Co., 309 Ga. App. 637, 639 (710 SE2d 839) (2011) (emphasis and punctuation omitted). 7 Id. (emphasis and punctuation omitted). 8 Hankerson v. Hammett, 285 Ga. App. 610, 613-14 (2) (647 SE2d 319) (2007) (punctuation omitted). 9 Id. at 614 (2). 10 See Betsill v. Scale Sys., Inc., 269 Ga. App. 393, 396-97 (1) (604 SE2d 265) (2004) (<HOLDING>); Hankerson, 285 Ga. App. at 614 (2) (same). 11 Options: A. holding that issues of fact precluded summary judgment on the question of whether an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment for purposes of insurance coverage when the employee was simply sitting in his vehicle in his employers parking lot waiting for the business to open at the time the accident occurred B. holding that the employers party was a social event thus the employee was not acting within the scope of her employment when drinking at a party or when she was driving home afterwards C. holding that an employee who by virtue of his employment was authorized to access his employers computers became without authorization when he became an agent for the defendant one of his employers competitors to whom he sent emails containing his employers trade secrets and other proprietary information D. holding that even when employee was driving employers vehicle employee was not acting within the scope of his employment absent evidence that he had undertaken a special mission at his employers direction E. holding as a matter of law that an offduty government agent was not acting within the scope of his employment when he was driving home intoxicated after completing his tour of duty because on no basis would the court conclude that drinking and driving after work hours fell within the scope of the dea agents employment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that even when employee was driving employers vehicle employee was not acting within the scope of his employment absent evidence that he had undertaken a special mission at his employers direction
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 any number of counterparts and by the separate parties in separate counterparts, and via e-mail, each of which shall be deemed to constitute an original and all of which shall be deemed to constitute the one and the same instrument.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 1. The MTCA argues that intervention at this stage is untimely and would prejudice them because the case is in an advanced stage. The mere passage of time, however, does not render an application untimely. Bank of America Nat. Trust and Sav. Ass’n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Associates, 844 F.2d 1050, 1056 (3d Cir.1988); Wright & Miller, supra, § 1916 at 425-26. While four years had elapsed before the Seipels filed their motion to intervene, the critical inquiry is: what proceedings of substance on the merits have occurred? See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 695 F.2d at 500 (“a motion to intervene after an entry of a decree should be denied except in extraordinary circumstances.”) (emphasis added). Cf. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 349, 95 S.Ct. 2281, 2292, 45 L.Ed.2d 223 (1975) (<HOLDING>). This is because the stage of the proceeding Options: A. recognizing that the longstanding public policy against federal court interference with state court proceedings generally requires federal courts to abstain from involvement in state criminal proceedings B. holding that where state criminal proceedings are begun against the federal plaintiffs after the federal complaint is filed but before any proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place in the federal court the principles of younger v harris should apply in full force C. holding that probation revocation proceedings are clearly not criminal proceedings D. holding that declaratory relief is improper when a prosecution involving the challenged state statute is pending in state court at the time the federal suit is initiated and the same principles that govern the propriety of federal injunctions of state criminal proceedings govern the issuance of federal declaratory judgments in connection with such proceedings E. holding that where state criminal proceedings are begun against the federal plaintiffsafter the federal complaint is filed but before any proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place the principles of younger v harris 401 us 37 91 sct 746 27 led2d 669 1971 apply in full force

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that where state criminal proceedings are begun against the federal plaintiffsafter the federal complaint is filed but before any proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place the principles of younger v harris 401 us 37 91 sct 746 27 led2d 669 1971 apply in full force
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 used in this Agreement, words such as “herein,” “hereinafter,” “hereby” and “hereunder,” and the words of like import refer to this Agreement, unless the context requires otherwise. The words “include,” “includes” and “including” shall be deemed to be followed by the phrase “without limitation”.

