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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Employer hereby agrees to employ the Executive, and the Executive hereby accepts such employment, during the Contract Period upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. The Company and the Bank may, in the exercise of their sole discretion, transfer the Executive's employment relationship from the Bank to the Company, or from the Company to the Bank, in which case the transferee employer shall be the Employer for all purposes of this Agreement. The transfer of the Executive's employment relationship between the Bank and the Company shall not be deemed to be either an actual or constructive termination of the Executive or "Good Reason" for any purpose of this Agreement, and the Executive's employment shall be deemed to have continued without interruption for all purposes of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company may terminate your employment: (a) for Cause (as defined in Exhibit A), (b) upon your Disability (as defined in Exhibit A), or (c) for any reason or no reason, in all cases, upon reasonable notice to you. Your employment with the Company will terminate upon your death.

assistant: Terminations
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: governor whose functions are confined to such offices and whose duties are concerned only with the administration thereof." Colo. Const. art. XII, § 18(2). Through the use of express language, the drafters of the amendment exempted from the personnel system employees of the governor or lieutenant governor who administer those two offices. An employee of the governor who worked in another executive department would not be exempt. The faculty exemption, however, does not have a similar restriction. It says nothing about where a faculty member teaches. It addresses only the entity that employs the faculty member. We must give effect to the contrasting language of the two exemptions within the same constitutional subsection. Cf De'Sha v. Reed, 194 Colo. 367, 371, 572 P.2d 821, 823 (1977) (<HOLDING>); of. Zamarripa v. Q & T Food Stores, Inc., 929 Options: A. holding that when interpreting a statute or regulation courts must read the provisions of the law as a whole and in context B. recognizing exception under state constitution C. recognizing that provisions of the colorado constitution should be construed in the context of the constitution as a whole D. recognizing that oath taken to honor state constitution makes it the justices duty to apply the state constitution when it does not conflict with the federal constitution E. holding that the due process clause contained in the colorado constitution encompasses a guarantee of equal protection

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that provisions of the colorado constitution should be construed in the context of the constitution as a whole
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 care. . ” [Id. at 667; footnotes omitted.] Thus, in the District of Columbia, courts usually require that a child be domiciled or temporarily present within the jurisdiction before custody can be determined. An exception to this rule may be found where both parents of the child are parties before the court in divorce litigation, but our divorce laws require a certain nexus of the parties to the District of Columbia. See D.C.Code 1967, § 16-902. Even in such divorce litigation it is necessary that both parties appear before the court and participate in the proceedings. Oxley v. Oxley, 81 U.S.C.App.D.C. 346, 347, 159 F.2d 10, 11 (1946). Cf. May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533-534, 73 S.Ct. 840, 97 L.Ed. 1221 (1953). But see Kraft v. Kraft, D.C.Mun.App., 155 A.2d 910, 913 (1959) (<HOLDING>). The decree of the Polish Supreme Court did Options: A. recognizing the validity of a maryland judgment holding that domicile actual residency in the jurisdiction and notice of the divorce suit are sufficient enough to establish personal jurisdiction over an absent party thereby providing a basis for a collateral custody determination B. holding that the burden is on the party seeking to exercise jurisdiction by clearly alleging facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction C. holding that personal jurisdiction is not required to make an outofstate parent a party to custody action where the state court has subject matter jurisdiction under the uniform child custody jurisdiction act D. holding that personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum E. recognizing bankruptcy courts jurisdiction over such a collateral attack

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing the validity of a maryland judgment holding that domicile actual residency in the jurisdiction and notice of the divorce suit are sufficient enough to establish personal jurisdiction over an absent party thereby providing a basis for a collateral custody determination
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: You will be eligible for major medical, prescription, vision and dental benefits the 1 st of the month following your hire date. Other benefits including life and disability insurance, participation in our employee stock purchase plan, and 401(k)/Retirement Plan will be available as per their normal enrollment period.

assistant: Benefits
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 rights and obligations hereunder shall not be assignable or transferable without the prior written consent of the Company. Any instrument purporting to make an assignment in violation of this Section 9.7 shall be void and of no effect.

