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: For these reasons, I do not find that the Policy is ambiguous or illusory. In conclusion, the Second Amended Complaint does not allege a single claim against Integration and Callahan that is not precluded by the Policy’s Computer Software Exclusion. Because the Computer Software Exclusion bars coverage for all of the claims contained.in the underlying suit, I need not determine whether the other policy exclusions preclude coverage. Additionally, having found that Maryland Casualty has no duty to defend, it likewise has no duty to indemnify Integration and Callahan in the underlying suit. See, e.g., Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. JDC (America) Corp., 52 F.3d 1575, 1580 (11th Cm. 1995) (noting that “duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify.”); Smartcop, 2012 WL 4344571 at *6 (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Accordingly, it is hereby Options: A. holding that where claims are cast wholly within policy exclusion there is no duty to defend B. holding that duty to defend ends when it is apparent there is no potential for coverage C. holding that there may be an obligation to defend under an insurance policy even though there is no obligation to indemnify D. holding the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend E. holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify

assistant: The best answer is E. holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you will not use the services in a way that could interfere with , disrupt , negatively affect , or inhibit other users from fully enjoying the services , or that could damage , disable , overburden , or impair the functioning of the services .

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: decision not to perform an act or on its failure to make a decision on the performance or nonperformance of an act if the law leaves the performance or nonperformance of the act to the discretion of the governmental unit"); Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-10(1) (Supp.2001) (immunity for discretionary functions); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5601(e)(1) (Supp.2001) (immunity for discretionary functions); see also United States v. Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. 797, 814, 104 S.Ct. 2755, 81 L.Ed.2d 660 (1984) (explaining that in enacting 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a) "Congress wished to prevent judicial 'second guessing' of legislative and administrative decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy through the medium of an action in tort" and that therefore, "decisions requir[ing] the agency to est (<HOLDING>); Baum v. United States, 986 F.2d 716, 724 (4th Options: A. holding that a municipal corporation was forbidden to construct an auditorium in a park as such construction would practically destroy the lot as a park and convert its use into a public square B. holding that park services decision not to repave a particular section of road was within discretionary function exception because this section was thirtythird on a maintenance priority list of eighty sections of park road and determining the appropriate course of action would require balancing factors such as beach drives overall purpose the allocation of funds among significant project demands the safety of drivers and other park visitors and the inconvenience of repairs as compared to the risk of safety hazards C. holding that national park services choice not to repair or improve structures adjacent to a road came within discretionary function exception because the need for such repairs existed on nearly all road sections in the park and therefore given its restricted budget the service was forced to determine priorities and repair the more urgent problems first D. holding a park rangers decision to terminate an arrest falls within the discretionary function exception to the ftca because such decision was the classic example of conduct grounded in policy E. holding that a civic center building or recreational building on property dedicated to the city as park property was inconsistent with its use as a park

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that park services decision not to repave a particular section of road was within discretionary function exception because this section was thirtythird on a maintenance priority list of eighty sections of park road and determining the appropriate course of action would require balancing factors such as beach drives overall purpose the allocation of funds among significant project demands the safety of drivers and other park visitors and the inconvenience of repairs as compared to the risk of safety hazards
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the LTIP constitute the entire agreement and understanding of the parties hereto with respect to the matters described herein, and supersede any and all prior and/or contemporaneous agreements and understandings, oral or written, between the parties.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: with many general rules, this general rule is subject to a reasonableness limitation. See United States v. Brown, 736 F.2d 807, 809 (1st Cir.1984). We already have held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Matos’s motion to separate her trial from Zuñiga’s. See supra Part 111(D)(3). Thus, the question reduces to whether it was reasonable for the district court to exclude from Rodriguez-Matos’s speedy trial calculation those days attributable to the unavailability of Zuñiga’s counsel. We are not unsympathetic to the appellant’s position; eighteen months is a considerable period of delay. But that delay is not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish a Speedy Trial Act transgression. See United States v. Muñoz-Amado, 182 F.3d 57, 62 (1st Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). And here, the delay was not unreasonable. Options: A. holding the defendant did not demonstrate a denial of his sixth amendment right to a speedy trial where even though the delay was substantial and the defendant was detained pretrial for three years the fault for the delay was shared and the defendant continued to request continuances following his assertion for the right to a speedy trial B. holding that a nineteenmonth delay standing alone was not sufficient to constitute a speedy trial violation C. holding that a 19month delay between indictment and trial did not violate the constitutional right to a speedy trial D. holding that delay resulting from prior incompetence to stand trial does not violate speedy trial guarantee E. holding that a delay of 8 months is enough to provoke a speedy trial inquiry