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: The Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the parties hereto and their respective successors, permitted assigns, heirs and personal representatives and estates, as the case may be. Neither this Agreement nor any right or obligation hereunder of any party may be assigned or delegated without the prior written consent of the other party hereto; provided, however, that the Company may assign this Agreement to any of its affiliates.

assistant: Successors
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: one factor to consider is the “duration or expected duration of the impairment.”). More importantly, under the actual disability prong, the relevant determination is whether the plaintiff was disabled at the time of the adverse employment action. Tex. Dep’t of Family and Protective Servs. v. Howard, 429 S.W.3d 782, 787-89 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2014, pet. denied) (stating that once the employer shows the employee was not disabled at the time of discriminatory act, the employee must present evidence that she was in fact disabled); EEOC v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 570 F.3d 606, 618 (5th Cir.2009); Samuels v. Kansas City Mo. Sch. Dist., 437 F.3d 797, 802 (8th Cir.2006); Swanson v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 268 F.3d 307, 316 (6th Cir. 2001); Cash v. Smith, 231 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir.2000)(<HOLDING>). Vasquez’s amended petition provides in Options: A. holding that a disability must be evaluated at the time of the challenged employment action B. holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision C. holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action D. holding that the injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged action to be redressable by the court E. holding that procedural unconscionability is properly evaluated at the time a contract is negotiated

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a disability must be evaluated at the time of the challenged employment action
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: by accepting this eula , as provided in greater detail in section 11 of this eula , you and the company are each waiving the right to a trial by jury or to participate in a class action ;

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: Licensee may assign, in whole or in part, in its sole discretion and without the consent of Licensor, this Agreement and any or all of its rights, interests and obligations hereunder to any other Person, but no such assignment shall relieve Licensee of its obligations under this Agreement if such assignee does not perform such obligations. Licensor and the Additional Parties may not assign this Agreement or any of their respective rights, interests, or obligations hereunder, in whole or in part, by operation of Law or otherwise to any other Person without the prior written consent of Licensee; provided , however , that Licensor may assign its rights to receive royalty payments pursuant to Sections 4.02 and 4.03 of this Agreement, and other ancillary rights as reasonably necessary to assign its rights to receive royalty payments, to another Person without the prior written consent of Licensee. Subject to the first two sentences of this Section 8.09, this Agreement will be binding upon, inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by, the Parties and their respective successors and assigns.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: To request the issuance of a Letter of Credit (or the amendment, renewal or extension of an outstanding Letter of Credit), the Borrower shall hand deliver or telecopy (or transmit by electronic communication, if arrangements for doing so have been approved by the Issuing Bank) to the Issuing Bank and the Administrative Agent (reasonably in advance of the requested date of issuance, amendment, renewal or extension) a notice requesting the issuance of a Letter of Credit, or identifying the Letter of Credit to be amended, renewed or extended, and specifying the date of issuance, amendment, renewal or extension (which shall be a Business Day), the date on which such Letter of Credit is to expire (which shall comply with paragraph (c) of this Section), the amount of such Letter of Credit, the name and address of the beneficiary thereof and such other information as shall be necessary to prepare, amend, renew or extend such Letter of Credit. If requested by the Issuing Bank, the Borrower also shall submit a letter of credit application on the Issuing Bank’s standard form in connection with any request for a Letter of Credit. A Letter of Credit shall be issued, amended, renewed or extended by the Issuing Bank in its sole discretion and only if (and upon issuance, amendment, renewal or extension of each Letter of Credit the Borrower shall be deemed to represent and warrant that), after giving effect to such issuance, amendment, renewal or extension (i) the amount of the LC Exposure shall not exceed $5,000,000, (ii) no Lender’s Revolving Credit Exposure shall exceed its Revolving Commitment, and (iii) the Total Revolving Credit Exposure shall not exceed the aggregate Revolving Commitments.