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: Each of the parties hereto irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, the courts of the State of Oregon sitting in Multnomah County, Oregon, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and the courts of the State of Texas sitting in Harris County, Texas, and the appropriate appeals courts therefrom (collectively the “ Approved Courts ”), for the purposes of any suit, action or other proceeding arising out of this Agreement or any transaction contemplated hereby; provided , however , that (i) if Seller desires to file any such suit, action or other proceeding against Buyer, then Seller shall only do so in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas or the courts of the State of Texas sitting in Harris County, Texas, and (ii) if Buyer desires to file any such suit, action or other proceeding against Seller, then Buyer shall only do so in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon or the courts of the State of Oregon sitting in Multnomah County, Oregon. Subject to the preceding sentence, each of the parties hereto irrevocably and unconditionally waives any objection to the laying of venue of any action, suit or proceeding arising out of this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby in the Approved Courts and hereby further irrevocably and unconditionally waives and agrees not to plead or claim in any such court that any such action, suit or proceeding brought in any such court has been brought in an inconvenient forum. Each of the parties hereto further agrees that service of any process, summons, notice or document by United States registered mail to such party’s respective address set forth in Section 11.1 shall be effective service of process for any action, suit or proceeding with respect to any matters to which it has submitted to jurisdiction as set forth above in the immediately preceding sentence.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 80 S.W.3d 549, 554 (Tex.2002). The Act does not waive immunity from suit and liability for intentional torts. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.057(2); Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Petto, 44 S.W.3d 575, 580 (Tex.2001); Meroney, 200 S.W.3d at 710. Appellants’ negligence allegations against the City, construed liberally in their favor, do not allege conduct falling within any of these areas. See Brown, 80 S.W.3d at 554 (discussing governmental entity’s duty in premises defect case not to injure by willful, wanton, or grossly negligent conduct and to use ordinary care either to warn of condition presenting unreasonable risk of harm of which entity is actually aware and plaintiff is not or to make condition reasonably safe); City of Denton v. Page, 701 S.W.2d 831, 834 (Tex.1986) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the trial court has no jurisdiction Options: A. holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property B. holding that a store owner has a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts C. holding that a business owner has a duty to use reasonable care to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition for patrons D. holding that property owner has duty to keep real property in reasonably safe condition for invitees or to warn of any hazard E. holding that a premises owner can discharge its duty by making the property safe or by warning

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that property owner has duty to keep real property in reasonably safe condition for invitees or to warn of any hazard
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: Other than as set forth on Schedule 4(f) , the distribution of the Rights, the sale, issuance, and delivery of the Offered Shares upon exercise of the Rights, the issuance and delivery of the Backstop Acquired Shares in accordance with the terms hereof, the consummation of the Rights Offering by the Company, and the execution and delivery by the Company of the Transaction Agreements and performance of and compliance with all of the provisions hereof and thereof by the Company and the consummation of the transactions contemplated herein and therein, including, for the avoidance of doubt, any change of control of the Company that may result from such transactions (i) will not conflict with, or result in a breach or violation of, any of the terms or provisions of, or constitute a default under (with or without notice or lapse of time, or both), or result, in the acceleration of, or the creation of any lien under, any indenture, mortgage, deed of trust, loan agreement, or other agreement or instrument to which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is a party or by which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is bound or to which any of the property or assets of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is subject, (ii) will not result in any violation of the provisions of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation or Second Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Company or any of the organizational or governance documents of its Subsidiaries, and (iii) will not result in any violation of, or any termination or impairment of any rights under, any statute or any license, authorization, injunction, judgment, order, decree, rule, or regulation of any court or governmental agency or body having jurisdiction over the Company or any of its Subsidiaries or any of their properties, except in any such case described in subclauses (i) and (iii) for any conflict, breach, violation, default, acceleration, lien, termination, or impairment which does not involve any agreement or plan with or for the benefit of any employee of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries and which would not reasonably be expected to be, individually or in the aggregate, material to the Company and its Subsidiaries, taken as a whole.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Seller has delivered or, pursuant to Section 1.8, will deliver to Purchaser true and complete copies of all survey reports, waivers of deficiencies, plans of correction, and any other investigation notices, warnings, correspondence or reports issued with respect to the Facility (collectively, " Licensing Surveys "), and Seller shall also promptly deliver to Purchaser any Licensing Surveys received, filed, arising or involving the Facility between the Effective Date and the Closing Date. There are no material deficiencies or violations noted in any Licensing Surveys and Seller has remedied, discharged and complied with all applicable plans of correction, such that there are no current violations or deficiencies with respect to any of the Licenses. Seller is currently conducting, and has at all times conducted, its operation of the Facility in compliance with all Applicable Laws.