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a nineteenmonth delay standing alone was not sufficient to constitute a speedy trial violation
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: Natalie A. Ayers, Assistant Solicitors-General, for appellee. Case remanded with direction. Dillard and Peterson, JJ., concur. 1 See OCGA § 16-13-30 (j). 2 See OCGA § 16-10-20. 3 See Court of Appeals Rule 17 (it is the duty of the clerk of the trial court to transmit to this court the original transcript and copies of all records). 4 See OCGA § 5-6-41 (g) and (i) (authorizing the parties to file a substitute transcript or a “stipulation of the case showing how the questions arose and were decided in the trial court” in lieu of a transcript). 5 State v. Depol, 336 Ga. App. 191 (784 SE2d 51) (2016). 6 See id. See also Mack v. State, 296 Ga. 239, 241 (765 SE2d 896) (2014) (de novo review of videotaped interview to determine if the defendant waived his Fifth Amendment r 2d 604) (1986) (<HOLDING>). 15 See id. See also Livingston v. State, 267 Options: A. holding that where the trial court implicitly denied the defendants motion to suppress but neither expressly denied the motion nor explained its ruling claim of error could not be reviewed B. holding that the defendants motion for discharge was premature and thus properly denied by the trial court C. holding the trial court properly denied the defendants motion to suppress where the totality of the circumstances supported a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot D. holding in a capital case that the defendant waived his argument that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a change of venue where the trial court took the motion under advisement but the defendant failed to seek a ruling on the motion and failed to renew the motion after the jurors had been qualified E. holding that the court implicitly denied the plaintiffs motion to strike certain submissions because the court in its opinion granting defendants motion to dismiss relied on defendants materials

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that where the trial court implicitly denied the defendants motion to suppress but neither expressly denied the motion nor explained its ruling claim of error could not be reviewed
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: in rule 9.190 addresses concurrent jurisdiction, rule 9.600(a) applies in this case. Thus, the ALJ lacked jurisdiction to make the two corrections given that the record in Appellant’s appeal from the initial support order was filed prior to the ALJ’s ruling and given that no leave of this Court was requested and granted. We, therefore, quash the Order Denying Motion for Rehearing but Granting in Part Motion to Amend Final Administrative Paternity and Support Order and the Amended Final Administrative Paternity and Support Order. See 14302 Marina San Pablo Place SPE, LLC v. VCP-San Pablo, Ltd., 92 So.3d 320, 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (quashing the order on appeal where the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order); Wilkinson v. Clarke, 91 So.3d 897, 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (<HOLDING>). ORDERS QUASHED. LEWIS and MAKAR, JJ., concur; Options: A. holding that amended order which made more than clerical corrections was a nullity when it was entered after notice of appeal B. holding that the judgment was entered without jurisdiction and was therefore a nullity C. holding that a district courts order of dismissal with prejudice was a nullity because the court lacked jurisdiction D. holding that if service is inadequate defendant never submitted to courts jurisdiction and underlying judgment is therefore a nullity E. holding that the final judgment was entered without jurisdiction while a nonfinal appeal was still pending

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the judgment was entered without jurisdiction and was therefore a nullity
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: associated with personal injury.” The Court further noted that, “Congress declined to recompense Title VII plaintiffs for anything beyond the wages properly due them.” Id., — U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 1873-74 (emphasis added). Burke teaches that back pay awards under Title VII are properly considered restitutionary because they constitute the “wages properly due” to the plaintiff. In addition to the foregoing areas, the courts of appeals have authorized equitable back pay awards in a number of other cases. See, e.g., Bertot v. School Dist. No. 1, 613 F.2d 245, 250 (10th Cir.1979) (en banc) (equitable back pay remedy available in Pickering cases); McKinley v. City of Eloy, 705 F.2d 1110, 1116 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1983) (same); Cline v. Roadway Express, Inc., 689 F.2d 481, 488-90 (4th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); Dickerson v. Deluxe Check Printers, Inc., 703 Options: A. holding that claims arising under the age discrimination in employment act may be subject to arbitration B. holding that the age discrimination in employment act was not preempted by the nlra C. holding that an award of back pay is an issue for the court D. holding there was no jury trial right where court ordered reinstatement and back pay to teachers fired after desegregation order in discrimination case back pay is equitable E. recognizing equitable nature of back pay award under age discrimination in employment act