assistant: Amendments
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: on a factual point, is reserved for the court and excluded from the jury; an issue that is exclusively within the provision of the judge and not the jury. Question o f Law, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014), Black’s Law Dictionary further defines a "mixed question of law and fact” as ”[a]n issue that is neither a pure question of fact nor a pure question of law.” Mixed Question of Law and Fact, Buck’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). While this merely states the obvious, the definition refers to a corollary definition of "intermediate fact,” which is defined as "[a] fact that helps lead to an ultimate fact or is a necessary element to a chain of reasoning leading to a conclusion.” Intermediate Fact, Buck’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. ■ 2014). 8 . But see Helms, 491 S.E.2d at 674, 676 (<HOLDING>); A.B., 635 S.E,2d at 16 (holding that, in case Options: A. holding that because north carolina has opted out of the exemptions provided under 11 usc 522d the exemptions available for bankruptcy debtors in north carolina depend upon the law of north carolina B. holding that the states department of social services and a county prosecutor were in privity and satisfied the identity of the party requirement C. holding that a foreign subsidiary that is not registered to do business in north carolina has no place of business employees or bank accounts in north carolina does not design manufacture or advertise its products in north carolina and does not solicit business in north carolina cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in north carolina even if some of the companys products do enter north carolina through the stream of commerce D. holding that in case where child was removed from mothers care and placed in the custody of the cabarrus county department of social services under north carolina law the reasonable efforts and best interest determinations are conclusions of law because they require the exercise of judgment E. holding that the failure to attach a custody order was not reversible error because there was no showing of prejudice where the respondents were aware of the childs placement the petition noted that custody of the child was given by prior orders the respondent admitted that the child was in the legal custody of the buncombe county department of social services and the respondents were present at pretermination hearings in which custody was granted to petitioner and hearings in which visitation options were discussed and determined

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that in case where child was removed from mothers care and placed in the custody of the cabarrus county department of social services under north carolina law the reasonable efforts and best interest determinations are conclusions of law because they require the exercise of judgment
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 has been duly authorized by all necessary action on the part of Purchaser, has been duly executed and delivered by Purchaser, constitutes the valid and binding agreement of Purchaser and is enforceable against Purchaser in accordance with its terms, except as such enforcement may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, moratorium or other similar laws affecting creditors’ rights generally or by the principles governing the availability of equitable remedies. The Person executing this Agreement on behalf of Purchaser has the authority to do so.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: There are no actions, suits, proceedings, claims, disputes or investigations pending or, to the knowledge of the Borrower, threatened, at Law, in equity, in arbitration or before any Governmental Authority, by or against the Borrower or any Subsidiary that (a) either individually or in the aggregate could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect or (b) purport to affect or pertain to this Agreement or any other Loan Document or any of the transactions contemplated hereby.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: appeal was, in fact, timely. [0]ne of the functions of a Board of Adjustment is to interpret local zoning ordinances, and... [such interpretation] is given deference. Therefore, our task on appeal is not to decide whether another interpretation of the ordinance might reasonably have been reached by the board, but to decide if the board acted arbitrarily, oppressively, manifestly abused its authority, or committed an error of law in interpreting the ordinance. Westminster Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary Zoning Bd. of Adjust., 140 N.C. App. 99, 103, 535 S.E.2d 415, 417-18 (2000). The superior court’s scope of review on certiorari is limited to errors alleged to have occurred before the local board. See Godfrey v. Zoning Bd. of Adjust., 317 N.C. 51, 62-63, 344 S.E.2d 272, 279 (1986) (<HOLDING>). “[T]he superior court, and hence this Court Options: A. holding that the board validly exercised its legislative discretion in this matter only after a lengthy deliberation completely consistent with both the procedure called for by the relevant zoning ordinance and the rules prohibiting illegal contract zoning B. holding that because the board of aldermen only decided whether to grant a variance under the zoning ordinance the superior court erred by determining the question of the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance which was never raised or considered by the board of aldermen C. holding that allegations that the city arbitrarily applied a zoning ordinance were insufficient to state a substantive due process claim and stating in dicta that the decision would be the same even if the city had knowingly enforced the invalid zoning ordinance in bad faith a badfaith violation of state law remains only a violation of state law D. holding that where a zoning board had no authority under state law to take certain actions with respect to a protected property interest a trier of fact could conclude that there was no rational basis for the towns zoning boards actions and that as a result the zoning board violated appellants rights to substantive due process E. holding that the city was not estopped from enforcing a zoning ordinance when a zoning department employee mistakenly stamped the plaintiffs application for a license to operate a laundromat to indicate compliance with the ordinance

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that because the board of aldermen only decided whether to grant a variance under the zoning ordinance the superior court erred by determining the question of the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance which was never raised or considered by the board of aldermen
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except for the notice letter Employee signed acknowledging and agreeing to the terms and conditions regarding his termination, no prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreements or representations may be offered to alter the terms of this Agreement which represents the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. To the extent Employee has entered into an enforceable agreement with Employer that contains provisions that are not in direct conflict with provisions in this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall not supersede, but shall be in addition to, any other such agreement.

assistant: Entire Agreements