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 Executive acknowledges that he has carefully read and considered all the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including the restraints imposed upon him pursuant to this Section 6. The Executive agrees that each of the restraints contained herein are necessary for the protection of the goodwill, Confidential Information and other legitimate interests of the Company; that each and every one of these restraints is reasonable in respect to subject matter, length of time and geographic area; and that these restraints, individually or in the aggregate, will not prevent him from obtaining other suitable employment during the period in which the Executive is bound by such restraints. The Executive further acknowledges that, were he to breach any of the covenants contained in this Section 6, the damage to the Company would be irreparable. The Executive therefore agrees that the Company, in addition to any other remedies available to it, shall be entitled to injunctive relief against any breach or threatened breach by the Executive of any of said covenants.

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: hausted his administrative remedies and attach the appropriate documentation, including administrative decisions, demonstrating exhaustion.”); see also Baxter v. Rose, 305 F.3d 486, 489-90 (6th Cir.2002) (reaffirming the rule of Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102 (6th Cir.1998), requiring a prisoner to plead exhaustion with particularity and attach to the complaint dispositions of available administrative remedies to demonstrate it). Most circuits that have considered the issue, however, including this circuit, have held that nonexhaustion is an affirmative defense, and that therefore defendants bear the burden of proof and prisoner plaintiffs need not plead exhaustion with particularity. E.g., Jenkins v. Haubert, 179 F.3d at 28-29; Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117-18 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Casanova v. Dubois, 304 F.3d 75, 78 n. 3 (1st Options: A. holding that defendants are estopped from raising nonexhaustion as an affirmative defense when prison officials inhibit an inmates ability to utilize grievance procedures B. holding that fair use is an affirmative defense C. holding that laches is an affirmative defense D. holding nonexhaustion to be an affirmative defense E. recognizing laches as an affirmative defense

assistant: The best answer is D. holding nonexhaustion to be an affirmative defense
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: report falls into this category, then the 21-day deadline to object to the report was never triggered, and the trial court was required to dismiss Haskell’s suit. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 74.851(b) (requiring claim against defendant who has not been timely served with expert report must be dismissed); Scoresby, 346 S.W.3d at 549 (defining minimum requirements for document to be considered expert report). If we hold that Haskell’s report is not so deficient as to constitute no report at all, then any objections to the report have been waived and the trial court lacked the authority to dismiss Haskell’s suit. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 74.351(a) (providing 21-day deadline to object to deficient expert report); Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 322 (Tex.2007) (<HOLDING>). If there are multiple defendants in a suit, Options: A. holding that although a defendant filed a motion in limine on an evidentiary issue a failure to object to the evidence at trial waives the issue for appeal B. holding that a partys failure to raise objections to the report and recommendation waives the partys right to review in the district court C. holding that the failure to file a proper motion to dismiss raising a constitutional challenge to a criminal statute waives the issue on appeal D. holding defendants failure to object timely waives its right to challenge expert report E. holding failure to object within 21day deadline waives objections and trial court must deny motion to dismiss