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing equitable nature of back pay award under age discrimination in employment act
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: which held that “suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment”). A second circumstance arises when the State destroys, loses, or fails to preserve evidence that has previously been collected during the investigation of a crime. Steffes, 500 N.W.2d at 613; State v. Judge, 100 Wash.2d 706, 675 P.2d 219, 225 (1984) (en banc) (recognizing that the State’s duty to preserve material evidence “is derived from the duty to disclose exculpatory evide Rptr. 269, 274 (Ct.App.1985) (the duty to preserve evidence does not include an initial duty to gather or collect potential evidence for defendant’s use at the crime scene); People v. Rivera, 765 P.2d 624, 628 (Colo.Ct.App. 1988) (<HOLDING>); rev’d on other grounds, 792 P.2d 786 (1990); Options: A. holding trial counsels failure to investigate and present substantial mitigation evidence during the sentencing phase can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel B. holding that the mere passive extension of credit does not constitute any form of reliance C. holding that the failure to investigate and present the confession of a third party deprived defendant of the most critical evidence supporting his best defense D. holding that suppression of evidence by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the defendant upon request violates the defendants right to due process where the evidence is material E. holding that the mere failure to investigate does not constitute suppression of the evidence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the mere failure to investigate does not constitute suppression of the evidence
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 and validly authorized, executed and delivered on behalf of such Buyer and shall constitute the legal, valid and binding obligations of such Buyer enforceable against such Buyer in accordance with their respective terms, except as such enforceability may be limited by general principles of equity or to applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium, liquidation and other similar laws relating to, or affecting generally, the enforcement of applicable creditors’ rights and remedies.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: interest could justify nonretroactive application of Miller. As discussed above, the only countervailing interest in this case is finality, and it is of slight importance here. It is not sufficient to justify nonretroactivity in spite of the resulting unfair consequences. ¶80 Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, this Court serves as “the primary protector[] of the rights of criminal defendants.” Kills on Top, 279 Mont. at 420, 928 P.2d at 204 (quoting Cabana v. Bullock, 474 U.S. 376, 391, 106 S. Ct. 689, 699 (1986)). Accordingly, when analyzing Eighth Amendment protections, we have stated that “[c]onventional notions of finality of litigation have no place where life or liberty is at stake and infringement of constitutional rights is alleged.” Kills on Top, 279 Mont. at 400, 928 P.2d at 192 (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Southwick, 2007 MT 257, ¶ Options: A. holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings B. holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings C. holding res judicata does not preclude consideration of constitutional questions in postconviction proceedings which by their nature depended upon facts not found in record D. holding that res judicata does not bar reconsideration of the constitutionality of a petitioners death sentence during postconviction relief proceedings E. holding that lear does not abrogate general principles of res judicata or the res judicata effect of a consent decree regarding patent validity

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that res judicata does not bar reconsideration of the constitutionality of a petitioners death sentence during postconviction relief proceedings
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 Notice and the Plan are incorporated herein by reference. Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings specified in the Plan. This Agreement, the Award Notice and the Plan constitute the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede in their entirety all prior undertakings and agreements of the Company and the Holder with respect to the subject matter hereof, and may not be modified if such modification is materially adverse to the Holder’s interest except by means of a writing signed by the Company and the Holder .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: disagree. The possible effect on the jury of Holmes’s . fleeting comment regarding Trinidad’s pre-trial incarceration status is markedly different from that of a defendant wearing prison clothing throughout his entire trial. The Supreme Court held in Estelle that the clothing would be a “constant reminder” of the defendant’s condition as a pretrial detainee. 425 U.S. at 504, 96 S.Ct. 1691 (emphasis added). Here, on the contrary, we are dealing with a single, isolated statement that was made and put to rest, and that did not provide any details about Trinidad’s incarceration. A number of cases — both from this and other circuits — -support this crucial distinction and counsel that we reject Trinidad’s argument. See, e.g., United States v. De Jesús Mateo, 373 F.3d 70, 73 (1st Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Deandrade, 600 F.3d Options: A. holding that there was no abuse of discretion in denying mistrial based on a comment that the defendant was in prison where the comment provided the jury with little detail B. holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendants innocence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify C. holding that if comment is fairly susceptible of being construed by the jury as a comment on the defendants exercise of his or her right to remain silent it violates the defendants state constitutional right to silence whether comment was introduced in states caseinchief or for impeachment purposes holding that the state may not impeach a defendant with his postarrest or postmiranda silence D. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial and instead giving a curative instruction when an improper comment on a defendants silence was not directed to any particular statement or defense offered by the defendant was made during the witnesss explanation of the course of events and did not have the effect of being probative on the issue of guilt or innocence E. holding that district court acted within its discretion in denying motion for mistrial when prosecutor commented on matter not in evidence in closing argument because comment was not sufficiently prejudicial when taken together with the courts later jury instruction that the jurys recollection of the evidence controlled and that the attorneys arguments were not evidence

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that there was no abuse of discretion in denying mistrial based on a comment that the defendant was in prison where the comment provided the jury with little detail
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: If a Recipient or its Representatives are requested or required (by oral questions, interrogatories, other requests for information or documents in legal proceedings, subpoena, civil investigative demand or other similar process) to disclose any of the Evaluation Material or any of the facts disclosure of which is prohibited under Section 4 above, such Recipient shall provide Provider with prompt written notice of any such request or requirement together with copies of the material proposed to be disclosed so that Provider may seek a protective order or other appropriate remedy and/or waive compliance with the provisions of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 874, 882 (5th Cir.2003). 13 . Celestine v. Petroleos de Venezuella SA, 266 F.3d 343, 357 (5th Cir.2001). 14 . See Odom v. Frank, 3 F.3d 839, 847 (5th Cir.1993). 15 . See Odom, 3 F.3d at 847. 16 . Manning, 332 F.3d at 882. 17 . See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). 18 . See Ackel v. Nat’l Comm. Inc., 339 F.3d 376, 385 (5th Cir.2003); see also Mota v. Univ. of Tex. Houston Health Ctr., 261 F.3d 512, 519 (5th Cir.2001). 19 . See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). 20 . See Walker v. Thompson, 214 , 414-15 (5th Cir.2003) (recognizing that a six-year lapse between the filing of an EEOC charge and the employee's dismissal did not necessarily mean the plaintiff failed to show causation where the plaintiff presented direct evidence of retaliation); Strouss v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 250 F.3d 336, 344 (6th Cir.2001) Options: A. holding that a sixmonth gap between the protected activity and the employees termination was insufficient to infer that the protected activity was a contributing factor B. holding that a threeyear gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was insufficient to support an inference of causation C. holding that a threeyear gap was insufficient to demonstrate staleness where the criminal activity was ongoing D. holding that adverse employment activity that occurred 10 months and 17 months after protected activity was insufficient on its own to create a reasonable inference of causation E. holding that the more than three month gap between the plaintiffs eeoc complaint and the allegedly adverse action was insufficient to show causation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a threeyear gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was insufficient to support an inference of causation
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 Borrower will, and will cause each of its Subsidiaries to, comply with all laws, rules, regulations and orders of any Governmental Authority applicable to it or its property, except where the failure to do so, individually or in the aggregate, would not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. The Borrower will maintain in effect and enforce policies and procedures designed, in its reasonable business judgment, to ensure compliance by the Borrower, its Subsidiaries and their respective directors, officers, employees and agents (acting in their capacity as agents for the Borrower and its Subsidiaries, as applicable) with Anti-Corruption Laws and applicable Sanctions.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The invalidity , illegality , or unenforceability of any provision in or obligation under this letter agreement in any jurisdiction shall not affect or impair the validity , legality , or enforceability of the remaining provisions or obligations under this letter agreement or of such provision or obligation in any other jurisdiction. If feasible , any such offending provision shall be deemed modified to be with in the limits of enforceability or validity ; provided that if the offending provision cannot be so modified , it shall be stricken and all other provisions of this letter agreement in all other respects shall remain valid and enforceable .