assistant: The best answer is E. holding failure to object within 21day deadline waives objections and trial court must deny motion to dismiss
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 closing (the “ Closing ”) of the Transaction contemplated by this Agreement shall take place on a date and time to be specified by Purchaser and Seller (the “ Closing Date ”), at the offices of Morse, Barnes-Brown & Pendleton, P.C., 230 Third Avenue, Suite 400, Waltham, Massachusetts, 02451. The Parties need not be physically present at the Closing in order to consummate the Transaction contemplated herein. The parties agree that the execution and delivery of this Agreement and all ancillary agreements may take place by means of facsimile signature pages or .pdf signature pages with original signature pages to follow.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: court is without power to extend that authority beyond the scope granted by the statute, and no District of Columbia court has ever found service upon such an unauthorized official to be valid against a foreign corporation. Accordingly, we conclude that service upon the Director was ineffective to bring Am-eritrade within the jurisdiction of the district court. Finally, Gorman urges that it would be unfair if a foreign corporation, lawfully subject to the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia because it does business here, could evade that jurisdiction by keeping its agents out of the District and hence beyond the range of effective service of process. If such a loophole does exist, the legislature can, of course, remove it by amending § 13-384 to provide an alternative method 1) (<HOLDING>); Oriental Trading Co. v. Firetti, 236 F.3d Options: A. holding that making phone calls and sending facsimiles into the forum may be sufficient to confer specific jurisdiction B. holding that purposeful availment may exist when a defendant makes phone calls and sends facsimiles into the forum state and such communications form the bases for the action of an intentional tort C. holding that the defendant companys action in sending a representative to ohio to negotiate a resolution of a prior dispute did not confer personal jurisdiction D. holding that foreseeability of causing injury in forum state is not sufficient for specific personal jurisdiction E. holding that phone and facsimile communications to the forum purchase orders and payments sent to the forum a choice of law clause within the contract regarding the forum state and delivery of the product within the forum state were not enough to satisfy minimum contacts

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that making phone calls and sending facsimiles into the forum may be sufficient to confer specific jurisdiction
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: successive petition restrictions). Alternatively, the statute of limitations may be a non-issue because the administrative decision to confine a prisoner to IAS is usually not a discrete one-time act, but a continuing administrative process subject to regular and periodic review. In this case, the Court can pretermit the issue because the petitioner is not entitled to habeas review, regardless of the applicability of the statute of limitations. 3 . For instance, as discussed at the close of this order, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has concluded that a pet r.1996) (post-AEDPA decision holding its presumption-of-correctness principles apply to prison administrative body imposing disciplinary penalties); Hanson v. Heckel, 791 F.2d 93, 96 (7th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); Hundley v. McBride, 908 F.Supp. 601, 602 Options: A. holding that there is no protected liberty interest in the restoration of goodtime credits forfeited for disciplinary infractions under an older statutory scheme B. holding 1983 suit seeking restoration of sentence credits properly construed as 2254 petition C. holding that a prisoner who challenged prison procedures used to deny him goodtime credits and not actual denial of those credits stated a cognizable claim under 1983 D. holding habeas petition challenging denial of custody credits is not related to the conditions of confinement and was properly brought in the district of conviction E. holding 1 that the district court properly construed one 1983 claim as a habeas petition but improperly summarily dismissed it and 2 that the district court should have construed another 1983 claim as a habeas petition

assistant: The best answer is B. holding 1983 suit seeking restoration of sentence credits properly construed as 2254 petition
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if any provision of this eula is held to be unenforceable for any reason , such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable and the remaining provisions of this eula shall not be affected .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE A CONTRACT MADE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS AND FOR ALL PURPOSES SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 31, 1993. See In re Thorvund-Statland, 158 B.R. 837, 838-39 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1993) (discussing both positions and concluding that the end of the tax year is the controlling date); In re Midway Indus. Contractors, Inc., 167 B.R. 139, 143 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1994) (stating that although a claim for loss carry-back tax refund was filed post-petition, the tax refund was a pre-petition debt) rev’d. on other grounds In re Midway Indus. Contractors, Inc., 178 B.R. 734 (N.D.Ill.1995); In re Conti, 50 B.R. 142, 148 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1985) (stating that the Internal Revenue Code provisions dealing with allowance of a refund do not control the date the debt arose for purposes of § 553, and the tax refund debt arose upon the end of the taxable year). Cf. Mertz v. Rott, 955 F.2d 596, 598 (8th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). As stated by the court in In re Conti, the Options: A. holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code B. holding that a taxpayer only has a refund right after the irs has credited the refund to other underpaid taxes therefore the refund was not part of the bankruptcy estate C. holding that because the amount of the debtors obligation to the government exceeded the amount of their income tax refund the refund did not become property of the estate and could not be exempted D. holding that personal injury action arising during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings was property of the estate E. holding that an anticipated tax refund was property of the bankruptcy estate as of the date the bankruptcy case was filed