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: result does not show the falsity of the proffered nondiscriminatory reason for the promotion decisions. See Davis v. State Univ. of N.Y., 802 F.2d 638, 641 (2d Cir.1986) (“The employer need not prove that the person promoted had superior objective qualifications, or that it made the wisest choice, but only that the reasons for the decision were nondiscriminatory.”); see also Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, Bd. of Educ., 243 F.3d 93, 103 (2d Cir.2001) ( , 94 (2d Cir.2001) (requiring a showing of causation as an element of a prima facie retaliation case). Kearney’s equal protection claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for age-based employment discrimination fails for the same reasons that her ADEA and NYSHRL claims fail. See Sorlucco v. N.Y. City Police Dep’t, 888 F.2d 4, 7 (2d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Halloway v. Milwaukee County, 180 F.3d 820, Options: A. holding that the mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting framework applies to retaliation claims in the same manner as to discrimination claims B. holding that burdenshifting analysis applies to handicap discrimination as well C. holding that mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting approach applies to claims brought under the adea D. holding that the mcdonnell douglas framework applies equally to ada and rehabilitation act cases E. holding that the threestep mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting analysis applies to 1983 claims

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the threestep mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting analysis applies to 1983 claims
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: thus , no software from the service may be downloaded , exported or re-exported : ( a ) into ( or to a national or resident of ) any country to which the united states has embargoed goods ; or ( b ) to anyone on the u.s. treasury department 's list of specially designated nationals or the u.s. commerce department 's table of deny orders .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The representations and warranties set forth in each Transaction Document shall, in each case, be true and correct in all respects with the same effect as made on the Effective Date (unless stated to relate solely to an earlier date, in which case such representations and warranties shall be true and correct in all material respects as of such earlier date), in each case, except as set forth in (i) the Company’s most recent periodic report filed with the Commission and (ii) the disclosure schedules thereto or in the disclosure schedules delivered by the Company in connection with this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All of the direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Company are set forth on Schedule 3.1(a) . The Company owns, directly or indirectly, the capital stock or other equity interests of each Subsidiary, in the amounts set forth on Schedule 3.1(a), free and clear of any Liens, and all the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of each Subsidiary are validly issued and are fully paid, non-assessable and free of preemptive and similar rights to subscribe for or purchase securities. If the Company has no subsidiaries, then all other references in the Transaction Documents to the Subsidiaries or any of them will be disregarded.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Wherever used in this Section 11 , the term “TJC” shall refer to TJC and any affiliate, subsidiary, or any successor or assign of TJC. Wherever used in this Section, the phrase “directly or indirectly” includes, but is not limited to, acting, either personally or as principal, owner, shareholder, member, employee, independent contractor, agent, manager, partner, joint venturer, consultant, or in any other capacity or by means of any corporate or other device, or acting through the spouse, children, parents, brothers, sisters, or any other relatives, friends, invitees, agents, or associates of any of the undersigned parties. Wherever used in this Section, the term “employees” shall refer to employees of TJC; any affiliate, subsidiary, or any successor or assign of TJC; and any franchisee of TJC existing as of the date of this Agreement and, to the extent allowable by law, any other person that has been an employee (as defined above) in the twelve (12) months preceding the date of this Agreement. Whenever used in this Section, the term “Confidential Information” shall be defined as provided in Section 9 of Seller’s franchise agreements with TJC, which provisions are hereby incorporated by reference.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: A Restricted Stock Unit shall be 100% vested upon the completion of three (3) full years of employment commencing with the Grant Date of the Restricted Stock Unit or, if earlier, upon the occurrence of a Change of Control. Upon termination of employment due to the Participant’s death, Disability or Retirement, an award of Restricted Stock Units shall be 0% vested if such employment termination occurs before the completion of one (1) full year of employment commencing with the Grant Date, 33.3% vested if such employment termination occurs on or after the completion of one (1) full year of employment, but before completion of two (2) full years of employment commencing with the Grant Date, and shall be 66.7% vested if such employment termination occurs on or after the completion of two (2) full years of employment but before the completion of three (3) full years of employment commencing with the Grant Date. Retirements on December 31 of any given Plan Year shall be treated as a full year of employment for vesting purposes. Any grant of Restricted Stock Units, or portion thereof, not vested according to the foregoing schedule on the date of the Participant's termination of employment for any reason shall be forfeited.

assistant: Vesting
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: h. you agree not to use or launch any automated system ( including , without limitation , any robot , spider or offline reader ) that accesses the service in a manner that sends more request messages to the youtube servers in a given period of time than a human can reasonably produce in the same period by using a publicly available , standard ( i.e. not modified ) web browser ;

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you agree to be bound by this agreement for any such associated nintendo accounts ( including those for children below the age of 13 ) you hold now or set up later and that you are responsible for all activities and transactions that take place through your nintendo account and any associated nintendo accounts .