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an anticipated tax refund was property of the bankruptcy estate as of the date the bankruptcy case was filed
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 Group Member has filed or caused to be filed all Federal and state income and other material tax returns that are required to be filed and has paid all material taxes due and payable by such Group Member or any assessments made against it or any of its property and all other material taxes, fees or other charges imposed on it or any of its property by any Governmental Authority (other than any taxes the amount or validity of which are currently being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings (if any) and with respect to which reserves in conformity with GAAP have been provided on the books of the relevant Group Member); as of the Restatement Effective Date, no tax Lien has been filed (other than Liens for taxes not yet delinquent or that are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings), and, to the knowledge of the Borrower, no claim is being asserted, with respect to any material tax, fee or other charge. No Group Member intends to treat the Loan, the Restatement Effective Date Transactions, or any other transaction contemplated hereby as being a “reportable transaction” (within the meaning of Treasury Regulation section 1.6011-4).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: drawback on any “duty, tax, or fee that is assessed in a nondiscriminatory fashion against all shipments” — not just imports — “utilizing ports.” See Texport Oil Co. v. United States, 185 F.3d 1291, 1295-97 (Fed.Cir.1999). Texport ruled the Merchandise Processing Fee (“MPF”) to be eligible for drawback, concluding that the MPF “is explicitly linked to import activities.” See Texport, 185 F.3d at 1296. On the other hand, reasoning that the HMT is “assessed in a nondiscriminatory fashion against all shipments utilizing the ports” (not just imports), Texport ruled the HMT to be ineligible for drawback. See Texport, 185 F.3d at 1296-97. George E. Warren held the ET to be ineligible for drawback, for similar reasons. See George E. Warren Corp. v. United States, 341 F.3d 1348 (Fed.Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). In December 2004, Congress amended the Options: A. holding et ineligible for drawback and ruling reversal of texport unwarranted B. holding to warrant reversal the appellant must show both the error of the ruling and resulting prejudice C. holding reversal unwarranted in circumstantial evidence case absent substantial trial error D. holding that appellate court reviewing trial courts habeas corpus ruling must review record evidence in light most favorable to ruling and uphold ruling absent abuse of discretion E. holding that retrial did not violate the double jeopardy clause where reversal based on trial error distinguishing reversal for insufficient evidence

assistant: The best answer is A. holding et ineligible for drawback and ruling reversal of texport unwarranted
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 Parties acknowledge that monetary damages may not be sufficient to remedy a breach by either Party of this Agreement and agree that the non-breaching Party will be entitled to seek specific performance, injunctive or other equitable relief to prevent breaches of this Agreement and to specifically enforce the provisions hereof in addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity. These remedies will not be the exclusive remedies for breach of this Agreement but will be in addition to any and all other remedies available at law or in equity.

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: F.3d 209, 213 (4th Cir.2004). The Fourth Circuit even characterized it “as a very close question” but concluded that a prima facie case had been made “because a reasonable trier of fact could conclude” there was causation. See id. (emphasis added). Additionally, the Fourth Circuit has held that establishing a prima facie case is, quite unremarkably, a “less onerous burden” than is conclusively establishing a causal connection. See Williams v. Cerberonics, Inc., 871 F.2d 452, 457 (4th Cir.1989); see also Karpel v. Inova Health Sys. Servs., 134 F.3d 1222, 1229 (4th Cir.1998) (“Although Karpel presents little or no direct evidence of a causal connection between her protected activity and Inova’s adverse action, little is required.”); McNaim v. Sullivan, 929 F.2d 974, 980 (4th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). But see, e.g., Kelley v. Goodyear Tire & Options: A. holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence B. holding that where evidence showed plaintiffs supervisor considered transferring plaintiff the day before she was served with plaintiffs lawsuit there was no causal connection showing that the transfer was retaliatory C. holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because there was no evidence that the decisionmaker knew of the plaintiffs protected conduct D. holding that because the plaintiff was not disabled for the purposes of the ada this court need not to address the other elements of the prima facie case E. holding that the plaintiff made a prima facie case even though there was no evidence of causal connection other than the fact that the plaintiff was fired after bringing a lawsuit

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the plaintiff made a prima facie case even though there was no evidence of causal connection other than the fact that the plaintiff was fired after bringing a lawsuit
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: she is clearly covered by the State Farm policy because she is the daughter of the named insured. See Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-303(1)(a)(iii) (Supp.1999). However, if Phillip Toledo was driving, he would be covered only if he received permission from the named insured, Linda Motuapuaka, or her spouse, if any. See id. § S1A-22%-3038(1)(a)(@)(A). {29 As plaintiffs concede, paragraph 47 of the stipulation is an agreement as to the legal effect of the insurance policy. However, the insurance policy is a written instrument, and the construction and "legal effect of written instruments is necessarily a question of law, and hence is one that must be determined by the court." Verdi v. Helper State Bank, 57 Utah 502, 510, 196 P. 225, 228 (1921); see also Swift, 243 U.S. at 289, 37 S.Ct. 287 (<HOLDING>). Thus, paragraph 47, as to the legal effect of Options: A. holding that court must decide case on basis of facts admitted unaffected by stipulation made by counsel B. holding that based on the facts presented by the state and the defendants stipulation to the existence of a factual basis for his plea the court properly determined a factual basis for the plea existed C. holding that a defendants stipulation to the facts establishing guilt was the functional equivalent of guilty plea D. holding that a defendants strategic stipulation to certain facts of the crime was not the functional equivalent of a guilty plea where the defendants stipulation did not establish guilt E. holding counsel must only provide relevant facts of the crime

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that court must decide case on basis of facts admitted unaffected by stipulation made by counsel
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 Participant shall be liable to GRECO, the Company and their Subsidiaries for all costs and damages, including incidental and consequential damages, resulting from a disposition of the Award or the RSUs which is in violation of the provisions of this Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Participant agrees that the Company shall be entitled to obtain specific performance of the obligations of the Participant under this Agreement and immediate injunctive relief in the event any action or proceeding is brought in equity to enforce the same. The Participant shall not urge as a defense that there is an adequate remedy at 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: 544 U.S. at 419, 125 S.Ct. 1807 (“Under long-established principles, petitioner’s lack of diligence precludes equity’s operation.”). The magistrate judge made no error in concluding as a matter of fact that counsel had not been particularly diligent in pursuing the state claims, or for that matter, waiting until what counsel thought was the last day on which to file the federal habeas petition. The magistrate judge was careful to distinguish counsel’s lack of diligence from Trapp’s own diligence, at least as to preserving Trapp’s federal habeas claims. Further, she recognized the special conditions — organic brain damage — under which Trapp operated. Those conditions were not, however, the cause of the late filing. See Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court, 163 F.3d 530, 541 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by Woodford v. Options: A. holding that mental incapacity is an extraordinary circumstance that may warrant equitable tolling B. holding equitable tolling available if an inmate diligently pursues his claims and demonstrates that the failure to timely file was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control C. holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling D. holding that a petitioners mental incompetency can constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling if it interferes with his ability to communicate with his attorney E. holding that equitable tolling under 2255 would be allowed if at all only for extraordinary circumstances

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a petitioners mental incompetency can constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling if it interferes with his ability to communicate with his attorney
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 Direction Letter may be executed by one or more of the parties hereto in any number of separate counterparts (including by facsimile), and all of said counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed signature page to this Direction Letter by facsimile or electronic transmission shall be effective as the delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Direction Letter.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Parties agree that each of the provisions included in this Agreement is separate, distinct, and severable from the other provisions of this Agreement and that the invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement. Further, if any provision of this Agreement is ruled invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction because of a conflict between the provision and any applicable law, regulation, or public policy, the provision shall be redrawn to make the provision consistent with, and valid and enforceable under, such law, regulation, or public policy.