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: allows a warrantless search and seizure of a car so long as the search is justified by probable cause.” United States v. Rivera, 825 F.2d 152, 158 (7th Cir. 1987), citing California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386; Chambers v. Moraney, 399 U.S. 42; Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132. The exception as applied by the federal courts recognizes both the inherently mobile nature of an automobile and the decreased expectation of privacy that an individual has in a car. See also Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 153-54 (1978) (Powell, J. concurring) ("Nothing is better established in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence than the distinction between one’s expectation of privacy in an automobile and one’s expectation when in other locations.”); United States v. Bagley, 765 F.2d 836, 844 (9th Cir. 1985) (<HOLDING>). Federal law appears resolved that if the Options: A. holding the odor of burnt marihuana standing alone provided peace offieers with the requisite probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendants vehicle B. holding that probable cause alone justifies a warrantless search or seizure of a vehicle lawfully parked in a public place C. holding that if a valid public interest justifies the intrusion contemplated then there is probable cause to issue a suitably restricted search warrant D. holding that the legitimate search and seizure of one suspect in a public place cannot be bootstrapped into probable cause for a broadbase search of the business establishment and its patrons E. holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that probable cause alone justifies a warrantless search or seizure of a vehicle lawfully parked in a public place
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: under N.J.S.A. 18A.-28-9. In considering these challenges, we are mindful of the appropriate standard of review. In Dennery v. Board of Education, supra, 131 N.J. 626, 622 A.2d 858 this Court stated that, “[it] will not reverse the determination of an administrative agency unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable or is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.” Id. at 641, 622 A.2d 858 (citing Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 580, 410 A.2d 686 (1980)). The Court in Dennery noted that it “adhere[s] to that standard to resolve disputes arising under school laws.” Ibid. (citing Dore v. Bd. of Educ., 185 N.J.Super. 447, 452, 449 A.2d 547 (App.Div.1982)). See also Capodilupo v. Bd. of Educ., 218 N.J.Super. 510, 515, 528 A.2d 73 (App.Div.) (<HOLDING>), certif. denied, 109 N.J. 514, 537 A.2d 1300 Options: A. holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school board president constituted the decision of the board B. holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence C. holding that final decision of state board of education should not be upset unless unreasonable and unsupported by the record or violative of the legislative will D. holding vagenerated documents to be in the possession of the secretary and the board at the time of the board decision and thus constructively part of the record of proceedings as mandated by 38 usc 7252b E. holding that we will not review such a decision unless the record reflects that the district court was not aware of or did not understand its discretion

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that final decision of state board of education should not be upset unless unreasonable and unsupported by the record or violative of the legislative will
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 there is an impediment to marriage, then the clerk may not rely on the applicant’s statement that there is no impediment. “This is true regardless of the type of impediment involved, i.e., whether the impediment is based on age, consanguinity or affinity, marital status, or same-gender status of applicants who reside and intend to continue to reside in other states.” In sum, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that (1) they, compared with others similarly situated, were selectively treated; and that (2) such selective treatment was based on impermissible considerations such as race, religion, intent to inhibit or punish the exercise of a constitutional right, or malicious or bad faith intent to injure a person. Daddario v. Cape Cod Commission, 56 Mass.App.Ct. 764, 773 (2002) (<HOLDING>), citing Rubinovitz v. Rogato, 60 F.3d 906, Options: A. holding that a claim of inadvertent errors in administration of election procedure without some allegation of intentional discriminatory conduct did not properly allege a denial of equal protection of the laws B. holding that denial of development permit to mine sand and gravel on thirtytwo acres of property did not deny owner equal protection of laws C. holding that segregation in public education is a denial of equal protection of the laws D. holding transfer eligibility rule did not deny the student equal protection of the laws or procedural or substantive due process under the fourteenth amendment E. holding a similar peer review confidentiality statute did not deny the plaintiffs equal protection