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: Tatarinov did not contest that fact, the Oregon Court of Appeals declined to correct the error. Id. at 81. Tatarinov sought habeas relief in federal court, but the district court denied his petition. The adequate and independent state ground doctrine bars federal courts from considering a federal constitutional argument on habeas review if “a state court declined to address a prisoner’s federal claims because the prisoner had failed to meet a state procedural requirement.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 730, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). The Oregon Court of Appeals rejected Ta-tarinov’s claim based on its consideration of the equitable interests of the parties in his case, which is independent of federal law. See Nitschke v. Belleque, 680 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). The Oregon plain error rule is also an Options: A. holding plain error analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error in the rule 11 context B. holding that the courts review is conducted under the plain error standard C. holding that plain error analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error in the rule 11 context D. holding that oregons plain error review is independent of state law E. holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that oregons plain error review is independent of state law
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: accordingly , you may not store any material or content on , or disseminate any material or content over , the products in any manner that constitutes an infringement of third party intellectual property rights , including rights granted by copyright law .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: uniformly rejected attempts to abrogate pursuant to other Article I powers. See Fed. Mar. Comm’n v. S.C. State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743, 749-50, 122 S.Ct. 1864, 152 L.Ed.2d 962 (2002) (“Congress, pursuant to its Article I powers, cannot abrogate state sovereign immunity ....”); Bd. of Trustees v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 364, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001) (“Congress may not, of course, base its abrogation of the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity upon the powers enumerated in Article I.”); Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 78, 120 S.Ct. 631, 145 L.Ed.2d 522 (2000) (“Congress lacks power under Article I to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity.”); Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. Coll. Sav. Bank, 527 U.S. 627, 636, 119 S.Ct. 2199, 144 L.Ed.2d 575 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 65, 72, 116 S.Ct. Options: A. holding that congress could not abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to the patent clause of article i B. holding that congress could abrogate the eleventh amendment pursuant to the commerce clause C. holding that congress had no power under article i to abrogate state sovereign immunity D. holding that congress did not properly abrogate states eleventh amendment immunity from suits under the patent act E. holding that congress may abrogate a states immunity pursuant to its enforcement power under 5 of the fourteenth amendment

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that congress could not abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to the patent clause of article i
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: accounts in connection with enrollment in an MWI membership program.” In re Vertrue, 712 F.Supp.2d at 708. After an appeal, the district court ultimately certified a class of plaintiffs described as "residents of Ohio who ... called a toll free number marketed by [defendants] and purchased any Tae-Bo product, and subsequently [incurred unauthorized charges].” Id. One of the defendants entered into a settlement with the plaintiffs and, as a result, the claims against MWI were dismissed. The final judgment in the case was entered on December 11, 2008. As noted by the district court, the denial of class certification in Ritt is irrelevant to resolution of the issues presented in this appeal and does not provide a date from which the statute of limita d 1139, 1149 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); cf. Great Plains Trust Co. v. Union Pacific Options: A. holding that no subsequent class actions may benefit from tolling when class certification has been denied B. holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when class certification was granted in a prior case C. holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification D. holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when the prior denial of class certification was based solely on rule 23 deficiencies of the putative representative E. holding that a district of columbia consumer protection statute that authorized representative actions and did not reference class action requirements or mandate class certification was a separate and distinct procedural vehicle from a class action and thus did not constitute a class action under cafa

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when class certification was granted in a prior case
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: 673, 676 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied); Abbott v. City of Kaufman, 717 S.W.2d 927, 929 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1986, writ dism’d w.o.j.); Gottlieb v. Hofheinz, 523 S.W.2d 7, 10 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1975, writ dism’d w.o.j.). In determining whether appellant raised a fact issue precluding summary judgment, we must consider whether the booking officer’s “use” of the booking room falls within the realm of “use” of personal property as contemplated in § 101.021(2) of the Act. “Use” has been defined in the context of the Act as “to put or bring into action or service; to employ for or apply to a given purpose.” Salcedo, 659 S.W.2d at 33 (interpreting “use” in the context of TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. ART. 6252-19, § 3, repealed, now § 101.021(2) of the Tex 0 (Tex.1976) (<HOLDING>) with Overton Memorial Hosp. v. McGuire, 518 Options: A. holding that the hospitals failure to provide patient with a hospital bed with side rails brought the case under 1010212 B. holding that trial courts failure to provide additional instructions as to plaintiffs burden of proof in negligence case was not reversible error there having been no proper and accurate request for such instruction C. holding that hospitals failure to provide epileptic and mentally retarded patient with a life preserver to be used as part of his swimming attire brought the case under 1010212 D. holding that a courts failure to provide a defendant with any portion of a habeas transcript was error E. holding that universitys failure to provide football player with proper protective gear to be used as part of his football uniform brought the case under 1010212

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that universitys failure to provide football player with proper protective gear to be used as part of his football uniform brought the case under 1010212