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that denial of development permit to mine sand and gravel on thirtytwo acres of property did not deny owner equal protection of 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: in those proceedings. Andiarena, 967 F.2d at 718. However, Goldman must still show cause for failing to raise his claim regarding the 1977 conviction at his 1993 sentencing. See Prou v. United States, 199 F.3d 37, 47 (1st Cir.1999) (affirming that “a defendant’s failure to object [to an issue] at sentencing ... constitutes a procedural default, leaving the issue open to collateral attack only if the defendant can show cause and prejudice”); United States v. LaValle, 175 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir.1999) (rejecting government’s cause and prejudice challenge to petitioner’s § 2255 motion based on state vacatur of a predicate conviction because the petitioner had challenged the predicate conviction at his 1994 sentencing hearing); United States v. Maybeck, 23 F.3d 888, 892 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Goldman has not made this showing. Goldman Options: A. holding that the cause and prejudice standard applied to defendants failure to object to his career offender classification at sentencing B. holding defendants failure to object to the drug quantity assessment in the presentence report at sentencing was a waiver of the issue on appeal C. holding that where defendant failed to object to facts in psi relating to prior conviction the failure to object constituted an admission D. holding that defendant must object at trial to preserve as applied challenge for appeal E. holding that a showing of cause and prejudice fails to overcome a defendants initial failure to object

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the cause and prejudice standard applied to defendants failure to object to his career offender classification at sentencing
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: Following the Termination Date, the Executive agrees to fully cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the Company and its counsel in connection with any general business matters, transition of work, agency investigations or audits or litigation or corporate matters, and to be reasonably available to the Company to do so at times and locations as to not interfere with the Executive’s duties and responsibilities to any future employer, job seeking opportunities, or any personal responsibilities.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida without regard to principles of conflicts of laws. Any action brought by either party against the other concerning the transactions contemplated by this Note shall be brought only in the state and/or federal courts of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The parties to this Note hereby irrevocably waive any objection to jurisdiction and venue of any action instituted hereunder and shall not assert any defense based on lack of jurisdiction or venue or based upon forum non conveniens . The Borrower and Holder waive trial by jury. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. In the event that any provision of this Note or any other agreement delivered in connection herewith is invalid or unenforceable under any applicable statute or rule of law, then such provision shall be deemed inoperative to the extent that it may conflict therewith and shall be deemed modified to conform with such statute or rule of law. Any such provision which may prove invalid or unenforceable under any law shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of any agreement. Each party hereby irrevocably waives personal service of process and consents to process being served in any suit, action or proceeding in connection with this Agreement or any other Transaction Document by mailing a copy thereof via registered or certified mail or overnight delivery (with evidence of delivery) to such party at the address in effect for notices to it under this Agreement and agrees that such service shall constitute good and sufficient service of process and notice thereof. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to limit in any way any right to serve process in any other manner permitted by law.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Article and Section headings and the Table of Contents used herein are for convenience of reference only, are not part of this Pledge Agreement and are not to affect the construction of, or to be taken into consideration in interpreting, this Pledge Agreement.

assistant: Headings
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: vimeo , inc. ( `` vimeo , '' `` we , '' or `` us '' ) offers an online video sharing platform and community through its website located at vimeo.com and other vimeo-operated sites ( collectively , the `` vimeo site '' ) , mobile applications , connected tv applications , and other online services ( collectively and including the vimeo site , the `` vimeo service '' ) .

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: to its federal question jurisdiction. Collateral attacks on court-martial proceedings are not confined to habeas petitions. Kauffman v. Secretary of the Air Force, 415 F.2d 991 (D.C.Cir.1969). A district court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a noncustodial plaintiffs collateral attack based on federal question jurisdiction. Sanford v. United States, 586 F.3d 28, 31 (D.C.Cir.2009). Thus, while habeas review is appropriate for convicted military personnel who are still in custody, for non-custodial individuals such as plaintiff, federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is the appropriate avenue for a service member to seek collateral review of the outcome of a military court-martial proceeding. United States ex rel. New v. Rumsfeld, 448 F.3d 403, 406 (D.C.Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>) {“New II ”); Williamson v. Sec’y. of Navy, 395 Options: A. recognizing bankruptcy courts jurisdiction over such a collateral attack B. holding that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the petitioners collateral attack under 1331 C. holding that the petitioners failure to raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claim before the bia deprived the district court of jurisdiction to hear the issue D. recognizing that only void judgments are subject to collateral attack and that a judgment is void only when court had no jurisdiction of the parties or property no jurisdiction of the subject matter no jurisdiction to enter the particular judgment or no capacity to act E. holding that a judgment as to the title in a prior litigation was not subject to collateral attack

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the petitioners collateral attack under 1331